Lorain/Elyria, OH
Critics say Ohio DUI bill violates Constitution
Print this story
Read comments and discuss this story
The bill, which Gov. Ted Strickland is expected to sign later this week, would apply to people who previously have been convicted of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol two or more times.
Under current law, authorities must get a warrant from a judge to test blood or urine for alcohol or drugs on people who don’t initially give their consent.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says the bill is unconstitutional and expects to challenge the law once it is enforced.
The bill was sponsored by state Sen. Tim Grendell of Chesterland, who says a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that forcing a blood test did not violate constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures and incrimination.
Print this story
Report an innappropriate comment
In order to comment, you must agree to our user agreement
and discussion guidelines.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you aren't already registered,
click here.
If you are registered, click here to log in.
Need help? Email Us.
If you don’t like it … then stop drinking and driving and killing people or causing serious bodily harm. AA is a good place to start.
(Report comment)
Better make sure what rights you are giving up , let them get away with this and soon your health insurance company will test you for Mcdonalds , or Burger King before you get treated for heart problems .
(Report comment)
this only affects drinking drivers, if they don’t like the results, they can obtain a test on their own dollar, like it always has been, quit pampering these losers
(Report comment)
I sure hope this is determined to be unconsitutional. This seems extremely unreasonable to me. tying a person down and forcefully sticking them with needles is very extreme. It is usually quite obvious if a person has been drinking. Breathalysers seem accurate enough. If a person doesn’t consent to a breath test, they lose their liscense anyway. Why is it necessary to strap a person down and stick them with needles? You can see where this is going. The results will be put in to a DNA database. Eventually EVERYONE will be in the DNA database. THIS IS BAD, PEOPLE! WAKE THE HELL UP!
(Report comment)
This is bad, and clearly a violation of self-incrimination protections guaranteed by our federal constitution. I don’t like that there are so drunk drivers with multiple DUI convictions, but violating our Fifth Amendment, or any of our other rights, is not the way to solve the problem, and won’t solve the problem anyway, since any blood test will be after the suspect has been caught.
This is at least the second attempt by the legislature in the past few years to take harsher measures against drunk drivers, and the last one (making it a crime to refuse a breath test after one prior refusal) was also ruled unconstitutional. Why doesn’t the legislature just start enforcing penalties for DUI convictions? Perhaps make any second offense a felony? Currently, a person doesn’t have a felonious DUI until their 4th violation in six years, or 6th violation in twenty years!
(Report comment)
Self incrimination!!!???
Is driving erratically not self incrimination?
Is having alcohol on your breath not self incrimination?
What about slurred speech and bloodshot eyes?
Is failing a roadside sobriety check not self incrimination?
Is taking a breathylizer not self incrimination?
Taking a blood sample is nothing more than gathering evidence. After probable cause has been determined.
Self incrimination is in regards mainly to speech, otherwise all actions a drunk driver took to get himself pulled over would be inadmissable, because it is the drunkards “OWN ACTIONS” that get him pulled over.
Next you’ll be crying about sex offenders supplying law enforcement a DNA sample. Or employers requiring persons in dangerous and trusted positions providing them with a urine sample.
We have been shown time and time again that people who drink and drive do so with the opinion that either “I’m not gonna get caught” or “the penalty is light enough for me to chance it”. Then they go out and kill someones family.
People use crafty attorneys and legal loopholes to circumvent conviction and punishment practically as a sport. This law would level somewhat the playing field.
I do agree wholeheartedly however that the laws need to be dramatically increased and ENFORCED against multiple offenders.
(Report comment)
Driving erratically, having alcohol on your breath, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes are all self-incriminating, but the difference is that no one is forced by police to do any of those things, therefore they are evidence. Field sobriety tests and breath tests can be self incriminating, and that is why people can refuse to take them without being punished for it. Taking a blood test is gathering evidence, just as the field sobriety testing is, and the breath test, but we all have the right to refuse them, as they can be self incriminating.
Regarding the sexual predator/DNA issue, I have no problem with convicted sex offenders providing a DNA sample. That is because once a person is convicted of a crime, they lose certain constitutional rights; the conviction makes the loss lawful. Furthermore, DNA can be taken much less obtrusively than blood.
I understand that emotions are strong regarding DUI offenders and sexual offenders. But what should be stronger are our feelings for protecting our hard fought for constitutional and civil rights. If it happens to one of us, it can happen to all of us!
(Report comment)