3 ms·
So what's the test for that? Are you ok with giving police the authority to draw blood on a whim? Basically, we either accept an invasive test, or we can't enf
by MadManE 11y ago
So what's the test for that? Are you ok with giving police the authority to draw blood on a whim?
Basically, we either accept an invasive test, or we can't enforce the law. Which is 100% different than what it was before.
- aidenn0 11y agoI don't know about Colorado, but in many jurisdictions, the appearance of being impaired, plus a negative breath-test is sufficient cause for a blood draw already.
- sageikosa 11y agoSo what does the appearance of being stoned really look like?
- cdr 11y agoPolice already have the authority to draw blood for alcohol-impaired driving. If you refuse, your driver's license is automatically suspended and the refusal can be used against you in court.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoIt's a bad law, and not every state is the same on this particular issue.
- peppaz 11y agoThey need a warrant to draw blood and really can only get one if you injured someone or destroyed their car. http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-blood-against-my-will http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-bl...
- cdr 11y agoThat link does not contradict what I wrote. In many (most?) states you must voluntarily submit to a blood test or face the above consequences.
- alistairSH 11y agoHow is it different than before? Pre-legalization, the police had no way to discern if a driver was high. Post-legalization the police still have no way to discern if a driver is high. The only difference is pre-legalization, they could arrest you for having some bud in your pocket. Now that can't do that.