Judge: No Breath Tests for Pedestrians
Legal News Center
[##_1L|1022404394.jpg|width="127" height="85" alt=""|_##]A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Michigan law that requires pedestrians under 21 to submit to a breath test without a search warrant. The American Civil Liberties Union, which had sued on behalf of four college students, said the law is the only one of its kind in the country. U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Detroit ruled that it was unconstitutional to force non-drivers to submit to preliminary breath tests without a warrant.
"This is a tremendous victory for the civil liberties of young adults," said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan.
Under the 1998 law, pedestrians under 21 who refuse to take a breath test face a $100 fine. To require a breath analysis, an officer must have reasonable cause to believe that a minor has been drinking.
Backers of the law have said police need breath testers and other tools to enforce the legal drinking age.
In 2006, the city of Mount Pleasant and Isabella County agreed to pay $5,000 to two of the plaintiffs, Cullin Stewart and Samuel Maness, and stop warrantless pedestrian breath tests until Lawson issued a final ruling.
Both Stewart and Maness attended a 2003 post-prom party in Isabella County where, according to the lawsuit, an interagency police task force called the "Party Patrol" broke up the party, placed the students in a circle and asked if they had been drinking.
They had to blow into a portable breath tester, according to the suit. Stewart was not charged, but Maness was issued a citation accusing him of being a minor in possession of alcohol.
Michigan State Police, Central Michigan University and Saginaw County's Thomas Township Police Department also are defendants in the case.
A telephone message seeking comment was left at the office of state police spokeswoman Shanon Akans.
Related listings
-
High court to review lethal injection
Legal News Center 09/26/2007[##_1L|1000547554.jpg|width="180" height="135" alt=""|_##]Facing near legal chaos in states that use the death penalty, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to review a Kentucky lethal injection case signals the justices are prepared to try to s...
-
Supreme Court to rule on lethal injection executions
Legal News Center 09/25/2007[##_1L|1374613952.jpg|width="104" height="138" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether the commonly used lethal injection method of execution violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The natio...
-
Pasadena church wants apology from IRS
Legal News Center 09/22/2007The rector of a liberal Pasadena church today demanded an apology and a clarification from the Internal Revenue Service after being notified that the agency had closed a lengthy investigation of the church over a 2004 antiwar sermon -- but also found...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.