Comments on: The Vampire State https://www.overlawyered.com/2016/01/the-vampire-state/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Thu, 07 Jan 2016 01:28:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Canvasback https://www.overlawyered.com/2016/01/the-vampire-state/comment-page-1/#comment-331774 Thu, 07 Jan 2016 01:28:00 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=57003#comment-331774 That is so cool. They’ll beat you to the ground, cuff you and draw your life’s blood.
Based on the say-so of just any old cop.
No chance of abuse there, huh?

]]> By: MattS https://www.overlawyered.com/2016/01/the-vampire-state/comment-page-1/#comment-331767 Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:58:31 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=57003#comment-331767 In reply to David C.

“Of course, “consent” is more or less mandatory anyway.”

Mandatory consent is not consent at all.

]]> By: Anonymous Attorney https://www.overlawyered.com/2016/01/the-vampire-state/comment-page-1/#comment-331761 Wed, 06 Jan 2016 20:35:41 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=57003#comment-331761 I just don’t like it.

You don’t need a warrant to get a blood sample, but I think Scalia left open the possibility that if such a case came before him, he’d consider requiring it.

]]> By: David C https://www.overlawyered.com/2016/01/the-vampire-state/comment-page-1/#comment-331759 Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:10:43 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=57003#comment-331759 They appear to need a warrant to do that without consent, at least, if I read the article correctly. Of course, “consent” is more or less mandatory anyway.

But is there something wrong with breath tests in most situations? Blood should be a backup if the person can’t breathe hard enough to register, or something. Why go right for the most invasive test?

]]>