I remembered something about a police officer requesting a blood test, or forcibly taking a blood test, was not in violation of a persons right not to testify against himself. I wish I had a photographic memory.
Anyway, I found a commentary on that the “police generally will not compel you to submit to a blood test, the Supreme Court decision [in 1983] permits a blood test taken by force so long as the officer has probable cause to believe that you are under the influence.”
This was basically what I was looking for; minus the case name and the “under the influence” bit.
Upon further research, I believe I found the case. I wondered how many cases referred to this case, in what way the were referred, and if it was repealed… I guess that is called shepardizeing.
From what little academic legal research I have done, I’ve found you can pretty much “bend” certain cases to fit another. I wondered if there was ever a cop who had probably cause to believe someone was withholding evidence and compelled them to have a blood test taken. (With or without a search warrant.)
There was like 30 or more links of Supreme Court cases that referred to this case. If I had the time and it was my job, I’d want to look over those cases too.
Posted by Michael at November 25, 2004 10:00 PM