If only he could revisit Raich and use the new "logic" he's found to reinterpret that case, we'd all be in a hell of a better position.

Doesn't change the fact that I want his bigoted, crazy ass out of the SCOTUS, though.

It would seem to me that there's a logical middle ground that no one is willing to identify.

And the fact that the case cited the "except in emergencies" doesnt really clarify what constitutes an emergency.

Did you pull over a guy going 20 mph, but who was swerving, on a road all by himself at 3 in the morning - and you're emergency is proving he was drunk so you can throw him in the tank?

Or is the emergency because you have arrested someone, who's caused (or been involved in) an accident - that may or may not have resulted in someones death or injury, but ESPECIALLY if it has resulted in someones death?

because that sounds like an emergency, because there's going to be a trial...and proving what someones blood alcohol level was JUST AFTER the accident is crucial.

Let's be honest, blood tests or no blood tests, it's not going to reduce the # of people who go out and LEGALLY get sh!tfaced, and then choose (because they are drunk and incapable of making good decisions) to drive somewhere.

So whats done is already done, blood testing them will change nothing. Only bolster court cases.

I would also suggest that if you've been "pulled over" several times and thought to be drunk, or proven to be - no warrant should be necessary on the 3rd time.

You've waived your 4th Amendment rights when you refused to get sober and kick your drinking habit to the curb after 2 run ins with the law. I don't see why someone should have the right to screw up over and over and over again until they finally kill someone with their vehicle.

Raich was based on the pre-existing ruling of the SCOTUS on Wickard v. Filburn, which was a stupid ruling to begin with, but ruling contrary to Filburn would have to overturn the original ruling and allow us wild and crazy citizens to legally grow and consume our own fruits and vegetables.

The Department of Motor Vehicle does not play by the same laws/rules. One thing is, in order for you to get your driver's license you sign a contract that gives them the right to take your blood if you are suspected of being drunk. You give them permission or you don't get a Driver's License. That is the way it is in California and I'm guessing it will be that way in all states soon. Driving a vehicle in a state on any roads is a privilege not a Constitutional Right. Get over it and stay sober when you're driving or suffer the consequences.

Simply because certain rights and privileges have not been specifically included herein, does not mean that they were meant to be excluded.

That's the final sentence of the Constitution. The Constitution makes no distinction between rights and privileges, both are guaranteed

Confussed, what you're saying is at the heart of this case and, it seems, is about to be overturned by the SCOTUS. The cop in this case believed that the Implied Consent statute on the books in Missouri allowed him to take the blood without a warrant or the driver's stated consent. The justices don't seem very open to that idea, as shown by this article. The other interpretation of Implied Consent laws is that they still allow you to refuse the blood test, but that refusal will be noted in court and be admissible evidence to implicate guilt.

Did you pull over a guy going 20 mph, but who was swerving, on a road all by himself at 3 in the morning - and you're emergency is proving he was drunk so you can throw him in the tank?

You can arrest him for driving recklessly, without every proving he was intoxicated. There's no requirement that you prove intoxication to make an arrest.

This decision (or impending decision) may be inconvenient to the police, but it makes good constitutional sense. The story quotes both Scalia, one of the more conservative justices, and also some of the most liberal (Sotomayor and Ginsberg). I wonder what opinion Chief Justice Roberts will voice. I have always respected his constitutional judgement, even where it conflicted with what I thought was in society's best interests, such as in the upholding of Obama's health care reform legislation.

It is probably not legal to grant privileges only to those who forfeit rights, i.e. "You can drive here only if you sign away your protected freedoms from unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination".

In my state you are given a choice between the breath and blood test. If you refuse both, then your license is suspended for 2 years, automatically. Says that when you get your license. You can still be charged for a DUI based on the officer's testimony on your appearance, alcohol on your breath, and motor coordination. You will have to get out of the car and walk into the jail, at some point. Whether the DUI charge sticks depends on the decision of a Municipal court judge who deals with DUI's all day. After conviction you can appeal and get a jury trial, all at your expense. I would probably select the blood test if I thought I was under the limit. It is much more accurate. I don't think this decision will affect anything in my state.

Scalia unwittingly just closed the door on Washington States ability to prosecute people from driving impaired due to marijuana consumption. The only way they could know if you had .05 nanograms in your blood is to take a blood test and now they can't force people to give blood. Cool, Scalia you did something right for once, there is nothing better than taking a road trip while smoking a big fat doobie and listening to some 70's rock and roll.

Great to see the Justices look at the constitution for what is was written for. to protect the rights of every American. As much as I hate drunk drivers, and in my profession prior to retirement I saw the tragic results of many of these drivers, the Justices have made very good points.

"Jessica-1170252

And the fact that the case cited the "except in emergencies" doesn't really clarify what constitutes an emergency. Did you pull over a guy going 20 mph, but who was swerving, on a road all by himself at 3 in the morning - and you're emergency is proving he was drunk so you can throw him in the tank?

Or is the emergency because you have arrested someone, who's caused (or been involved in) an accident - that may or may not have resulted in someones death or injury, but ESPECIALLY if it has resulted in someones death?"

Jessica, you hit the nail on the head. Some laws are written unclear, and some suspect it is to allow an action tobe accomplished with the hopes that the party to which the action is committed doesn't know the difference. This law in question has been on the book for many years and their law enforcement has used it to their advantage until now. This is why the Supreme Court will most likely tell the State to rewrite the law and clarify what constitutes a "true" emergency.

Although I hate to see the drunk driver get off in this one, the US constitution is very clear, its very intent must be protectedfrom the many would like to do away with most of it just to fit thier own indivual needs.

I rarely agree with Justice Sotomayor or Ginsburg, and I follow the Supreme Court closely, they have both impressed me with their view of the fourth amendment, which is why the founding fathers put it their, to protect an American from an oppressive state.

The-Chief:

You mis-read the article. It's not the local law that specifies an emergency, but a SCOTUS decision, from 1966.

In any case, neither of the two situations proposed by Jessica rise to the level of emergency, in my view. The ability to prosecute someone in the future for a crime isn't an "emergency". It's actually hard to envision an emergent situation involving needing to test for blood alcohol level. If, on the other hand, there is some question of possible exposure to a blood-borne disease for another party, and the officer wants to test so that medical personal could intervene, that could be classified as an emergency.

Any time that you have a suspect under arrest (in this case meaning detained at the scene), and there are not exigent circumstances under which a further crime might be committed, it seems ludicrous to try to classify something as an "emergency".

The difference between a "right and a privilege" is NOT why we drive. We drive because WE HAVE TO. When some say it is a privilege to drive I say then those same people owe me a living that DOES NOT REQUIRE ME To DRIVING. In the days of 50 miles of PUBLIC roadways in the U S maybe it was a privilege, but in today's REAL WORLD there is not a single person that can do without using PUBLIC ROADS PAID FOR BY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US then there is no way driving can be deemed a privilege. No one can take your blood without your permission, unless you committed a crime. It is THEIR responsibility to prove your guilt, and you do not have to help them.

Good point Mr> Scalia!

All we need is that some stupid cop, and it does not take much to become one, demands a blood test on his/her own accord. Yup, that would be just fu&king dandy.

Can anybody spell - police state? by ignoramuses?

Most states will yank your license if you refuse a blood test anyways. Is that going to change now?

The court says you want a blood sample get a warrant. So get one. Call the judge at 3AM wake his @ss up talk to him and put the doctor on the phone and let him tell the judge the suspects eyes are dilated and watery and his speech is slurred.

MADD is extremely unhappy that the SCOTUS is going to protect the rights of the individual.

The irony is that the blood test desired is for the prosecution and conviction assumingly for punishment and not to get them off the road. There are many other ways to get them off the road through laws like refuse a breath analyses and you lose your license. Getting them off the road is far more important than punishing them.

The main point I believe is that it's a slippery slope when you start taking away rights for the convenience of the state. If they don't submit to a sobriety test whether by breath or blood they can automatically revoke driving privileges. Forcing a needle into a persons body is invasive,plain and simple, and a violation of your privacy.

Yet they can kick in your front door and shoot your dog...all without a warrant....just cause some neighbor says you're doing something illegal, even if your not.....enough for probable cause now....It even excuses them if they kick in the wrong door....."Sorry about that Chief" ----Maxwell Smart

Most states will yank your license if you refuse a blood test anyways. Is that going to change now?

I think you meant a breathalyzer test. But the answer to your question is - NOPE!

One has a right to be a drunken stinking bum, but does NOT have a right to get behind the wheel and kill innocent people. The Court's ruling pretty much reiterated this.

The difference between a "right and a privilege" is NOT why we drive. We drive because WE HAVE TO. When some say it is a privilege to drive I say then those same people owe me a living that DOES NOT REQUIRE ME To DRIVING. In the days of 50 miles of PUBLIC roadways in the U S maybe it was a privilege, but in today's REAL WORLD there is not a single person that can do without using PUBLIC ROADS PAID FOR BY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US then there is no way driving can be deemed a privilege.

El wrongo. NO ONE owes you anything, least of all a living, period. You EARN it. Therefore, driving is STILL A PRIVILEGE. If you ABUSE those privileges and they are yanked away then it's tough t1tty for you. Then you need to find alternate means of getting from your point A to point B, such as using public transportation or bumming a ride off a successful, competent person.

Jessica-1170252

I would also suggest that if you've been "pulled over" several times and thought to be drunk, or proven to be - no warrant should be necessary on the 3rd time.

You've waived your 4th Amendment rights when you refused to get sober

@jessica,

Interesting legal concept. Can you please show us where in the Constitution this concept is based? No, I didn't think you could. Aren't you cons constantly scream about overly activist judges? Now you want them to add new interpretations to the Constitution. My lady, you are the very definition of the word hypocrit.

Seems to me that voluntarily getting @!$%#-faced and then voluntarily choosing to drive rather than take some other means of transportation home SHOULD be interpreted as voluntarily waiving any Fourth Amendment rights. Drive drunk, get nailed, get hammered - as simple as THAT.

@human- and Janstince While I agree with you in substance... good luck with that. SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to be apolitical. Right. In any event.... with regard to law enforcement for DUI... there is such a thing as breathalyzer. If a suspected DUI refuses that you get a warrant and draw blood. It's not rocket science. It's doing the law right. I do not support law enforcement that seeks to shortcut the Constitution. It's tedious and a pain in the a*** but that's how it' done. It's the only fair way for everyone. To cops... take a minute to do it correctly. No vigilantes need apply. Oh, and by the way NBC... this is a deliberately inflammatory headline in the current political environment and unprofessional on your part. STOP YELLOW JOURNALISM.

@Jessica-1170252 QUOTING""...would also suggest that if you've been "pulled over" several times and thought to be drunk, or proven to be - no warrant should be necessary on the 3rd time. You've waived your 4th Amendment rights when you refused to get sober and kick your drinking habit to the curb after 2 run ins with the law. I don't see why someone should have the right...""

MY REPLY:

The heinousness of the accusation is irrelevant to the innocence of the accused.

The point is "Confused" that any laws made by states are subject to be consistent with the U.S. Constitution. If they are not, they are unconstitutional and void. That "contract" that drivers make with the state can not supersede the U.S. Constitution or any right provided by it. The blood sample is taken to remove a right of liberty and access criminal penalties, including fines and prison. The state can deny or remove the "privilege" of driving without the court or involvement from law enforcement. Once it becomes a criminal complaint it is no longer an issue of "privilege."

Does your concern for the 4th.Amendment Privacy Rights extend to the 2nd.Amendment Infringements, by Executive Order or otherwise to be a Law Abiding Citizen and be forced to undergo Fingerprinting, Mug-Shotting and registering all the Lawful Products in my possession...Where is the Warrant with Probable Cause of Criminal Activity for that Violation of my Rights to Privacy ???

If so, every bottle of liquor and can of beer should have a serial number on it and the sale to the buyer should be registered into a National Data Base so in the interest of Public Safety the Government can track where all that alcohol is ending up..... This way when teens pay adults to buy them booze and go out and die in DUI crashes, we know who provided them with the Liquor....and tickets for littering can be issued for every empty beer can tossed out of a moving vehicle....

very interesting;

justices FROM THE LEFT AND JUSTICES FROM THE RIGHT; AGREE, THAT THE Constitution TRUMPS POLICE PROCEDURE; Obama wants to use executive action to control guns(in plain words by pass the 2nd amendment), could the Court be sending a message;

THE CONSTITUTION, is the peoples document, it limits government, it is the sword and shield of the people, it is not to be used by government to limit the Rights guaranteed.

None of this means anything. Show me a police department that doesn't (or won't, now) have a stack of pre-signed warrants ready to have the name/date/etc. filled in.

the angry guy; I have never seen pre judge signed warrants in all my life; I have seen some Judges that never bother to read the affidavit for the warrant, hell it could be there death warrant and they would sign it without reading.

Not having a blood alcohol test has nothing to do with being able to arrest and hold the person, only to do with collecting evidence for prosecution. You can be arrested on suspicion of DUI by failing a field sobriety test, odor of alcohol on your breath even if no breathylyzer available. Field sobriety tests are also used, although perhaps rarely, to arrest people for impairment due to rx and otc medications.

Re: pre-signed warrants: in a child welfare case last year--I think philly--it emerged that judges' orders "signed" with a rubber stamp were used by child welfare workers to sieze children. I believe the local court system ended up in a flap over that. Such orders are NOT ok.

Jessica-1170252,

You are an idiot. You NEVER wave your rights, even when being arrested you have the RIGHT to remain silent, and the RIGHT to an attorney. We are all guaranteed our individual rights and those DO NOT get waived.

My blood is a part of me and having a cop be able to take that away just because he suspects that you are intoxicated is not acceptable!!! What is next cops can kick in your front door and raid your house because they suspect you are stealing cable?

@ Chris Houston Lovell:

What makes you think rights can't be waived? If you talk after having been Mirandized, you've waived your right to remain silent. It happens all the time. You can waive your right to counsel, and your right to a jury trial, or to any trial at all.

There are, in fact, extremely few rights that can't be waived, and they are extreme cases where we consider the activity to be so much against public policy that we won't allow you to agree to them. The two that immediately come to mind are the right not to be a slave, and the right to vote without your employer or government knowing how you voted.

Anilof -

While I see the reasoning between Raich and Filburn, the problem escalates when the substance grown is prohibited for sale on the national level.

As it was illegal to sell marijuana, and Raich was growing purely for self-consumption, the case differs in that there is no legal market for marijuana, thereby there is no market for the federal government to regulate; it can only prohibit the sale.

I do get the parallels, but the specific differences in the case make it worth noting. Also, Scalia himself regrets that decision, not because the drug war is an unsustainable blight on the face of modern democracy and freedom of one's conscience, but because the same arguments for expansion of the Commerce Clause were used in favor of Obamacare (which he hypocritically voted against).

I still hold that Scalia is a hypocritical piece of @!$%# who needs to be excised from the SCOTUS. I have yet to see anything he's said that would make me think otherwise.

And people over the age of 65 should lose the right to drive permanently too, because they're horrible drivers and cause accidents. As well as people talking or using their cell phones while driving. I think anyone who does that should also have their driving privileges revoke permanently for life.

Dale - nope. Innocent til proven guilty.

Somebody needs to learn that a field sobriety test is never required and should never be performed. It has NOTHING to do with "implied consent". The only benefit of it is that it possibly gives more evidence to be used against you if the cops want to press it.

There are people that are authorized to drive that have physical impairments that would/could fail a field sobriety test but are sober.

There are penalties for failing a alcohol test (blood, breath, or urine) but there are NO penalties for failing a field sobriety test.

Here's my position on blood tests/drug tests administered by law enforcement:

until we can test the police officers (which we cant, their union forbids it) then I dont think they should be able to test us.

if cant have faith that our cops or working and not on drugs, why should they care if we are high and driving around, or drunk?

it's just as important to know the cops on staff are clean, just as it is to know drivers arent drunk.

though, if you crash into someone and someone is hurt or killed, i think you've waived nearly all of your rights...test away. it's the least you can do, considering you took someones life with your bad choices.

@Anilof: You must be far shy of 65. I'm nearly there and (don't want to jinx myself, but...) haven't had an accident in over 30 years. That is unless you want to count clipping the edge of a mailbox about 10 years ago due to black ice on a poorly plowed road.

Also, think about it. 65 is lower than the legal age for retirement with full benefits these days. You want to take away the licenses of people who are still expected to work by our government? Please try harder to make sense - it's not that difficult.

BTW, you will likely be privileged to live to be 65 one day, unless you keep thinking like this and receive a Darwin Award - think about it.

@Anilof: Don't forget about Asians. Those little bastards are horrible drivers.

Um anilof, I haven't had a moving traffic violation fine in 35 years. How about you? Will you put your driving safety ability up against mine? I am 73. I am not as good as I once was, so I take more precautions.

Make every cop record every arrest on dash cams and every cop shooting reviewed by civillian oversight board too.

Mr. SUMBICH: First of all, you should look at the mirror and see its reflection. Do you see yourself as one bigoted, bastard who generalizes about ASIANS? I am an ASIAN, US CITIZEN AND HAD NO TICKET OR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS FOR 20 YEARS. Now, why don't you go to your nearest Dept. Of Motor Vehicles and perhaps, with your distinct race, could ask for statistics of driving violations. If I may add, perhaps you're familiar with Freedom of Information Act., you may want to state that so.
Lastly, what's your education level?

sumbich is a racist piece of Shiite.

I got an inter ear infection once that made me seem to be drunk. I would not have passed the field sobriety test in any way shape or form and I knew that if I had been pulled over that I would have been given a citation for DUI although I did not have any alcohol in my system. The reason I'm telling this is to point out that a field sobriety test does not make anyone guilty and should not be used in court without another test to prove the condition was caused by alcohol. Whether it be a breathalyzer or a blood test, some other test should be used to prove a persons drunken condition is caused by alcohol or illegal drugs and not by a medical condition. Plenty of time to get a warrant for a blood test after a person fails the field sobriety test.

I know that if I were to fail a breathalyzer test I would go immediately to a hospital for a blood alcohol test or insist on one from the police. I know those breathalyzer machines can be off if the department is too cheap to have them calibrated and give a false reading.

Jessica is in an awful big hurry to yank rights.

And go around the constitution.

Mr. SUMBICH: First of all, you should look at the mirror and see its reflection. Do you see yourself as one bigoted, bastard who generalizes about ASIANS? I am an ASIAN, US CITIZEN AND HAD NO TICKET OR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS FOR 20 YEARS. Now, why don't you go to your nearest Dept. Of Motor Vehicles and perhaps, with your distinct race, could ask for statistics of driving violations. If I may add, perhaps you're familiar with Freedom of Information Act., you may want to state that so.
Lastly, what's your education level?

Your sarcasm detector needs work.

My how times have changed. I used to think it was terrible to see women putting on makeup while driving until I saw a man reading a newspaper while driving. The woman was doing a better job of driving. Now it's texting while driving that's a killer.

sumbich @Anilof: Don't forget about Asians. Those little bastards are horrible drivers.

Don't do that!!!!!!!!! I need my Chinese food fix :)

Moleman. If your eating Chinese food it is cooked by Mexican citizens.

Sorry Dale, your presumption of guilt flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution. Maybe I have an anxiety over needles... You don't get to declare me guilty because I refuse to have my blood taken. This also gives access to my DNA....

What the hell is up with this McDonalds logo/ ad????

Not to mention the fear that my blood could end up at a crime scene down the road.... even though I was never there... no thanks...

And I'm sure then the Supreme Court will step in and tell the states no you can not do that. They can not use coercion to get you to incriminate yourself (you know also part of the constitution) which is what that would be. Any competent constitutional law lawyer would tear any such law apart. I'm kinda surprised they haven't torn the 2 year for turning down the breathalizer one apart yet.

evrev

Dale - nope. Innocent til proven guilty.

Driving is a privileged, not a right. What I stated was not a conviction, a rule to follow to if you wish to continue to drive. You appear to to be driving impaired, get stopped, and are asked to take a breath or blood test. If you refuse, you lose your right to drive. Maybe not to the extreme I stated above, but you lose it. There is no court hearing. The DMV sends you a letter that your privilege is revoked.

Most states have this on their books. Otherwise, there are no consequences to driving drunk. You could just refuse to take a test.

You missed the point. The cop was asserting authority he didn't have. He directed the hospital to draw blood with proper authorization. This is beyond the implied consent.

Copy and paste where he refused to take a breath test.

Uh, no. It is absolutely NOT an admission of guilt. It does, however (in most states) trigger an automatic drivers license suspension for a time period (usually 6 months or a year). You are still innocent until proven guilty. Driving is a privilege, and the DMV is taking away that privilege because you are breaking a rule, not a law. Even if you are subsequently found not guilty your drivers license will still be suspended.

Heck, they'll just do what they do around here these days on days when they have "no refusal checkpoints": they simply have a judge standing by who signs warrants on the spot.

You live in one strange state.... and I live in New York!!!

DMV operates outside the legal system.

They are above the law.

They have their own penalties, fines and restrictions they apply no matter what a court of law says.

I suspect that those license revocations over refusing to submit will be coming up to appellate courts next.

Ray in Jax -- yes you can see where this is going.

First, someone who's judgement is impaired by drugs or alcohol cannot be expected to make a decision waiving their 4th amendment rights for a blood draw. So even if one agrees to have blood taken, it gets thrown out as evidence. Second, any revocation or punishment would be unfair for a person who could not consent because they could not make a decision. So just like a person being found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, they would avoid any punishment also. The final result would be drunken or drugged driving would be legal. We will have no responsibilities, and just have rights.

In CT. the police prefer not to have to arrest somebody for DUI after an accident......they prefer fatals so they can pocket any money or valubles the deceased may have on him.

When you sign for your driver's license in most states you waive the right to self-incrimination by signing the implied consent statement.

As I commented above, the field sobriety test has nothing to do with implied consent and should never be taken by the motorist, pedestrian, etc. Those "reality" cop shows make it appear that it is required but that is far from "reality". The test only enables more evidence for their side. If you performed the test without a slur, wobble, sway, etc. but still blew high they would not let you go based on your field test. Funny how that works - just like lie detector tests. "If it supports our position, we want it. If it is contrary, ignore that "evidence"."

And yet if you perform the test without a slur, wobble, sway, etc. then they probably won't make you blow in the first place.

Not true Yeahba,

Because many people can drink 4 beers without slurring or stumbling but still smell like beer and be legally drunk.

That's assuming guilt first. Our justice system is supposed to be based on the premises of innocent until proven guilty. It is not my responsibility to prove I'm innocent, it is the officer's responsibility to prove I am guilty.

Hazy, in today's world of mass media innocent until proven guilty went out the window years ago and the sheeple allowed it to happen and support it.

How about, take the blood sample pending issuance of a warrant then, if the warrant is refused, dump the sample as not admissible in court.

I am a retired Police Officer. There is no way I would let a PO determine guilt or innocence. Too many Officers have their own agenda. Did you not read about the false DUI arrests in New Jersey? Illinois has had several cases of Officers falsifying DUI arrests. In Illinois, refusal of breathalyzer or blood tests result in an automatic six month suspension of your license. That is a fair result in my opinion. We should be careful not to surrender rights to the government. You can not surrender some other person's rights without surrendering your own. I was an investigator in the Major Accident Unit, so I have seen the carnage DUIs cause. I have no sympathy for them. I would never ask a medical professional to take a blood test against the will of the suspect. The medical person would be open to liability if something goes wrong.

The problem is the idiots on the road who don't care to abide by not drinking and driving. Hell, many of them don't care if their kids have seatbelts on or if the car has working lights. Why would they care about impaired driving? They don't.

You can be the biggest non-drinker of all time and still get killed by a drunk driver. You don't even have to be driving yourself. All it takes is somebody missing a curve and going through your house, or perhaps a store where you might be shopping. Or the bus stop where you might stand. Happens all too often.

Don't kill people with guns..problem solved.............next.

Silly.

Why don't you force him (McNeely) to take the Breathalyzer test, instead of forcing him to have a needle shoved in his arm?" Scalia asked.

It's scary that a Justice could be that stupid to even ask such a question. He clearly is clueless.

prox, in a case of serious injury, the drivers have more to worry about then blood draw. and i have no doubt a warrant would be obtained quickly in those cases, if the suspect refused a draw. warrants don't take long to obtain in most cases.

My insurance company, state farm, apparently thinks that I am a good risk, just today, I received an invitation to "drive safe and save". I will get a 5% cost reduction for signing up. How about you anilof?

Obviously, insurance companies think that the most unsafe drivers are under 25 year old males. Who would be better qualified to know?

They'll still be able to use a blood test to determine the level of intoxification - it just means they'll need a warrant to get it.

IWonder: 25+under males (single, non-veteran) presently have the highest premiums. 21+under females will soon overtake the men. Texting while driving is being blamed, resulting in far more serious accidents (severe injurys/fatalities) among the age group. Follow the money - its never been about law enforcement, merely revenue enforcement.

Wow! You have some big issues. I suggest therapy and drugs. Must be very hard to live in your little world. Luckily most of us live in the real world and are much happier. Sorry your life is so miserable. Really, try some therapy, if not for your own sake but for those who have to be around you.

I think your idea of fingerprinting all the illegals is well-though-out, though.

Psssst, hey STARTOVER: Most folks stop listening after you address them as "You idiots..." To rational people that form of address is considered condescending and demeaning.

If you have a message to deliver... that's fine; but insults never get results. Just thought you'd like to know. And hey....Have a nice night.

Sure, all you have to do is put an announcement in the newspaper, "All illegal aliens report to the police station to be fingerprinted." I'm sure they will all line up immediately. lol

$113,000,000,000.00 --This years cost of US illegal immigration--Approximatly 75% of that cost is absorbed by the states

1,400,000--the number of illegal households that use one major welfare benefit----But it is to late for a one month old baby girl who was raped and killed by a illegal Mexican named Juan Galindo--bail set at $1-million dollars--criminal record--drug--alcohol abuse--charged with aggravated with criminal sexual penetration and child abuse resulting death--Alburquerque, N.M. He had been deported before--Had been arrested befor in Texas in a child abuse case--1993

Wait until the judges start getting the calls at 3am.

What constitution--Illegals were allowed to cross our southern border--many perverts and child rapist--All this happening while our troops were away fighting a senseless war-------Do not believe me see:-------------------HTTP://WWW.USOPENBORDERS.COM HTTP://WWW.ILLEGALIMMIGRATIONSTATISTICS.ORG ----------------HTTP://WWW.USAID.GOV/WHO-WE-ARE

That is a whole different ball of kittens. The ability to over-rule the rights of someone was determined long ago that not everyone can play nice and the courts can over-rule the rights in the interest of the public safety or the safety of the person in question.

By "HEALTH CARE" I imagine you mean killing your baby.

Not very healthy for the baby.

that vaginal sonogram case hasn't gone to supreme court yet. a lot of states have imbeciles making up rules that won't withstand federal supreme court. most are never important enough to ever make it to the capital.

Well, that's a stupid comment, totally unrelated to the point of the discussion.

Mick: Professional organizations (AMA, NLN, NAEMT) are advising their members to exercise caution when asked to procure blood/tissue samples for evidence. This will definitely exceed scope of practice, as we're being asked to commit battery upon a patient who has expressly denied permission. Law enforcement are immune from prosecution in these cases, however, such immunity does not always extend to healthcare providers, who are subject to both criminal and civil actions. Where a felonious battery verdict doesn't kill a career, a malpractice lawsuit effectively will.

Amen.