The Wikipedia article of the day for June 20, 2016 is Schmerber v. California.
Schmerber v. California (1966) was a landmark US Supreme Court case that clarified whether a search warrant is required before taking blood samples from a suspect, and whether those samples may be introduced into evidence in a criminal prosecution. In a 5–4 opinion, the court held that forced extraction of a blood sample is not compelled testimony and does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court also held that search warrants are ordinarily required by the Fourth Amendment for intrusions into the human body, except under exigent circumstances. In 2013, the Supreme Court specified in Missouri v. McNeely that a warrant may be required for a blood sample from someone suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, even though their blood alcohol level is likely to drop before a warrant can be obtained. Because the court's ruling in Schmerber prohibited the use of warrantless blood tests in most circumstances, some commentators argue that the decision was responsible for the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analyses to test for controlled substances in criminal investigations. visite : http://lisanok.com
Schmerber v. California (1966) was a landmark US Supreme Court case that clarified whether a search warrant is required before taking blood samples from a suspect, and whether those samples may be introduced into evidence in a criminal prosecution. In a 5–4 opinion, the court held that forced extraction of a blood sample is not compelled testimony and does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court also held that search warrants are ordinarily required by the Fourth Amendment for intrusions into the human body, except under exigent circumstances. In 2013, the Supreme Court specified in Missouri v. McNeely that a warrant may be required for a blood sample from someone suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, even though their blood alcohol level is likely to drop before a warrant can be obtained. Because the court's ruling in Schmerber prohibited the use of warrantless blood tests in most circumstances, some commentators argue that the decision was responsible for the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analyses to test for controlled substances in criminal investigations. visite : http://lisanok.com
Comments
Post a Comment