NEVADA SUPREME COURT RULES THAT IMPLIED CONSENT LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Sam Sliger has argued that the current method for collecting and testing breath and blood from an accused is unconstitutional. On Thursday, October 16, 2014, The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the state's implied consent law, which permits law enforcement officials to force a driver without a warrant to submit to a blood test to determine whether he or she is impaired, is unconstitutional.
A case called Missouri v. McNeely, was the main case decision the Nevada Court used to rule that the state's law violates the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search.
This decision is monumental and will have a huge effect on how Nevada law enforcement officers handle their DUI cases. Also, this decision will effect how Georgia DUI attorneys argue that the Georgia implied consent law is also unconstitutional.
Nevada's implied consent law does not allow drivers a choice between a test or a penalty. By making this ruling, the high court in Nevada has ruled that Nevada's implied consent law does not allow warrantless searches where the option to revoke consent is not an option. The government always argues that all drivers gave consent to such testing when they applied for and received a driver license. However, this creates a problem because then you cannot revoke that consent and thus it becomes irrevocable. Consent must be voluntary. How can consent be voluntary if you cant revoke it?
This ruling will now bring other issues to light. For example, now that the court has ruled that the officer cannot get a blood test without a warrant, the officer will just get a warrant. So the next question is: Is getting a search warrant to force a person to allow another person to stick them with a needle and take blood for a misdemeanor charge what we want to allow in society?
For more information, you can always call Sam at McDonald & Cody, LLC (706) 778-5291.