Howard Fischer
Arizona Daily Star
June 8, 2010

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • {openx:49}

PHOENIX – Blood samples taken from motorists without their explicit on-the-spot consent can’t be used to convict them of drunken driving, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The justices acknowledged Arizona has an “implied consent” law saying motorists agree to provide a sample of blood, breath or urine for testing if they are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

But Justice Scott Bales said police still need a warrant from a judge to draw blood without the driver’s explicit approval.

Bales, writing for the unanimous court, said the “implied consent” law simply makes giving consent a condition of having an Arizona license. He said that allows motorists to refuse, with the understanding their licenses will be taken away, something that remains unchanged by this ruling.

Read entire article

Be sure to get your improved boost of zinc and pregnenolone today with The Real Red Pill Plus now at 50% off!

Related Articles