Brickbat: It's the Thought That Counts


The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a DUI conviction against Courtney Noelle Weakland, even as the judges acknowledged that the blood draw taken from her wasn't truly voluntary. Weakland's attorney argued that the blood draw should have been thrown out because she only submitted to it because the guidance read by police to suspects said they had to submit. That was false, and the guidance has since been changed. But the court allowed the blood draw to remain as evidence, saying the cps acted in good faith that their actions were correct.

NEXT: Game of Thrones Finale: Daenerys Vows to Make a Hell of Earth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “I didn’t know what the law was, I was acting in good faith”… See if YOU can get away with that!

    1. Beyond that, in most states you can decline blood alcohol level tests… But you get an automatic one year suspension of your license.

      So is “voluntary” really on the table?

      1. It is another reason why driving will never be allowed to be a right.

        If it’s a right, you would never have to agree to some other caveat (Implied Consent) to enforce that right.

        The state will most likely suspend your license anyway, so why not avoid the conviction by never giving them a biological sample to tell on yourself about what your BAC is. A year suspended license is an inconvenience compared to a suspended license and a DUI conviction on your permanent record.

        1. Here’s a reason, provided in anecdote form.

          I was at a hearing for a ticket that was bogus. I was young, poor, righteous and dumb enough to represent myself.

          So at this particular court, the DA sees each case and then if they need to they proceed to the judge. The DA took everyone with a lawyer first … professional courtesy and all. So I sat there watching the DA talk with all the lawyers. First up were the tickets that they had a standard process in place for. Each lawyer would come up with a big stack of tickets… “these we’ll plead to faulty equipment, these to 10mph over…” etc. They had an agreement as to what the criteria were, and they disposed of a few hundred tickets in very short order. Then they handled the tougher cases… the DUI cases, etc. I watched a long list of DUI arrests get dismissed in exchange for “entering treatment” or “attending traffic school”, depending on the offense level. The last guy was on his 5th arrest. This was Georgia… first offense is 6 months license suspended and 30 days in jail. Second is a year in jail.

          This is this guy’s fifth. He hit a van with a family inside. Sent a bunch to the hospital.
          DA lets him off if he agrees to pay for the damages and go for rehab.

          That’s what having a lawyer was able to do.

          Next up, some college kid who was scared out of her mind… with no lawyer. The DA very quickly bullies her into pleading guilty, they march up to the judge, she pleads guilty and the judge says “30 days in jail” and off she goes. The whole thing took maybe 2 minutes.

          Moral of the story: hire a lawyer. Better yet, hire the properly connected lawyer.

          1. The judge and the DA are on the same page about who gets to go first.

            Lawyers have other clients to screw over, so they get to go first. Plus, they like to clear the court of witnesses to the the Double Team that will happen once its you, the DA, and the judge.

            Good lawyers cost money and they will get you better results.

            I have also won multiple court issues representing myself. Always know the law that will be used against you and defenses for it and have a jury.

            Anyone who wants to see how far Constitutional rights and Due Process rights have been ignored, spend a day in a courtroom listening to cases.

    1. ….is a hell of defense. Weakland’s attorney went to school for seven years to learn the law and where the hell did that get him?

  2. Which would you prefer; we take the blood from your veins with a nice clean needle, or scrape it off what’s left of your face after the beating?
    Yep, sounds like a choice to me.

    1. Luckily, an open wound blood sample would not stand up in court.

      Its not a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) sample but an Open to Air Skin Alcohol Content sample.

  3. You should tell cps [sic] to “fuck off” and get a warrant base upon probable cause.

    Never give them blood, breath, or urine without a warrant.

    The cops, prosecutors, and judges all know that you need to tell on yourself for a DUI/DWI conviction to happen. Telling on yourself in the form of a biological sample that they can test. Without a sample, the rate of conviction falls immensely.

  4. I can see a “good faith” exception that maybe the cops can’t be sued for taking the sample without a valid permission. Much as it’s been abused, that’s the idea behind qualified immunity.

    There is no justification for allowing that evidence to be used, however. This should have been suppressed as ‘fruit of the poisoned tree’.

  5. Those Houston narcs who broke the door down, shot the dog, then riddled those old folks with bullets also had altruistic intentions. They were there to serve and protect, just like the prohibition vampires! First Responders™ are still the poster children of the Republican Party Platform and can be convicted of no wrong.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.