If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Philly.com)   It turns out that the Fourth Amendment is only MOSTLY dead   (philly.com) divider line 102
    More: Hero, visual routine, supreme courts, search warrants, Missouri Supreme Court, lower courts, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

7974 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2013 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-18 12:40:08 PM  
but if a corporation wants to drug test you to see if you've been messing around on your time off...well then that's a horse of a different color.
and don't say that agreeing to their employment gives them the right.
you also agree when you get a license to operate the vehicle within the law.
 
2013-04-18 12:44:51 PM  

Serious Black: birchman: GAT_00: Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect's constitutional rights.

Of course he did.

For the record, so does Obama apparently.

I reiterate my above point: was Obama supposed to peer into the future and see whether the Supreme Court would decide against him in this case before letting the DoJ defend the law in this case?


well, it isn't really Obama. It's the DoJ which is run by a dude who reports to Obama. I doubt he had anything to do with the case. That said, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional to a layperson and 8 of 9 SCOTUS justices agree.
 
2013-04-18 12:47:58 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: GAT_00: SovietCanuckistan: I am not sure what you are getting at here. The go fark myself part is getting in the way of understanding your point.

I'm getting at that you are mad that a criminal was awarded civil rights, to be treated as a citizen of the US.  You're the reason that we have shiat like the Patriot Act, that is exactly the attitude that gave us those laws.  So when you get mad that the TSA pats you down, look in the mirror for someone to blame.

Simply being guilty of a crime in the past does not mean you should lose all rights.

I am not mad he had civil rights at all, and the Patriot Act is a joke, hence the DHS dis. How long does it take to get a warrant? Would the guy be sober by the time it happens? Are breathalyzers commonly used too? I am really just asking Dude, no need to go off the deep end. In cases like drunk driving, things should be pretty black and white.


But that isn't where you went, you went straight to "How DARE the police be forced to get a warrant!"  That is the problem.
 
2013-04-18 12:48:03 PM  

studs up: Aarontology: Anyone who thinks the nazis were anywhere close to either party is a full on blithering farking retard of the highest order, totally goddamned ignorant of the third reich, and should never be taken seriously in any context for the rest of time.

Anyone who makes a statement like this lives with his mom, has male PMS, diddles poodles and should never be allowed to touch a keyboard without govt supervision. Your hands are sticky with the masturbatory fantasy that you have any intelligence at all. Go Fark yourself with a Dremel and never post here again.
/drama, how does it work?


/pat
 
2013-04-18 12:48:45 PM  

Hobodeluxe: and don't say that agreeing to their employment gives them the right.


Pretty sure it does.
 
2013-04-18 12:54:32 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: birchman: GAT_00: Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect's constitutional rights.

Of course he did.

For the record, so does Obama apparently.

I reiterate my above point: was Obama supposed to peer into the future and see whether the Supreme Court would decide against him in this case before letting the DoJ defend the law in this case?

well, it isn't really Obama. It's the DoJ which is run by a dude who reports to Obama. I doubt he had anything to do with the case. That said, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional to a layperson and 8 of 9 SCOTUS justices agree.


Four of the justices disagreed in part, and one disagreed in total. That's not very sweeping IMO.

And I have to agree with Satanic_Hamster; if Obama had ordered the DoJ not to defend the law because he thought it was unconstitutional, a lot of people would have thrown an epic fit. Just look at what happened after he decided there was no defense of DOMA.
 
2013-04-18 12:54:50 PM  

Hobodeluxe: but if a corporation wants to drug test you to see if you've been messing around on your time off...well then that's a horse of a different color.
and don't say that agreeing to their employment gives them the right.
you also agree when you get a license to operate the vehicle within the law.


There is a big distinction in the law between what a private party may do and what the police, as an arm of the government, may do.
You do agree to operate within the law, but if the police are going to argue your are violating the law, they have to prove it, and they must do so within the confines of the Constitution.
 
2013-04-18 12:55:00 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Rincewind53: I don't think you understand how the Justice Department works.

I don't think cman's brain works. He's either a dedicated performance artist of a troll or ate WAY too much wall candy as a child. You're talking about the guy who still claims that Nazis are far left socialists.


looks pretty leftist to me...

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sofortprogramm.htm
 
2013-04-18 12:56:15 PM  
See? Retards
 
2013-04-18 12:56:56 PM  
Most Americans live in a jurisdiction that has at least one magistrate available to sign a warrant 24 hours a day.

The warrant applications are fill-in-the-blank forms.

The magistrate will sign anything put under his nose... even if the officer checks the boxes describing the suspect as both "cooperative" and "combative."

There is really no excuse not to get a warrant.
 
2013-04-18 12:57:40 PM  

Serious Black: And I have to agree with Satanic_Hamster; if Obama had ordered the DoJ not to defend the law because he thought it was unconstitutional, a lot of people would have thrown an epic fit. Just look at what happened after he decided there was no defense of DOMA.


begs the question why he didn't order the DoJ to do the same here. Out of fear that the GOP would criticize him? Probably not.
 
2013-04-18 12:57:48 PM  

GAT_00: SovietCanuckistan: GAT_00: SovietCanuckistan: I am not sure what you are getting at here. The go fark myself part is getting in the way of understanding your point.

I'm getting at that you are mad that a criminal was awarded civil rights, to be treated as a citizen of the US.  You're the reason that we have shiat like the Patriot Act, that is exactly the attitude that gave us those laws.  So when you get mad that the TSA pats you down, look in the mirror for someone to blame.

Simply being guilty of a crime in the past does not mean you should lose all rights.

I am not mad he had civil rights at all, and the Patriot Act is a joke, hence the DHS dis. How long does it take to get a warrant? Would the guy be sober by the time it happens? Are breathalyzers commonly used too? I am really just asking Dude, no need to go off the deep end. In cases like drunk driving, things should be pretty black and white.

But that isn't where you went, you went straight to "How DARE the police be forced to get a warrant!"  That is the problem.


OK, got it. Not sure how warrants and all that work, I have never even had a parking ticket.
 
2013-04-18 12:58:36 PM  

skullkrusher: That said, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional to a layperson and 8 of 9 SCOTUS justices agree.


In the past, courts have been very deferential to LEOs' judgements (I don't know how/if this applies to SCOTUS). It may APPEAR unconstitutional to a layperson, but unless and until the fancy-robe cadre agrees, it ain't.

IIRC, courts have said that as long as cops acted "in good faith", they can (literally, in several cases) get away with murder.
 
2013-04-18 01:00:41 PM  
Related issue:  what's the deal with a hospital technician drawing blood from somebody who obviously didn't consent? Do police have legitimate authority to order medical procedures on someone in custody? Can medical personnel refuse?
 
2013-04-18 01:02:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: That said, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional to a layperson and 8 of 9 SCOTUS justices agree.

In the past, courts have been very deferential to LEOs' judgements (I don't know how/if this applies to SCOTUS). It may APPEAR unconstitutional to a layperson, but unless and until the fancy-robe cadre agrees, it ain't.

IIRC, courts have said that as long as cops acted "in good faith", they can (literally, in several cases) get away with murder.


IANAL but "The Constitution is nice unless you really need to get that evidence quick" sounds dubious
 
2013-04-18 01:12:54 PM  

Nem Wan: Related issue:  what's the deal with a hospital technician drawing blood from somebody who obviously didn't consent? Do police have legitimate authority to order medical procedures on someone in custody? Can medical personnel refuse?


Absolutely. And Ethically they should based upon their job.  Full stop.
 
2013-04-18 01:15:08 PM  
FTA

Eight of the nine justices rejected that plea. Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect's constitutional rights.

Goddammit even with Scalia and Alito as Justices Thomas still manages to out-stink them both when he actually does make himself noticible.
 
2013-04-18 01:15:26 PM  
www.alt-market.com
These folks think the Fourth Amendment is merely a suggestion
 
2013-04-18 01:23:47 PM  

skullkrusher: IANAL but "The Constitution is nice unless you really need to get that evidence quick" sounds dubious


There is already an exception for that, as explained in TFA: "Police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court said." Or is that how the MO court saw things, but SCOTUS disagrees?

Anyway, cops are allowed to bust in your door sans warrant under a limited set of circumstances. This ruling doesn't change that, and your 4/5A rights are sound as a pound. Until the next re-up of PATRIOT/TSA/NDAA and CISPA, anyway.
 
2013-04-18 01:25:46 PM  

GoldSpider: for the greater good


historc.files.wordpress.com

"For the Greater Good"
 
2013-04-18 01:30:51 PM  

redmid17: cman: 8-1 ruling against Obama administration arguments asking for a blanket rule to allow em

Isnt Obama supposed to be some sort of constitutional scholar or something?

Wasn't an 8-1 ruling. It was split 5-4 kind of. 3 Justices concurred and dissented

[i.imgur.com image 249x125]


It's 8 to 1.
Four on the majority opinion; one concurred with the decision, and wrote his own opinion (AW tactic); three concurred with the decision, but dissented on part of the analysis; one dissented with the decision.
 
2013-04-18 01:31:17 PM  
Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect's constitutional rights.

diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com
 
2013-04-18 01:41:39 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: Not sure how warrants and all that work,


I think you may have a bright future as a concern troll.

Either that or you somehow manage to stay alive in a state of perpetual bewilderment and confusion.
 
2013-04-18 01:43:11 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: And I have to agree with Satanic_Hamster; if Obama had ordered the DoJ not to defend the law because he thought it was unconstitutional, a lot of people would have thrown an epic fit. Just look at what happened after he decided there was no defense of DOMA.

begs the question why he didn't order the DoJ to do the same here. Out of fear that the GOP would criticize him? Probably not.


I think it's pretty simple; they thought there was a case that the blood draw did not violate his 4th Amendment rights. The DoJ doesn't win every single case they argue before the Supreme Court. Nobody does. That's an impossible standard to hold anyone to.
 
2013-04-18 01:50:32 PM  

Serious Black: I think it's pretty simple; they thought there was a case that the blood draw did not violate his 4th Amendment rights. The DoJ doesn't win every single case they argue before the Supreme Court. Nobody does. That's an impossible standard to hold anyone to.


Or, at the very least, they'll want a SCOTUS ruling on it just for final absolute clarification.  Just because they take it to the Supreme Court means that they had thousands of lawyers working on it and fighting it to the death.
 
2013-04-18 01:51:29 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Serious Black: I think it's pretty simple; they thought there was a case that the blood draw did not violate his 4th Amendment rights. The DoJ doesn't win every single case they argue before the Supreme Court. Nobody does. That's an impossible standard to hold anyone to.

Or, at the very least, they'll want a SCOTUS ruling on it just for final absolute clarification.  Just because they take it to the Supreme Court means that they had thousands of lawyers working on it and fighting it to the death.


makes sense
 
2013-04-18 02:01:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Or, at the very least, they'll want a SCOTUS ruling on it just for final absolute clarification. Just because they take it to the Supreme Court means that they had thousands of lawyers working on it and fighting it to the death.


Er.  DOESN'T mean.

Another complication:
Don't put this solely on Obama.  I guarantee you, the prosecutor and judge from the ground level case were likely on the phone the whole ride up, not wanting to have an overturned conviction on their records.
 
2013-04-18 02:07:33 PM  

skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: Serious Black: I think it's pretty simple; they thought there was a case that the blood draw did not violate his 4th Amendment rights. The DoJ doesn't win every single case they argue before the Supreme Court. Nobody does. That's an impossible standard to hold anyone to.

Or, at the very least, they'll want a SCOTUS ruling on it just for final absolute clarification.  Just because they take it to the Supreme Court means that they had thousands of lawyers working on it and fighting it to the death.

makes sense


Agreed. Not every case you take to court is clear-cut. Sometimes a case could legitimately go either way. I think this case was one of those. The decision that had approved of warrantless blood draws under exigent circumstances, Schmerber v. California, was decided by a three-judge plurality, and the case had gone both directions as it went through the appeals process in Missouri.
 
2013-04-18 02:24:25 PM  

GAT_00: SovietCanuckistan: GAT_00: SovietCanuckistan: I am not sure what you are getting at here. The go fark myself part is getting in the way of understanding your point.

I'm getting at that you are mad that a criminal was awarded civil rights, to be treated as a citizen of the US.  You're the reason that we have shiat like the Patriot Act, that is exactly the attitude that gave us those laws.  So when you get mad that the TSA pats you down, look in the mirror for someone to blame.

Simply being guilty of a crime in the past does not mean you should lose all rights.

I am not mad he had civil rights at all, and the Patriot Act is a joke, hence the DHS dis. How long does it take to get a warrant? Would the guy be sober by the time it happens? Are breathalyzers commonly used too? I am really just asking Dude, no need to go off the deep end. In cases like drunk driving, things should be pretty black and white.

But that isn't where you went, you went straight to "How DARE the police be forced to get a warrant!"  That is the problem.


I am having on of those I can't believe I am doing this but.......THIS.
 
2013-04-18 02:24:33 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: FTA

Eight of the nine justices rejected that plea. Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect's constitutional rights.

Goddammit even with Scalia and Alito as Justices Thomas still manages to out-stink them both when he actually does make himself noticible.


You sound racist
 
2013-04-18 02:38:52 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Rincewind53: I don't think you understand how the Justice Department works.

I don't think cman's brain works.  He's either a dedicated performance artist of a troll or ate WAY too much wall candy as a child.  You're talking about the guy who still claims that Nazis are far left socialists.


FFS, why does that keep on going around?

I called them RIGHT WING SOCIALISTS, not left wing.
 
2013-04-18 02:50:41 PM  
But the 2nd Amendment is alive, well, and being pumped up to ridiculous proportions.
 
2013-04-18 03:06:36 PM  

Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: IANAL but "The Constitution is nice unless you really need to get that evidence quick" sounds dubious

There is already an exception for that, as explained in TFA: "Police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court said." Or is that how the MO court saw things, but SCOTUS disagrees?

Anyway, cops are allowed to bust in your door sans warrant under a limited set of circumstances. This ruling doesn't change that, and your 4/5A rights are sound as a pound. Until the next re-up of PATRIOT/TSA/NDAA and CISPA, anyway.


Seeing as a drunk person's body is continually destroying the evidence of how much exactly they have drunk, it seems like a reasonable assumption that exception could apply in the case of a suspected DUI.
 
2013-04-18 03:20:49 PM  
Look guys, we will never prevent all DUIs. This is just a false flag.
 
2013-04-18 03:23:11 PM  

studs up: Aarontology: Anyone who thinks the nazis were anywhere close to either party is a full on blithering farking retard of the highest order, totally goddamned ignorant of the third reich, and should never be taken seriously in any context for the rest of time.

Anyone who makes a statement like this lives with his mom, has male PMS, diddles poodles and should never be allowed to touch a keyboard without govt supervision. Your hands are sticky with the masturbatory fantasy that you have any intelligence at all. Go Fark yourself with a Dremel and never post here again.
/drama, how does it work?


Hey, way to double down on the moronics.  I'll just point out that Genghis Khan, as a supporter of a strong central government, was a devout socialist... and then I'm going to drop your name into the idiot file.

Bye.
 
2013-04-18 03:28:40 PM  

xria: Dr Dreidel: skullkrusher: IANAL but "The Constitution is nice unless you really need to get that evidence quick" sounds dubious

There is already an exception for that, as explained in TFA: "Police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court said." Or is that how the MO court saw things, but SCOTUS disagrees?

Anyway, cops are allowed to bust in your door sans warrant under a limited set of circumstances. This ruling doesn't change that, and your 4/5A rights are sound as a pound. Until the next re-up of PATRIOT/TSA/NDAA and CISPA, anyway.

Seeing as a drunk person's body is continually destroying the evidence of how much exactly they have drunk, it seems like a reasonable assumption that exception could apply in the case of a suspected DUI.


You do know that it takes a while for alcohol to be absorbed into the system and it takes about 3x longer for it to be worked out of your system right?
 
2013-04-18 03:28:50 PM  

xria: Seeing as a drunk person's body is continually destroying the evidence of how much exactly they have drunk, it seems like a reasonable assumption that exception could apply in the case of a suspected DUI.


Thing is, though, the actual delay to get a search warrant would generally be...  A couple minutes.  The cop in question doesn't need to go to the judge and plead his case, then go back to the hospital with the suspect.  He'll call it in, get a verbal confirmation of the warrant, and papework monkies will handle all the filing after the fact.
 
2013-04-18 03:32:27 PM  

xria: Seeing as a drunk person's body is continually destroying the evidence of how much exactly they have drunk, it seems like a reasonable assumption that exception could apply in the case of a suspected DUI.


Good thing we have an impartial judiciary to settle questions of law such as this, then.
 
2013-04-18 03:32:50 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: xria: Seeing as a drunk person's body is continually destroying the evidence of how much exactly they have drunk, it seems like a reasonable assumption that exception could apply in the case of a suspected DUI.

Thing is, though, the actual delay to get a search warrant would generally be...  A couple minutes.  The cop in question doesn't need to go to the judge and plead his case, then go back to the hospital with the suspect.  He'll call it in, get a verbal confirmation of the warrant, and papework monkies will handle all the filing after the fact.


So just another example of why we shouldn't give so much power to these Type-A personalities with too much mustache?
 
2013-04-18 03:40:00 PM  

KushanMadman: Clarence Thomas struck out on his own? Really?

He's so sleeping on the couch now. Scalia is slow to forgive.


Which proves you know absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court.
 
2013-04-18 03:49:18 PM  

Blue_Blazer: So just another example of why we shouldn't give so much power to these Type-A personalities with too much mustache?


Pretty much.  The claims that he had to get the blood tests done NOW are bullshiat.  All he had to do was call to his superiors for a warrant.  This was an open and shut case, no way in hell he WOULDN'T get a warrant.  He just didn't because he KNEW the guy was guilty.
 
2013-04-18 03:53:46 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: xria: Seeing as a drunk person's body is continually destroying the evidence of how much exactly they have drunk, it seems like a reasonable assumption that exception could apply in the case of a suspected DUI.

Thing is, though, the actual delay to get a search warrant would generally be...  A couple minutes.  The cop in question doesn't need to go to the judge and plead his case, then go back to the hospital with the suspect.  He'll call it in, get a verbal confirmation of the warrant, and papework monkies will handle all the filing after the fact.


That. The City of San Antonio* has gone to "no refusal" for DUI. Meaning, you can't just refuse the breath test and lose your license for 6 months. If you do, they draw blood.

And it's never a warantless blood draw. There's an on-call judge who signs off on every one. It's not exactly the toughest thing in the world for a cop, either. "I detect a strong odor of alcohol on the subject" is probable cause for a warrant to be issued.

As long as LE does their job, and jumps through the proper hoops, this is not a huge procedural issue one way or another.

*If you're thinking of coming here and spending your sweet, sweet tourist dollars, just realize that the drinking establishments on the Riverwalk are all within walking distance of your hotel, and it's impossible for a tourist to get arrested in this town for public intox. Don't pee on the Alamo, and don't wear a Spurs shirt (else the cops may think you're local), and you're golden.
 
2013-04-18 04:01:36 PM  

Gonz: Satanic_Hamster: xria: Seeing as a drunk person's body is continually destroying the evidence of how much exactly they have drunk, it seems like a reasonable assumption that exception could apply in the case of a suspected DUI.

Thing is, though, the actual delay to get a search warrant would generally be...  A couple minutes.  The cop in question doesn't need to go to the judge and plead his case, then go back to the hospital with the suspect.  He'll call it in, get a verbal confirmation of the warrant, and papework monkies will handle all the filing after the fact.

That. The City of San Antonio* has gone to "no refusal" for DUI. Meaning, you can't just refuse the breath test and lose your license for 6 months. If you do, they draw blood.

And it's never a warantless blood draw. There's an on-call judge who signs off on every one. It's not exactly the toughest thing in the world for a cop, either. "I detect a strong odor of alcohol on the subject" is probable cause for a warrant to be issued.

As long as LE does their job, and jumps through the proper hoops, this is not a huge procedural issue one way or another.

*If you're thinking of coming here and spending your sweet, sweet tourist dollars, just realize that the drinking establishments on the Riverwalk are all within walking distance of your hotel, and it's impossible for a tourist to get arrested in this town for public intox. Don't pee on the Alamo, and don't wear a Spurs shirt (else the cops may think you're local), and you're golden.


Yeah, I wonder if these are going to pass muster if they ever make it up to the Supreme Court, especially the one where the 'impartial' judge is at a roadblock sipping coffee and socializing with the officers that will need warrants for those that refuse to blow. "No Refusal" is a crock. I don't really care what the crime is, rubber stamp warrants should -never- be OK by anybody.

That said, drinking and driving is pants on head retarded, and you deserve to go to jail for it.
 
2013-04-18 04:07:03 PM  

knobmaker: studs up: Aarontology: Anyone who thinks the nazis were anywhere close to either party is a full on blithering farking retard of the highest order, totally goddamned ignorant of the third reich, and should never be taken seriously in any context for the rest of time.

Anyone who makes a statement like this lives with his mom, has male PMS, diddles poodles and should never be allowed to touch a keyboard without govt supervision. Your hands are sticky with the masturbatory fantasy that you have any intelligence at all. Go Fark yourself with a Dremel and never post here again.
/drama, how does it work?

Hey, way to double down on the moronics.  I'll just point out that Genghis Khan, as a supporter of a strong central government, was a devout socialist... and then I'm going to drop your name into the idiot file.

Bye.


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-18 04:37:49 PM  
Driving is a privilege, not a right, end of story.

While I agree that the government should be required to get a warrant for a blood test, if you pull into a DUI check station and you refuse a breathalyzer or some other form of testing the police should have every right to take your licence, suspend it, tow your car, and tell you to walk home.

Stop driving drunk ass holes.
 
2013-04-18 04:46:37 PM  

studs up: knobmaker: studs up: Aarontology: Anyone who thinks the nazis were anywhere close to either party is a full on blithering farking retard of the highest order, totally goddamned ignorant of the third reich, and should never be taken seriously in any context for the rest of time.

Anyone who makes a statement like this lives with his mom, has male PMS, diddles poodles and should never be allowed to touch a keyboard without govt supervision. Your hands are sticky with the masturbatory fantasy that you have any intelligence at all. Go Fark yourself with a Dremel and never post here again.
/drama, how does it work?

Hey, way to double down on the moronics.  I'll just point out that Genghis Khan, as a supporter of a strong central government, was a devout socialist... and then I'm going to drop your name into the idiot file.

Bye.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x281] What just happen.jpg


Something akin to three morons pulling up to a 4-way stop and then gunning it into a pile up because they all thought they had the right of way.

We're just the witnesses shaking their heads in unsurprised disbelief
 
2013-04-18 07:44:47 PM  

Rabbitgod: studs up: knobmaker: studs up: Aarontology: Anyone who thinks the nazis were anywhere close to either party is a full on blithering farking retard of the highest order, totally goddamned ignorant of the third reich, and should never be taken seriously in any context for the rest of time.

Anyone who makes a statement like this lives with his mom, has male PMS, diddles poodles and should never be allowed to touch a keyboard without govt supervision. Your hands are sticky with the masturbatory fantasy that you have any intelligence at all. Go Fark yourself with a Dremel and never post here again.
/drama, how does it work?

Hey, way to double down on the moronics.  I'll just point out that Genghis Khan, as a supporter of a strong central government, was a devout socialist... and then I'm going to drop your name into the idiot file.

Bye.

[media.tumblr.com image 500x281] What just happen.jpg

Something akin to three morons pulling up to a 4-way stop and then gunning it into a pile up because they all thought they had the right of way.

We're just the witnesses shaking their heads in unsurprised disbelief


(jumps out of demolished car without a scratch) TA DAAAA!
 
2013-04-18 09:43:18 PM  

KushanMadman: Clarence Thomas struck out on his own? Really?

He's so sleeping on the couch now. Scalia is slow to forgive.


Clarence Thomas agreed with Obama? You always knew, when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, the brothas are going to stick together.
 
2013-04-18 11:03:48 PM  
Except the whole "failing the roadside AND breathalyzer tests" is probable cause, so you wouldn't need a warrant to do a blood test.
Sounds like subby likes getting "one for the road".
 
2013-04-18 11:52:01 PM  

colithian: Except the whole "failing the roadside AND breathalyzer tests" is probable cause, so you wouldn't need a warrant to do a blood test.
Sounds like subby likes getting "one for the road".


It is likely enough probable cause for a judge to issue a search warrant for a blood draw. The problem here is that they didn't even bother with that step, and it seems that the Supreme Court agrees that if you're going to go sticking needles in people without their consent, you need a warrant to do so.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report