# data[].attributes.body
1. 4th amendment: the right to the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects of unreasonable searches and seizers.
The right to have privacy in your home and in yourself.
I think it's right because police have to have a search warrant to seize or search your property.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Posted by Amy Miller Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 3:40pm | 11/30/2014 - 3:40pm

No consent + no exigent circumstance = no warrantless DUI tests

A Texas appeals court has struck down a law allowing police officers to conduct warrantless blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.

The law borrows concepts from the Texas Transportation Code and other statutes, and has both attorneys and Fourth Amendment advocates up in arms over what it means to conduct an "unreasonable search and seizure." In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. McNeely that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigent circumstance justifying blanket authorization for warrantless searches. Texas' "No Refusal" periods, however, throw a wrench in an easy hypo by injecting statutorily-based "implied consent" into the mix. ("No Refusal" periods are exactly what they sound like.)

What happens if you refuse to provide a sample and/or perform sobriety tests in the field? Up until last week, the authorities would haul you into jail and forcibly extract the evidence from the crook of your right arm-without a warrant. The convenience of this level of "implied consent" was too much for the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, however, and last week they ruled this type of search unconstitutional.

Via the Houston Chronicle:

"We hold that a nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect's blood conducted pursuant to the mandatory-blood-draw and implied-consent provisions in the Transportation Code, when undertaken in the absence of a warrant or any applicable exception to the warrant requirement, violates the Fourth Amendment," Judge Elsa Alcala of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals wrote on behalf of the five majority opinion judges. Four members of the nine-judge court dissented.

Constitution trumps statute, and it feels so right.

Accusations that when used, the warrant process for these types of convictions is little more than a rubber stamp aside, this is a great development for the Fourth Amendment. The ruling won't kill No Refusal as a whole, but it will limit the admissibility of evidence obtained without a warrant.

Courts should be careful with their assessments of exigency; normally, evaluation of exigent circumstances happens on a case-by-case basis-the window in the convict's apartment breaks, the woman screams, the gun fires-which makes sense considering the standard lives or dies at the hands of circumstance. To grant a blanket stamp of exigency onto the changing chemical makeup of a suspect's blood wouldn't just set us teetering at the top of the slippery slope; it would send us careening down headfirst with our pants down.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fourth Amendment triumphs over warrantless DUI blood tests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Posted by Amy Miller Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 3:40pm | 11/30/2014 - 3:40pm No consent + no exigent circumstance = no warrantless DUI tests A Texas appeals court has struck down a law allowing police officers to conduct warrantless blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.

# data[].attributes.body
3. 3rd amendment: no quartering act.
No solider during war or peace be quartered in any house without consent of the owner.
I think this amendment is great because you won't have to spend tons of money supporting a solider during a time or peace or crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
RootsoftheRevolution7-3 - The Quartering Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Followed? There were two Quartering Acts. Following the first Quartering Act was the Boston Tea Party. Even though the main reason for the Boston Tea Party was the Tea Act, The Quartering Act still contributed to the colonists' retaliation. It was one of the many changes Britain demanded of the colonists and it increased the colonists' desire for independence.

# data[].attributes.body
2. 2nd amendment: right to bear arms.
The right to own firearms and multiple firearms.
I think this amendment is good because we have the right to protect ourself with a firearm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Right To Bear Arms News and Political Cartoons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Right To Bear Arms News Cartoon directory - the world's largest on-line collection of news related cartoons and comics, all searchable in directory form.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1st amendment: Freedom of speech or the press.
The right to speak whatever you want.
I think this right is important because everyone should express their honest opinion.