SBRH33

SBRH33 t1_j7az8xw wrote

In the 80's it was located in an little building on the corner of 5th and Market. You could walk in for free. The bell was surrounded by purple velvet rope and you could reach out and touch it cos it was so close. There was one single National Park Ranger standing in there that would caution everyone not to touch the bell. The Rangers were lenient with the no touch policy with children during school class trips.

Touching the bell wasn't technically a big deal because its coated with a protective wax.

Yea a homeless guy did walk in and bang on the bell with a hammer and damaged it.

11

SBRH33 t1_j6oxhe1 wrote

Lol! My man, Did you even bother to read the SCOTUS decision?

The case involves compulsory WARRANTLESS seizures of blood ...

When one is pulled over for suspected DUI and fails the roadside testing program and exhibits signs of intoxication etcetera, the officer, under probable cause, can make an arrest for suspect DUI. From there the officer can submit a warrant for a blood test, which an on call judge will sign off on based on the officers arrest affidavit, for the drivers blood to be tested at hospital for driving under the influence

Theres no wiggling out of it once a warrant has been issued for the blood. Now sometimes judges aren't available for warrant signatures. So the next step would be a calibrated breathalyzer machine, which most police departments own. Refusing a blood/ chemical test and or Breathalyzer is not an option without severe consequence attached.

> Intoxicated driving is a serious criminal charge. During a DUI investigation, an officer may request a blood sample. This is especially true when an alleged suspect refuses a breathalyzer test or a police officer believes the suspect is intoxicated by drugs. If you do not agree to it, a warrant may be issued, and at that time, a blood sample will be taken with or without your consent.

A lot of confusion surrounds what your rights and obligations are with respect to drunk driving and blood tests.

1

SBRH33 t1_j6okn76 wrote

Lol. You better go back to lawyer school.

The SCOTUS ruling pertains to WARRANTLESS seizures of blood for DUI which violate a persons 4th.

Police now need to simply secure a warrant for the blood test. That is all. You cant refuse once they secure the warrant.

During a DUI investigation, an officer may request a blood sample. This is especially true when an alleged suspect refuses a breathalyzer test or a police officer believes the suspect is intoxicated by drugs. If you do not agree to it, a warrant may be issued,and at that time, a blood sample will be taken with or without your consent.

You just cant refuse the blood test or the breathalyzer. It doesn't work like that.

1