Colorado's express consent law provides that drivers, by virtue of driving on state roadways, have already consented to take a breath or blood test when an officer has probable cause to believe the person is impaired by alcohol or drugs. Refusal to take the test results in a revocation of the driver's license. Moreover, blood tests can be performed on people who are unconscious.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado and several other western states, has ruled against a woman who was sober when she was arrested for DUI in Utah. She contended that, without a breathalyzer or blood-alcohol test showing she was under the influence, the state had insufficient evidence to charge her with DUI. Nevertheless, she was forced to defend herself from DUI charges for two-and-a-half months even though her blood-alcohol test would ultimately show a 0.01.
Rodney Class is a bit of a celebrity among 2nd Amendment advocates and constitutional strict constructionists. A military veteran with a concealed-carry permit from North Carolina, Class considers himself a defender of the constitution -- a "private attorney general" who seeks to hold judges accountable for failing to uphold the founding document.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just heard arguments in a case where a criminal defense attorney overruled his client's decision to insist on his innocence at trial. In a Louisiana death penalty case, the attorney gauged that there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Under federal law, sentencing for drug offenses and many other crimes is determined by formulas listed in the federal sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines are promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in cooperation with Congress. Sometimes, Congress and the Commission determine that the sentences for certain offenses have a tendency to be unduly harsh or unjust against a certain demographic.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a 10th Circuit drug case involving wiretap evidence. A federal judge in the District of Kansas issued a wiretap order against two suspects, but the modern wiretap process allowed law enforcement to listen even when the phones were outside that district. Should a Kansas District wiretap order be effective wherever its targets travel? Should evidence collected outside of the Kansas District be allowed against the defendants?