[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Tampa Tuning

...Exactly. That's why you have a judge signing a warrant for a search if the PC is presented. They are simply presenting evidence of a crime to a judge and getting a warrant to search. No differance if a house, car, or business is being used to store evidence of a crime. Present PC to a judge and get a search warrant. Its the same thing they do for a felony DUI, but applying it to a misdemeanor statue.

Except for the fact that in the case of a felony, there are provisions written into the statute allowing such invasive measures.
In the case of an injury or fatality crash, a "search warrant" is not required.

There's also a huge difference between true "criminal" cases and "traffic" related criminal cases. Even down to rules of evidence and how depositions are handled.
In a true criminal case, the defense has the right to discovery, and to depose witnesses.
In traffic court, you first have to gain the permission of the court beofre a witness can be deposed.
How screwed up is that?

And unlike a building, a structure, which may hold the fruits of a crime, forcing one to be physically subjected to an invasive technique, still concerns me, especially when the statutes do not address it and there's no provision.
It's more the "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" attitude.

The "search warrant" issue may hold some validity, but it fights with the individuals right against self incrimination.
In such a case, I'll choose to err on the side of caution to protect the constitutions rights, than to give away ANY rights in the search for "justice."

Otherwise, in the end you may find yourself with neither!

It is kind of funny because the state is fighting themself saying administratively if you dont submit to testing, we are going to suspend your license to drive. Then the state is saying if you dont submit to testing, criminally we are going to search you, and if the evidence is presented a court order is issued, the search will move forward.

I truly belive the wording was intentional, allowing administrative sanctions while maintaining a citizens right against self incrimination.

Take away the human body aspect out of it and its just another search warrant.

But you can't, and that's the problem.

In reviewing the material presented here, I find one (1) aspect of the procedure that I could possibly live with, but only if the procedure were followed to the "T":
Your example:

4):...The officer has cause to believe you've been drinking and requests you to submit to sobrity tests. You refused everything. He walks 20 feet over to the judge and swears out a search warrant to seize your blood because he thinks there's enough PC to believe you've been drinking or druging. Judge signs a pre-processed fill in the blanks warrant, and they either take you to the hospital or have an EMT at the scene to withdraw evidence from your body.

And we don't know what procedures are actually in effect, but withing the scope of the above, it would have to go this way for me to be relatively comfortable with it:

1) Observation.
2) Evaluation.
3) Determination that enough PC exists for an arrest.
4) Arrest.
5) Warrant and execution of said warrant by a licensed professional!

Since this is a traffic case, everything should be based upon on scene evaluation, just as is presently the case.
If you refuse to submit, you're cited with the separate criminal traffic violation (a ticket) and another charge (again traffic) is added.
The officers determination to arrest is based upon thier observations and training.
To "think" a person may have been drinking or drugging, is insufficient for me unless there's other evidence to support that thought such as:
smell of alcohol,
slurred speech,
bloodshot eyes, etc etc etc.

Many of the "symptoms" of DUI can also be attributed to other medical issues.