Supreme Court Rules Cops Do NOT Need a Warrant to Draw Your Blood If You’re Unable to Consent

#SUPREME #COURTS #RULES

SEE IT HERE 1ST

https://worldtruth.video/@SOUNDMINDS

WHERE TO FIND US

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

☑ 🔔
YOUTUBE CHANNEL

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnDNtvIFL0TkC0yxiWvnrsw

☑ 🔔
YOUTUBE BACK-UP CHANNEL

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClTHkuKWhC8ssCect0-XDKg

☑ 🔔 BITCHUTE

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/qtSIji30gLIe/

☑ 🔔
REAL LIBERTY MEDIA

https://realliberty.org/soundminds/

⚠ WARNING ⚠ ⚠ WARNING ⚠

CENSORSHIP FREE ON MANY LEVELS

☑
🔔
WorldTruthMX

https://www.worldtruth.mx/invite/user_2419/

SEE IT HERE 1ST ????

https://worldtruth.video/@SOUNDMINDS

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Supreme Court Rules Cops Do NOT Need a Warrant to Draw Your Blood If You’re Unable to Consent..
June 29, 2019

Spread the love

In a split decision, and further eroding the Fourth Amendment, SCOTUS ruled that police do not need a warrant or consent to take your blood if you are unable to consent.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States Ruled that police officers do not need your consent, nor do they need a warrant, to draw your blood—so long as you are unconscious—and police accuse you of being under the influence.

The ruling on Thursday is in stark contrast to the previous precedent which stated that police do need a warrant to perform a blood test if the driver does not or cannot voluntarily consent.

As Reason points out, the Court’s judgment actually dodged the major question presented by the case: Whether a state can force a citizen to consent in advance to unwarranted blood tests as a condition of driving.

The SCOTUS case in question was Mitchell v. Wisconsin and began after Gerald Mitchell was arrested for DUI.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-do-not-need-a-warrant-to-draw-your-blood-if-youre-unable-to-consent/

***********&&&&&&&&&&&&&&***********

COPS and domestic abuse and more as well as corruption at its worst ..

https://www.app.com/story/news/investigat..