Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Police Will Take Blood By Force in DUI Cases
Ft. Worth Star Telegram via TheNewspaper.com ^ | 9/14/05 | Ft. Worth Star Telegram Staff

Posted on 09/14/2005 3:42:43 PM PDT by elkfersupper

Dalworthington Gardens, Texas police will draw the blood of drunk driving suspects.

After completing a training course, Dalworthington Gardens police officers have been certified to draw blood from any motorist whom they suspect of driving under the influence of alcohol. The small North Texas city joins three counties -- Montague, Archer and Clay -- which have recently adopted similar policies.

These jurisdictions are seeking to make drunk driving convictions less vulnerable to court challenge as mounting evidence shows breathalyzer machines can be inaccurate. Under the new policy, a suspect will be brought to a police station and asked in a videotaped interrogation to submit voluntarily to a blood test. If the request is refused, police will call one of the judges who have agreed to remain on-call to obtain a warrant. If approved, police will draw the blood, by force if necessary. Anyone who refuses a blood test, even if not convicted or formally accused of a crime, will surrender his license to drive on the spot and will not see it again for at least six months.

"It's kind of eerie," Frank Colosi, an attorney who works with the Fort Worth chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union told the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. "It's kind of grotesque that the government can come and take your blood."

Section 724.017 of the Texas code requires that, "Only a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse may take a blood specimen at the request or order of a peace officer....'qualified technician' does not include emergency medical services personnel." Dalworthington Gardens believes their twenty-hour course meets this standard.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: alcohol; billofrights; constitutionlist; donutwatch; dui; dumbideas; dwi; fascism; govwatch; jackbootedthugs; leo; madd; scotus; vampires; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-237 next last
To: elkfersupper
Anyone who refuses a blood test, even if not convicted or formally accused of a crime, will surrender his license to drive on the spot and will not see it again for at least six months.

So let me get this straight. You can be forced to give a blood specimen, but if you refuse you'll lose your license? How can you refuse if you're forced? Okay, now I'm confused.

61 posted on 09/14/2005 4:28:20 PM PDT by semaj (qu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Oh, this is gonna work real well. Nope, don't see any problems arising at all.

/sarcasm


62 posted on 09/14/2005 4:28:28 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrStumpy
Your anecdotal experience, though unfortunate, doesn't mean we chuck the Constitution out the window, or abrogate the Bill of Rights. Which is precisely what you're suggesting.
63 posted on 09/14/2005 4:28:35 PM PDT by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
If the "right to privacy", specificaly between a patient and her physician, bars any legislation restricting abortion, can someone explain how a medical practioner can turn over my medical records, at all, much less force a test.

I don't object to access to some records, blood test in an accident, reporting of child abusers or potential criminals by mental health professionals, but it flies in the face of Roe as I understand it.

64 posted on 09/14/2005 4:29:14 PM PDT by SJackson (“I worry that I've seen this movie before”, Rep. Mark Kirk on aid to palestinians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Anyone who has blood taken by these vampires can call me, and I will represent you in a federal civil rights suit against everyone involved.


65 posted on 09/14/2005 4:31:10 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

Well, that's better than getting pulled over for some minor sin and getting a blood test, but I still don't think it's a good idea.


66 posted on 09/14/2005 4:31:29 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs ("Nuthin' ain't worth nuthin', but it's free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: semaj
How can you refuse if you're forced? Okay, now I'm confused.

You lose your license on the side of the road, before you are forced to submit a blood sample, and a looooooooonnnnng time before you get to court on the charge.

67 posted on 09/14/2005 4:32:32 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Oh, this is gonna work real well. Nope, don't see any problems arising at all.

My best guess is that every LEO will find themselves able or required to do this very soon.

68 posted on 09/14/2005 4:34:35 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

"Pretty much standard for DWI and certain "Domestic Violence" allegations since about 1993."

Still unconstitutional, by my reading of that document, no matter how desireable the purpose for which the unconstitutionality was originally created might have been. Very bad precedent.


69 posted on 09/14/2005 4:35:42 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrStumpy

>>If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about<<

Oh, really? That would be real comfort to a client of mine that spent 5 hours in jail after being arrested because he was painting.

Yes, you read that right: he was painting.


70 posted on 09/14/2005 4:36:27 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
The attempt to reinstate alcohol prohibition "at the margins," instead of an outright ban like the failed eighteenth amendment, is one of those peculiar movements that has brought together the oddest of allies: the politically correct left and fundamentalists in what is called the "religious right."

They have different motives, to be sure, but their goals are the same: make alcohol consumption increasingly expensive, "shameful" in public, and a "disease" if imbibed in any amount in private. And they are winning, "at the margins," surely and steadily.

71 posted on 09/14/2005 4:36:32 PM PDT by A Jovial Cad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1L

Painting while driving is risky. You might smear the picture.


72 posted on 09/14/2005 4:37:30 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 1L

You have FReepMail


73 posted on 09/14/2005 4:38:33 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

You're right. I never thought about that.


74 posted on 09/14/2005 4:38:50 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

pump a round thru his chest?


75 posted on 09/14/2005 4:39:38 PM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
My best guess is that every LEO will find themselves able or required to do this very soon.


"What, you mean with my donut hand?"

76 posted on 09/14/2005 4:40:49 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs ("Nuthin' ain't worth nuthin', but it's free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: MrStumpy
DUI is not a victimless crime, it is indeed a very violent crime........what you say no one was hurt? Think about it this way....If someone shoots thru the windows of a school with kids inside, is it any less violent because no one was hit.

You are really reaching there. Very lame analogy. But maybe MADD will like it
77 posted on 09/14/2005 4:41:03 PM PDT by dennisw (***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

Naw, they probably wouldn't shoot him for refusing a blood test...Maybe his dog, though.


78 posted on 09/14/2005 4:41:53 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs ("Nuthin' ain't worth nuthin', but it's free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

ROTFLOL!!!!!!


79 posted on 09/14/2005 4:43:04 PM PDT by Petruchio ( ... .--. .- -.-- / .- -. -.. / -. . ..- - . .-. / .. .-.. .-.. . --. .- .-.. / .- .-.. .. . -. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Read all about it here.

"The DUI Exception to the Constitution"

80 posted on 09/14/2005 4:43:09 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-237 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson