|
|
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
By Michael Nichols
Categories: Michael J. Nichols, Drunk-Driving
The question of the constitutionality of the process used by police to obtain your breath or blood sample in a DUI/DUID case has started to burn around the country since the United States Supreme Court held a warrant was required or an "exigent" circumstance was necessary in the spring 2013. "The case of Missouri v McNeely solidified our constitutional rights even when behind the wheel," says Michigan drunk driving attorney Mike Nichols of East Lansing.
Nichols is a national leader in drunk driving defense and a member of the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) forensic science committee. He says "lawyers around the country have been educating each other about the various types of implied consent acts in each state, some even criminalize failure to consent."
Now, the state of South Dakota has ruled that its implied consent Act is unconstitutional. The case is Fiero v South Dakota. Nichols says "we are challenging 2 cases already under which implied consent was not followed properly. That is a slightly different attack on a breath or blood test without a warrant that challenging the statute head on. That ruling by the SD Supreme Court is huge and we will start monitoring the ripple effects."
For the attorneys who are leaders in cutting edge defense of drugged and drunk driving contact the Nichols Law Firm at (517) 432-9000.