Erosion of 4th Amendment Rights in Washington

From the Seattle PI today. Daily it appears our Constitutional Rights are being eroded. Here goes the 4th Amendment down the tube. Not that drunk drivers should be allowed to skate free, quite the opposite. My personal feeling is that one's driving privileges should be removed for life on the FIRST DUI accident conviction, period. I also believe that impairment, for DUI purposes, should be demonstrated by more than a mere .08 BAC. People can have .08 and have no impairment whatsoever. I do however believe that forcing a blood test (for anything) is an infringement on one's rights against unreasonable search and siezure. That's my thought for the day.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Police can force blood tests on suspected drunken drivers, high court rules

By LEVI PULKKINEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

In a divided decision, the state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld rules allowing law officers obtain search warrants to force blood tests from suspected drunken drivers.

Following a challenge by a motorcyclist who was forced to submit to a blood after a crash in Seattle, a 7-2 majority of justices found that officers acted correctly in drawing the man's blood after securing a search warrant. A Seattle Municipal Court judge initially held that the blood evidence could not be used against motorcyclist Robert St. John; a King County Superior Court judge reversed that decision and St. John appealed.

At issue, according to the majority opinion authored by Justice Susan Owens, was a provision in the state's "implied consent" law, which generally holds that drivers agree to submit to a blood alcohol-level tests under reasonable grounds. Drivers may refuse -- and often do, primarily to deny authorities evidence against them -- but in doing so usually lose driving privileges.

The majority found that state law allowing drivers to refuse such tests does not prohibit law enforcement from conducting a blood draw pursuant to a search warrant.

"The implied consent statute explicitly allows a police officer to obtain a blood alcohol test pursuant to a warrant," Owens wrote, "even after a driver refuses a voluntary blood alcohol test."

Writing in dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued that the majority had misinterpreted a 2004 addition to the implied consent law, which notes that the law does not preclude "a police officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person's breath or blood." The dissenting justices held that phrase was meant to apply in instances where blood had already been drawn, not to compel a test.

Sanders also lauded Seattle Municipal Court Judge Judith Hightower's original finding that the law does not "authorize additional evidence gathering" after a suspected drunken driver refuses a blood alcohol test

"Obtaining a blood sample from St. John by search warrant plainly violated the express prohibition of (statute) since St. John withdrew his consent and no exception under the statute applied," Sanders wrote in the dissent. "If we accept the majority's reasoning, a driver's refusal to consent … would be meaningless."

Owens was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, as well as justices Charles Johnson, Barbara Madsen, Tom Chambers, Mary Fairhurst and Debra Stephens. Justice James Johnson joined Sanders in the dissent.

Levi Pulkkinen can be reached at 206-448-8348 or levipulkkinen@seattlepi.com.