Oregon Court wrestles with consent law

The Statesman Journal reported on what is before the Oregon Supreme Court,

“This case involves Thomas Gregory Machuca of West Linn, whose blood was drawn after a June 1, 2005, crash in Portland but who failed to persuade a trial judge to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol level. (It was 0.20 percent, above the legal limit of 0.08 percent.) He said it violated his state constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures….But Kroger said that if police were required to obtain search warrants before drawing blood from drunken-driving suspects, delays could result in samples with blood-alcohol content “declining minute by minute,” although Gartlan disagreed…”Consent is a personal right,” Gartlan told the court. “What the Legislature has attempted to do is to take that right away.”

The result may have big implications on Oregon law. What will happen? Does your blood carry certain rights, private infromation, civil liberties?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 08:53 | Posted in Measure 37 | 3 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Diamond Jim Franconni

    If you drive then you give up the right to keep your blood private.
    These morons who drive drunk have no rights.

  • Zero

    Then send them to jail. But who says you have ot give up your DNA?

  • Bono

    The law gets to say the final word.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)