EDITORIAL: Implied consent

Drunken drivers and other dangerous criminals deserve to be locked up. But they also deserve every protection afforded under the Constitution. Arrests and prosecutions must not come at the expense of rights, and the Nevada Supreme Court last week made sure that’s the case for Silver State residents.

As reported by the Review-Journal’s Sean Whaley, the court declared the state’s implied consent law unconstitutional. The law permitted authorities to force a motorist to submit to a blood test without a warrant to determine impairment. Based on a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely, the Nevada court said in a unanimous decision that the state’s law violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

The law justified a warrantless search wherein the subject did not have the option to revoke consent, the court said.

“It is a monumental case because it rules that the state, which does not really have an implied consent statute, is unconstitutional,” said Las Vegas attorney John Watkins, an expert on DUI law. “Therefore, now police are going to have to go get a warrant or get true knowing and voluntary consent.”

While this ruling — which covers blood and breath tests — might draw the ire of groups that lobby for tough drunken driving standards and punishments, it creates a negligible burden for law enforcement. Mr. Watkins told Mr. Whaley that a police officer can get a warrant over the phone in about 15 minutes, and a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Department said the court’s ruling won’t affect its day-to-day operations.

This is an important ruling that protects constitutional rights, something Mr. Watkins has spent his lengthy and distinguished career doing. That’s one of the primary reasons the Review-Journal editorial board endorsed his candidacy for District Court judge in Department 2 in next month’s elections.

Kudos to the court for getting an unconstitutional law off the books.