Kansas Judge Says Test in DUI Case Can Be Suppressed

October 18, 2013

  • October 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    DESi says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 4

    Are you kidding me??? A BAC of .25 cannot be used to prosecute a case in which the results were double leg amputation to an innocent bystander?? This is no longer a system of justice. It is a legal system where the rights of the accused are upheld regardless of the obvious evidence of wrongdoing. I would like to keep following this case but I am not certain IJ will do so. Hopefully, civil suit that follows will allow for some sort of justice that the criminal system seems unable or unwilling to provide.

  • October 18, 2013 at 1:55 pm
    sean says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 3

    SUPRESSING RELEVANT EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE IS OBSCENE!!! ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE Ahole REFUSED BREATHALYZER…

  • October 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    Doubting Thomas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 3

    I agree with DES that the BAC should be able to used against the defendant. He turned down the breath test, so the police should not have needed a search warrant.

    This almost implies that even a field sobriety test needs a warrant to be issued every time.

  • October 18, 2013 at 2:27 pm
    Libby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 0

    The article says he refused a blood test, not a breathalyzer. If the KS law says you can not take blood without consent, this is a proper ruling. Otherwise, a police officer could do a blood test anytime they wanted.

    I know I will get thumbed down for this, but you can’t pick and choose when to apply the law and when not to. If it’s not just, then change the law.

    • October 18, 2013 at 2:45 pm
      AV says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      Exactly! I can’t fathom the possibility of a DUI road block and bunch of cops draw every drivers blood due to probable cause. I would like to see them take mine. This is still USA.

  • October 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    Scott says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 0

    I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Libby :) – but she’s right. He refused a BLOOD test, not a BREATH test. In most states, it is illegal to draw blood for cases like these without approval from the donor – or – an authorization from the court. The Supreme Court is mulling this over as we speak, but until there’s clarification around the ambiguity of it, the judge was correct in suppressing it.

    That said – one does wonder what the judge would do if it was HER son losing the legs…..

  • October 18, 2013 at 7:57 pm
    Furrie Princess says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    Ok, just because they can’t have the breath or blood to charge him with dui doesn’t not mean they won’t charge him with a felony reckless driving in causing great bodily harm. Also the KS DMV might still be able to suspend the license with that. If they have enough circumstantial evidence, they still may be able to stick a dui on the dude.

  • October 21, 2013 at 11:43 am
    Patriot says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 3

    Wow. Some posters here must have failed history or not bothered to study it at all. I believe a person’s rights (regardless of their blood alcohol content) are that one can not be forced to provide incriminating evidence against oneself.

    Giving up your freedoms under the guise of safety. Guess which taxpayer funded group pushes (and gets passed by pandering legislators) more rights violating legislation under the guise of safety in the states? Answer: MADD.

    We have given MADD over 1B taxpayer dollars over the past 3 decades to push garbage legislation that does nothing to save lives.

    Defund MADD and the continued push to diminish your constitutional protections ends.

    Being anti-MADD does not make a person pro-drunk driving.

  • October 21, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    InsGuy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Fine. Concede he wan’t impaired and charge him with attempted murder.

    • October 22, 2013 at 9:44 am
      Patriot says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 2

      Over 94% (THE MAJORITY) of DRIVERS that kill on the roadways are not legally intoxicated per the NHTSA FARS database tables located here – ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/FARS/. If this guy was not impaired and was driving inattentively should it be considered attempted murder? You have been brainwashed by MADD propaganda sir.

      Time to wake up that MADD is a neo-prohibitionist group looking for continued hand outs of our tax dollars.

  • October 23, 2013 at 8:34 am
    Michael Arnett says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is the right decision. You should not be able to take a blood sample without permission or a warrant. If you do otherwise it will end up like NSA abusing the ability to snoop on American Citizens. The right will be abused to the point of refusing you a job or promotion or right to bear children.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features