Need lawyer explanation

[beefche]

JAG! Can you explain why the Supreme Court would rule that blood drawn from a police officer involved in a crash is inadmissible in criminal court?

This is a big story in Indy right now. Very tragic and looking to be even more tragic as it is questionable if criminal charges can be used against this guy.

[GDKT]

It's times like these that I miss the Mosaic Law.

[Moksha]

It's times like these that I miss the Mosaic Law.

You mean a crash for a crash?

[Wingnut]

JAG! Can you explain why the Supreme Court would rule that blood drawn from a police officer involved in a crash is inadmissible in criminal court?

Was the blood given with his permission? If not, it could constitute an unlawful search. Was the blood given under any kind of duress?

[Mahone]

Apparently they "didn't follow proper procedures". At this point, you get to the argument of "does the end justify the means", and could open up a whole new can of worms for future cases if the answer becomes yes.

[GDKT]

How is the blood test even that relevant?

I mean there's only two options

He was drunk and ran over and killed a motorcylist.

He wasn't drunk and ran over and killed a motorcyclist.

How would either of those options not convict him of manslaughter or negligent homicide?

[Mahone]

How is the blood test even that relevant?

I mean there's only two options

He was drunk and ran over and killed a motorcylist.

He wasn't drunk and ran over and killed a motorcyclist.

How would either of those options not convict him of manslaughter or negligent homicide?

I know very little about law, and even less about US law, but I think death caused by dangerous driving has a lesser sentence than death caused by dangerous driving due to consumption of excessive alcohol.

[Just_A_Guy]

I do almost nothing with evidence law, but I suspect Wingnut is right.

My understanding is that, as a general proposition, that evidence has to either be a) taken by a warrant, or b) given by the free consent of the suspect, where he understands that the evidence may be used against him criminally.

However, I had thought that that as a citizen (as opposed to a police officer), your application for a driver's license is generally deemed to include free consent to participate in any alcohol tests an officer of the state deems appropriate even if the results of those tests have criminal implications. Maybe that isn't the case in Indiana.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[beefche]

Both Indianapolis Metro Police Chief Paul Ciesielski and Marion County Public Safety Director Frank Straub have stressed that no one at the scene of the crash, including members of the executive staff, believed Bisard was drunk.

Under Indiana law, anyone involved in a fatality accident or one involving serious bodily injury are subject to a blood draw.

It's also the policy of Indianapolis police to draw the blood of officers involved in crashes, but those results can only be used for interdepartmental purposes, per a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

It's that last paragraph that doesn't make sense to me. One attorney is saying this:

"If they didn't have a search warrant and Officer Bisard did not give a valid legal consent for the use of that evidence against him in a criminal case, the state is going to have a very difficult time being allowed to introduce that blood draw into evidence in a criminal charge," said defense lawyer Jack Crawford, who is not involved in Bisard's case.

Which I sorta, kinda understand. But, it's the ruling from the Supreme Court that has me scratching my head.

[hordak]

I do almost nothing with evidence law, but I suspect Wingnut is right.

My understanding is that, as a general proposition, that evidence has to either be a) taken by a warrant, or b) given by the free consent of the suspect, where he understands that the evidence may be used against him criminally.

However, I had thought that that as a citizen (as opposed to a police officer), your application for a driver's license is generally deemed to include free consent to participate in any alcohol tests an officer of the state deems appropriate even if the results of those tests have criminal implications. Maybe that isn't the case in Indiana.

It is.

Under Indiana law, anyone involved in a fatality accident or one involving serious bodily injury are subject to a blood draw.

However

It's also the policy of Indianapolis police to draw the blood of officers involved in crashes, but those results can only be used for interdepartmental purposes, per a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Nasty loophole that needs to be closed IMO. Frankly i'm surprised the a ruling would allow a State law to be trumped by a civil government practice. Does it happen often?

I would like to read the ruling to see what reason the court gave for exempting police from the law.

[Guest helenth01]

The people are loosing their moral while becoming modern. The society needs to be attentive that moral value. Well, it shocking and needed and immediate attention to short out at the earlier.

======================

find lawyer