Are forced urine samples unconstitutional? South Dakota case illuminates the issue

A lawyer who is arguing his client’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by a forced urine sample is shining a light on the practice by police in South Dakota.

The lawyer for Dirk Landon Sparks is asking a judge to toss the test results used to charge his client with felony drug ingestion, the Argus Leader reports.

The lawyer, Jeremy Lund, argues in a May 16 motion filed in Hughes County that the judge who signed a search warrant for a blood or urine sample didn’t authorize Sparks to be strapped to a hospital bed and a catheter to be forced into his penis.

Article here (via aba journal). 

Old news! But changes still to come: Michigan's Indigent Defense Commission: What's happening?

Gov. Snyder (back in 2013, see the article here, which is why I listed this as "old news") signed a bill to allow the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission. The problem is (or was) that depending on where a person got in trouble with the law, the standard of how that person was defended by a court appointed attorney could vary widely.

(A Defendant can always 1. go without representation and act as his or her own attorney 2. hire an attorney, or 3. request that the court appoint an attorney if that defendant can show indigence (poverty).)

The MIDC has so far adopted standards for the attorneys chosen to serve on CA lists, which can be seen here. Other news available on the website.

The more exciting part of this legislation is that it is expected to increase the amount of cases where a defendant is represented. That's good because people are less likely to plead away their rights, if once made aware of those rights!

Implied Consent law: Kansas Supreme Court overturns implied consent (alcohol testing) refusals

An Implied Consent law means that when you as a driver obtain the privilege to drive, you also "impliedly consent" to being tested for alcohol use while you are driving. If you refuse to be tested - say you are pulled over and an officer requests you "blow" for a roadside breath test, you will have violated that "implied consent" and face a fine, or restriction of your driving privilege, or both, depending on the State.

In Kansas, however, the supreme court has struck down the violations, on the basis that they violate a driver's right to unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

Article here (via reason hit & run blog).

From the article - with my commentary in italics:

In the absence of consent or a special justification, searches (of a person or their property) generally require a warrant. That is why every state has an "implied consent" law saying that drivers, in exchange for the "privilege" of operating motor vehicles on public roads, agree to be tested should they be arrested for DUI. If they refuse to cooperate with alcohol testing, they can lose their licenses through an administrative process. Kansas is (or was) one of 13 states that also treat test refusal as a crime.(Michigan does not treat it as a crime, it's an administrative loss of driving privilege. In Michigan, your license will be suspended by the Secretary of State, and you will face that for one-two years, even if you are never convicted of the underlying charge of DUI/drunk driving.)

Lawsuit claims "scarlet letter" passports for sex offenders are unconstitutional

A bill that President Obama signed into law on Monday requires that passports used by registered sex offenders carry a "conspicuous" mark to ensure the bearers are properly scrutinized, shunned, harassed, and stigmatized wherever they might travel.

A federal lawsuit filed yesterday in San Francisco argues that the so-called International Megan's Law (IML), which passed both houses of Congress on voice votes without any real debate, violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Article here. 

Just in case: Ottawa County clerk's plan to alter marriage license form if Supreme Court overturns Michigan gay marriage

The Ottawa County clerk will manually update marriage forms to accommodate same-sex couples in the event the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Michigan's gay marriage ban. It's not clear if Kent County's clerk, or some others around the state, will take the same step.

Article here (via mlive). 

The Supreme Court is expected by the end of the month to rule on whether Michigan's 2004 voter-approved gay marriage ban is constitutional.
County clerks say they will comply with the court and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the court overturns Michigan's law. But they may not have updated paperwork right away.

Same gender marriage: today in Michigan?

Clerks in at least 10 of Michigan's 83 counties are prepared to issue marriage licenses this week if US District Court Judge Bernard Friedman strikes down the state's voter-approved ban, according to this MLive report. Clerks in Bay, Clare, Delta, Ingham, Isabella, Lapeer, Midland, Oakland, Tuscola and Washtenaw counties indicated that they are ready to begin issuing licenses immediately after a ruling.

Full article here. 

So that means that if a federal judge this week strikes down a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in Michigan, same-gender marriages could be legal in Michigan, at least until a higher court says otherwise, which could be only a matter of hours or days.