If a drunken-driving suspect has enough sense to keep his mouth shut, no policeman can force him to admit how much alcohol he has under his belt. But what if the cop demands a blood sample which will offer the same information, and probably more accurately? A sample the man must give, said the Supreme Court. And then it buckled down to explaining just why a man, who has a constitutional right to silence, must deliver his own blood in testimony against himself.
"We hold that the Constitution does not forbid the states minor intrusions into an individual's body under stringently...
To continue reading:
or
Log-In
