How a Supreme Court Rulling affect Drunk Driving Cases in Dawes Country
Dec 26, 2016 06:11 AM EST
Just a few days ago Brad Goff was charged by Supreme Court with fourth offense driving under the influence, a felony, and driving under suspension, a misdemeanor. He was awarded 150 days jail on two counts and fined by 500 dollars.
When Brad was sentenced by the District Court, Dawes County Attorney Vance Haug requested to the Supreme Court that the charged against Brad was not enough and he deserves more than that. Vance Haug also said that Brad had already benefited from a Supreme Court decision and would not do well on probation. At the end of the day, Haug said that Brad was honest and very much cooperative but he has a 14-alchol related arrest on his record.
The Supreme Court decided that men arrested for drunk driving were either prosecuted or threatened with prosecution if they refused to take a breath or blood test. Various states are already moving on to this process including Nebraska and 12 other states and they have criminalized refusal of a chemical test.
The Supreme Court ruled that one man in North Dakota prosecuted for refusing a blood test should have his conviction overturned. They said authorities are required to get a warrant for a blood test or his case sent back to the lower courts. Now again in the latter case, the man consented to a warrantless blood test under threat of criminal penalties. The third case, from Minnesota, involved refusal of a breath test. In that case, the Supreme Court did not help the conviction.
Breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that warrants should be required in all cases, while Justice Clarence Thomas argued that warrants shouldn't be required for either blood or breath tests. They said we conclude that a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving.