Vatterott OKC Paralegal Studies

We don't teach you what to think. We teach you HOW to think.

Archive for the category “Supreme Court”

Blood draws: DUI

Blood draws: DUI

“Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances…“the practical problems of obtaining a warrant within a time frame that still preserves the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence.” Justice Sotomayor

“A police officer reading this court’s opinion would have no idea — no idea — what the Fourth Amendment requires of him…“when a drunk driving suspect fails field sobriety tests and refuses a breathalyzer, whether a warrant is required for a blood draw should come down to whether there is time to secure one.” Chief Justice John Roberts

“Nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires officers to allow evidence essential to enforcement of drunk-driving laws to be destroyed while they wait for a warrant to issue…” Justice Thomas

Thirty states have the electronic means to secure a warrant.  In some states, police officers can call judges directly according to the article.


Now Being Heard: Your Fifth Amendment Right to Silence

Now Being Heard: Your Fifth Amendment Right to Silence

Imagine this:

You face the allegation of a horrific crime.  You are arrested.  You immediately invoke your Fifth Amendment Right to remain silent.  The State uses the fact that you would not answer questions during an interrogation against you in your trial.  You are found guilty partly  based on that fact.

Should you face a legal consequence for relying on one of your core rights?  That is the question that SCOTUS will take up today at 11:00 AM EST.

The year before the court ruled on Miranda, a decision was issued in Griffin v. California.  The court ruled that the Fifth Amendment doesn’t allow for the Prosecution to comment to the jury during trial about the defendant’s use of the Fifth Amendment by not testifying at trial.

In 1976, the court further refined its opinion in Doyle v. Ohio.  Prosecution may not comment on the defendant’s decision to enact the right to remain silent after the Miranda Rights are given by law enforcement.

In this particular case, Salinas would not answer the question of what the ballistics tests would show after his arrest.  He did not take the stand.  The first trial resulted in a mistrial because the jury couldn’t decide on a verdict.  He was tried again (not double jeopardy because there was a mistrial – not a decision in whether or not he was guilty).  The State used the exact same evidence.  The second jury convicted Salinas and sentenced him to 20 years.  His right to silence appeal failed in the Texas court system.  His attorneys then appealed to SCOTUS on certiorari last August.  Justices are asked to clarify whether and under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment applied to someone who hasn’t been informed of the Miranda Rights.

Visit the link to read about the briefs and analysis.

SCOTUS declines controversial prof’s case

SCOTUS declines controversial prof’s case

How do you feel about the state court making the determination that the university’s hearing was “quasi-judicial” and that he couldn’t sue because of it?  Do you feel that crossed a line and attempted to take away his right to litigate?  Did you know that most employment contracts, such as for educators, have an arbitration agreement?

Prop 8 Background

Prop 8 Background

Hollingsworth v. Perry

SC Takes New Affirmative Action Case

SC Takes New Affirmative Action Case

Schuette v. Coalition

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: