 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Buchholz8/11/1999
xist as a prompt test will indicate a higher concentration of the drug. This assists law enforcement in determining whether consumption of the drug was on the day of the stop or recent.
[ ] According to authority cited by the defendant, urine tests for methamphetamine are only accurate for 24 to 48 hours from consumption of the drug. Citing United States v. Pond, 36 MJ 1050, 1058 (AFCMR 1993). If the officer was confronted with a driver who manifested no outward signs of drug consumption yet recovered an open drug vial from the driver's car, it is logical to assume the period for testing had about run its course. It is illogical to require that the officer, who is sitting on a rural highway must somehow locate the Beadle County State's Attorney to draft an affidavit, find a Magistrate or Circuit Judge to issue the search warrant, and take the defendant to a medical facility to obtain a urine sample if one is not voluntarily provided, all of which is to be completed while the 24-hour clock is ticking towards expiration of a testing period that may have already expired.
[ ] Hanson concluded, based on an examination of case law from other jurisdictions, there is no basis for treating drug testing any different from blood-alcohol testing. Hanson, 1999 SD 9 at § 36, 588 NW2d at 893. See State v. Strong, 493 NW2d 834 (Iowa 1992) (cocaine); Sate v. Thompson, 244 Neb 189, 505 NW2d 673 (1993) (cocaine). "In both cases exigent circumstances existed and the difference is at most only in the matter of degree, not whether the circumstances exist or not." Id.
We are persuaded that requiring an arrestee to submit to a urine test is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It is a less intrusive search than the withdrawal of blood from the human body. It involves no risk of trauma or pain. Like alcohol in the blood system, traces of controlled substances in the urine will also disappear over time. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 US 602, 109 SCt 1402, 103 LEd2d 639 (1989) the Court noted that ' lthough the metabolites of some drugs remain in the urine for longer periods of time ... the delay necessary to procure a warrant nevertheless may result in the destruction of valuable evidence.' Id. at 623, 109 SCt at 1416.
Id. (Citing United States v. Edmo, 140 F3d 1289, 1292 (9thCir 1998)). See also United States v. Twiss, 127 F3d 771 (8thCir 1997), reh'g & suggestion for reh'g en banc denied).
[ ] c. Balancing of interests of the accused and society
[ ] This issue was also analyzed in Hanson:
We have held in issue one that there was probable cause to arrest Hanson for possession of marijuana. As such, the officers had the right to search her in a medically reasonable manner based on exigent circumstances and as incident to that lawful arrest for the drug. The state must establish the procedure itself was reasonable when weighing the accused's interests in privacy and security against society's interest in the procedure in identifying the perpetrator of the crime.
The type of testing used in this case, submitting a urine sample, would seem to be more reasonable and less intrusive on a person's life than the alternative of attempting to secure a warrant. If a warrant were necessary, significant restraints would have to be placed upon the individual to preserve the chain of evidence while the law enforcement sought to locate a magistrate or circuit Judge and obtain a warrant.
Urination into a specimen container is reasonable process. As a normal body function, urination is less intrusive than removal of blood by a syringe. There is no threat to the safety or the health of the individual. Considered in t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|