The fact that she was resisting arrest is irrelevant? That makes a lot of sense.
As the officer said in #102
However, in this situation, with two large officers and one little female subject, I can see no reason for her to be tased. I have had numerous suspects curse me, threaten me, make an arrest difficult for me, etc. The lady was NOT fighting or stuggling much at all - the two officers should have been able to restrain her w/o resorting to the use of a taser.Cops don't draw blood on people in a parking lot. If they have probable cause they can get a search warrant for blood and have a physician do it.
Forceful Blood Draws by Cops: Constitutional?Her flu medication would have nothing to do with her blood alcohol. Even if it did, if your son or daughter was killed by a drunk driver would it really make a difference what got her drunk.Some time ago I commented on the increasingly rough tactics used by police to incapacitate a nonconsenting DUI suspect while a nurse or blood technician draws a blood sample. More recently, I discussed the approach now being used in Utah: doing away with the doctor, nurse or medical technician and simply letting the officer stick a needle into the suspect himself out on the highway. (It takes little imagination to envision the scene: the struggling suspect thrown across the dirty hood of his car, his hands cuffed behind his back, the officer with a baton in one hand and a hypodermic needle in the other....)
I've received a number of inquiries from attorneys concerning that post, advising me that their own states are now planning to emulate Utah's new cost-effective approach and asking for any ideas on how to challenge it.
A citizen arrested for DUI usually has the right to choose between taking a breath test or a blood test. There is, of course, a third choice: refuse to take either. The individual can do this, but there are consequences: he will face an increased jail sentence or a longer driver’s license suspension -- or, in most states, both.
The problem is that some police just won't take "no" for an answer. An increasing practice among law enforcement agencies is to simply ignore this third choice and forcefully take blood from the arrestee (although some states have banned this practice). By doing this, they can "have their cake and eat it, too": blood is obtained for testing-- and the suspect still suffers the heavier sentencing for having refused.
So, just how much "force" will the courts permit? Or looking at this from the legal view, drawing blood is considered a Search of the person and, therefore, must be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which still leaves the question: What is "reasonable" force?
The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Rochin v. California (342 U.S. 165), where a drug suspect was unconscious and the police forced open his mouth and pumped his stomach to get drugs. Such conduct is not permissible, the Court said, if it "shocks the conscience". This vague "shocks the conscience" standard -- if it is a standard -- was later applied by the Supreme Court in a drunk driving case: The blood, the Court said, must be taken under "humane and medically acceptable" circumstances. Schmerber v. California (384 U.S. 757). [As anyone who has watched certain videotapes knows, California seems to have recurring problems with heavy-handed police.]
Humane and medically acceptable circumstances.....Shocks the conscience.....Well, let’s take a look at what police and courts in California have decided this all means. In Carleton v. Superior Court (216 Cal.Rptr. 890), the California Court of Appeals was confronted with a case where the arrested citizen was pinned down by six police officers, a needle jammed into him and blood forceably withdrawn. The Court saw nothing wrong with this: "Although this degree of force may approach the brink of excessiveness, it was not excessive. Carleton’s self-induced brief physical restraint before and during the withdrawal of a blood sample is not conscience shocking."
One wonders what it would take to go over that "brink".....
Many things affect the BAC without causing intoxication. You can register alcohol after being exposed to paint, gasoline, even Rolaids.
Further, alcohol affects different people differently. One person could be falling down drunk at .10; another might not show any impairment at all. In fact, there is research that indicates that 20% of drivers actually improve with alcohol.
Please do some research before posting to me again. Or if that is too much, at least read the links I post.