Doesn’t glazed eyes, smell of alcohol, inability to stand, fleeing an accident scene after driving the wrong way equal probable cause? I certainly think it does. BAD decision.
What’s with these left wing geniuses? They’re making the job of the police more difficult and letting people get away with DUI. These judicial jokes must have brain damage from spending too much time sitting in an ice fishing shanty on some frozen lake in Minnesta drinking cheap whiskey. Agree…..bad call.
These justices are members of Drunks Against Mad Mothers (DAMM). They have a vested interest in preserving their own rights to drive drunk on any side of the roadway they choose, collide with whomever happens to be in front of them, and be free from the burden of possible DUI.
Dread, don’t be an idiot you moron. No where does it state the judges are “liberals”. Stick to the facts and you will be credible. This is a stupid ruling from a stupid court using no logic at all. Hopefully this will be appealed up further through the courts.
I don’t know if the judge is a liberal either, but have you ever read the St. Paul paper? It’s so liberal that it’s like reading one of those made up comedy papers. It leads me to believe that the people in Minnesota have a little more liberal slant on things. That and some of the people they send to congress. Just my thought.
Nancy: what kind of judge other than a “liberal” would have the twisted logic to justify a ruling like this. Just because the media didn’t label them as “liberal” doesn’t detract from the obvious. And what’s with the name calling? Don’t make me pull an “Isaiah” on you.
There must be consent or a warrant for searches. Does anyone remember the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Fourth Amendment??
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
AFTER A DRUNK DRIVER KILLS ONE OF THE JUDGES, MAYBE THEIR FAMILIES WILL DEMAND A BLOOD TEST.
Doesn’t glazed eyes, smell of alcohol, inability to stand, fleeing an accident scene after driving the wrong way equal probable cause? I certainly think it does. BAD decision.
What’s with these left wing geniuses? They’re making the job of the police more difficult and letting people get away with DUI. These judicial jokes must have brain damage from spending too much time sitting in an ice fishing shanty on some frozen lake in Minnesta drinking cheap whiskey. Agree…..bad call.
What more probable cause & special circumstances could you have? Maybe SHE wasn’t injured, but the OTHER driver was! This is, indeed, a bad decision.
These justices are members of Drunks Against Mad Mothers (DAMM). They have a vested interest in preserving their own rights to drive drunk on any side of the roadway they choose, collide with whomever happens to be in front of them, and be free from the burden of possible DUI.
Dread, don’t be an idiot you moron. No where does it state the judges are “liberals”. Stick to the facts and you will be credible. This is a stupid ruling from a stupid court using no logic at all. Hopefully this will be appealed up further through the courts.
I don’t know if the judge is a liberal either, but have you ever read the St. Paul paper? It’s so liberal that it’s like reading one of those made up comedy papers. It leads me to believe that the people in Minnesota have a little more liberal slant on things. That and some of the people they send to congress. Just my thought.
Nancy: what kind of judge other than a “liberal” would have the twisted logic to justify a ruling like this. Just because the media didn’t label them as “liberal” doesn’t detract from the obvious. And what’s with the name calling? Don’t make me pull an “Isaiah” on you.
Oh, snap!!! I know you didn’t just bring race into this thing!
There must be consent or a warrant for searches. Does anyone remember the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Fourth Amendment??
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”