Podcasts about beylund

Look out drunks, because Wisconsin is coming for your blood.  This week's episode covers the case of Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which asks whether the police can take the blood of a passed out drunk driver without a warrant.  Brett and Nazim discuss oral argument in general, previous cases on this topic and which opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the lesser-est of three evils.  Law starts at (06:05).

This week's episode first covers Beylund v. North Dakota and Voisine v. U.S., two cases that deal with the viability of criminal statutes aimed at stopping drunk driving and preventing firearm possession by domestic violence offenders.  Law starts at (03:26) but there is one tangent on summer movies and the other featuring a controversial take on hamburgers.  It's a serious episode, so you can let your hair down a little.

On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bernard v. Minnesota, which was consolidated with Birchfield v. North Dakota and Beylund v. Levi. -- In Bernard, William Robert Bernard, Jr., admitted he had been drinking, but he denied driving his truck and refused to perform a field sobriety test. He was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired and taken to the police station, where he refused to consent to a chemical test in violation of Minnesota state law. Bernard was charged with two counts of first-degree test refusal pursuant to state law. In Birchfield, Danny Birchfield was arrested after failing field sobriety tests after he had driven his vehicle into a ditch, but he refused to consent to a chemical test, resulting in a misdemeanor charge. He moved to dismiss the charge and claimed that the state law in question violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. In Beylund, Steve Beylund consented to a blood alcohol to test to confirm he was driving under the influence, but only after being informed it was a criminal offense to refuse a blood alcohol test in North Dakota. The test confirmed he was over the legal limit, and Beylund was charged with driving under the influence. -- The men in these cases challenged state statutes criminalizing refusal to submit to a chemical test, arguing among other things that the statutes violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Minnesota and the Supreme Court of North Dakota rejected their respective challenges. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court in these consolidated cases is whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood. -- To discuss the case, we have Jonathan Ellis, who is an Associate at Latham & Watkins.

What do drunk driving, getting fired for speaking your mind and terrorism have in common?  In addition to being things that scare middle-class white people, each of these topics are the subject of this week's episode, which takes a look at the oral arguments in Beylund v. North Dakota on the 4th amendment, the free-speech decision in Heffernan v. City of Patterson, and the Bank Markazi v. Peterson decision regarding the use of Iranian funds to pay off a civil judgment.

Brett and Ross continue their discussion about criminal cases before the Supreme Court, including Ocasio v. U.S., Lockhart v. U.S., Utah v. Strieff,  & Beylund v. Minnesota.  They also discuss the implications of Hurst v. Florida, and how Montgomery v. La may influence the upcoming case of Molina-Martinez v. U.S.

This week's episode covers the cases of Bernard v. Minnesota, Beylund v. North Dakota, and Birchfield v. North Dakota, which deal with whether or not State statutes that punish a suspected drunk driver's refusal to take a blood or breath test are constitutional under the 4th amendment.  Full disclosure, there's a good chance that if you are a 4th amendment advocate or an advocate of the Lord of the Rings, cupcakes, brunch, bacon, or pancakes, there's going to be something said here that annoys you, so bring on the emails.  We're not afraid of your criticism.