quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
And the police department has acknowledged that this was improper.

quote:

Refusal to Provide Breath or Blood Sample Upon Request

When you drive on Utah's roads you are considered to have consented to giving a sample of your breath, urine, blood, or "oral fluids" to determine your BAC level while operating a vehicle. If you are asked to provide such a sample and you refuse your license is subject to an administrative suspension just as if you had taken the test and failed. If your license is to be suspended for a refusal to provide a breath or blood sample you may be able to challenge the suspension by requesting a hearing...

Officer Selects Type of Test

You should note that you are not permitted to insist on a specific type of test. The type of test to be administered is up to the officer and the officer may request multiple types of tests. Even if you have already performed one test, should you refuse additional requests from the officer for more testing, that refusal can be used as a basis for suspending your license. In short, the implied consent law places you at the officer's mercy as any interference on your part can be considered a refusal and you will suffer severe penalties...

We are unaware of any other constitutionally protected right than can be waived through implied consent. Nevertheless, Utah has passed a law that dictates your act of driving on a Utah road is consent to provide samples of bodily fluids. Furthermore, that consent cannot be withdrawn. Such a law seems to fly in the face of two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence.

Fortunately, the implied consent law has been under attack in the federal courts. However, these challenges are typically limited to challenges of warrantless blood draws. This is likely because there really is not a way to get a forced breath test, so anytime an office compels testing it is done through blood draw. Due to the challenges and success in federal courts, Utah officers will almost always seek a warrant before initiating a blood draw...

Finally, while you may refuse to answer some questions and you may refuse to do the field sobriety tests you are required to submit to a blood, urine, or breath test if lawfully requested to do so by an officer (see refusal section above). Exercise caution in deciding whether to refuse a test as the consequences can be severe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind

The Supreme Court ruling applied to involuntary testing.
It has no application to voluntary testing.
If you don't want to be tested as a volunteer in Utah, don't drive there.
Many states have the same sort of implied consent law, and have for many years.
It's a pretty well accepted legal precedent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

Just saw this covered on ABC news. The nurse refused because of "hospital policy." It really would be nice if they had checked Utah law for such situations. The guy they wanted to blood test had caused a fatal crash.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

worth sharing again.

quote:

Refusal to Provide Breath or Blood Sample Upon Request

When you drive on Utah's roads you are considered to have consented to giving a sample of your breath, urine, blood, or "oral fluids" to determine your BAC level while operating a vehicle. If you are asked to provide such a sample and you refuse your license is subject to an administrative suspension just as if you had taken the test and failed. If your license is to be suspended for a refusal to provide a breath or blood sample you may be able to challenge the suspension by requesting a hearing...

Officer Selects Type of Test

You should note that you are not permitted to insist on a specific type of test. The type of test to be administered is up to the officer and the officer may request multiple types of tests. Even if you have already performed one test, should you refuse additional requests from the officer for more testing, that refusal can be used as a basis for suspending your license. In short, the implied consent law places you at the officer's mercy as any interference on your part can be considered a refusal and you will suffer severe penalties...

We are unaware of any other constitutionally protected right than can be waived through implied consent. Nevertheless, Utah has passed a law that dictates your act of driving on a Utah road is consent to provide samples of bodily fluids. Furthermore, that consent cannot be withdrawn. Such a law seems to fly in the face of two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence.

Fortunately, the implied consent law has been under attack in the federal courts. However, these challenges are typically limited to challenges of warrantless blood draws. This is likely because there really is not a way to get a forced breath test, so anytime an office compels testing it is done through blood draw. Due to the challenges and success in federal courts, Utah officers will almost always seek a warrant before initiating a blood draw...

Finally, while you may refuse to answer some questions and you may refuse to do the field sobriety tests you are required to submit to a blood, urine, or breath test if lawfully requested to do so by an officer (see refusal section above). Exercise caution in deciding whether to refuse a test as the consequences can be severe.

so it seems the question is, whats the relationship between Utah's law with the case the supreme court decided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
And the police department has acknowledged that this was improper.

what did they acknowledge? that the arrest was improper, or that the officer wanting a blood sample was improper?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
And the police department has acknowledged that this was improper.

what did they acknowledge? that the arrest was improper, or that the officer wanting a blood sample was improper?

quote:

In Schmerber v. California, we held that drunk driving may present such an exigency. There, an officer directed hospital personnel to take a blood sample from a driver who was receiving treatment for car crash injuries. 384
U. S., at 758. The Court concluded that the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency” that left no time to seek a warrant because “the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops.” Id., at 770. On the specific facts of that case, where time had already been lost taking the driver to the hospital and investigating the accident, the Court found no Fourth Amendment violation even though the warrantless blood draw took place over the driver’s objection. Id., at 770–772.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
And the police department has acknowledged that this was improper.

what did they acknowledge? that the arrest was improper, or that the officer wanting a blood sample was improper?

both

You keep quoting "implied consent". That is applicable if the nurse were the one being tested.
She is NOT. Therefore, implied consent is just 2 words that have nothing to do with the case.
The person that they wanted to test was incapable of giving consent.

The nurse had no legal authority to give consent for the patient.
Hospital policy was written by legal minds that are far superior to ours.
Violation of implied consent means you lose your license.
Had she given consent to the test when she had no power of attorney would have made her liable for any damages the patient incurred.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
And the police department has acknowledged that this was improper.

what did they acknowledge? that the arrest was improper, or that the officer wanting a blood sample was improper?

Are you not able to access any links, whether to video, or national news sites, or local sites? I'm done spoon-feeding. I have provided links to everything but the actual Court opinion, and it plus all this other info I have provided is easily searchable even if you can't access my links.

quote:

One advantage of blood tests is their ability to detect not just alcohol but also other substances that can impair a driver’s ability to operate a car safely. See Brief for New Jersey et al. as Amici Curiae 9; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6. A breath test cannot do this, but police have other measures at their disposal when they have reason to believe that a motorist may be under the influence of some other substance (for example, if a breath test indicates that a clearly impaired motorist has little if any alcohol in his blood). Nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not. See McNeely, 569
U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 22–23).

quote:

Contrary to JUSTICE THOMAS’s contention, this balancing does not leave law enforcement officers or lower courts with unpredictable rules, because it is categorical and not “case-by-case,” post, at 3. Indeed, today’s decision provides very clear guidance that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless breath tests, but as a general rule does not allow warrant-less blood draws, incident to a lawful drunk-driving arrest.