Court ruling

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the constitutional protections on searches and seizures means that voluntary consent of a person accused of DUI is needed to justify a blood draw by police without a warrant.

The court's ruled Thursday in a case involving a blood draw performed by a Pima County sheriff's deputy on a 16-year-old high school student who allegedly drove to school while under the influence of marijuana.

The student agreed to have his blood drawn but the Supreme Court says the consent wasn't truly voluntary because he'd earlier been handcuffed and was told he had to submit to testing.

The Supreme Court said its ruling doesn't cover whether the juvenile lacked the legal capacity to consent or whether the blood draw violated his parents' rights.

(1) comment

John Flanagan

I guess the Supreme Court judges, being somewhat knowledgeable of legal matters, but unfamiliar with the real world, believed the handcuffs nullified a common sense interpretation of the facts. When a suspect is handcuffed, with or without an intent to pursue arrest, the purpose is to merely secure the individual for the officer's protection as well as for the suspect's. This enables the officer at the scene to have control over an unpredictable individual, potentially on drugs or hostile. Perhaps, there are other facts involved here? Pardon my questioning, I just don't trust most lawyers, especially the Supreme Court and Appellate lawyers who usually dismiss common sense while interpreting legal rulings.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.