Skip to comments.Blood draw required if breath test refused
Posted on 05/25/2008 6:54:39 PM PDT by elkfersupper
Anyone who refuses to submit to a blood-alcohol breath test this weekend will be required to have his or her blood drawn, authorities said Tuesday in reminding residents of a new program scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. Friday.
District Attorney Susan Reed said the No Refusal Accepted' program is scheduled to continue through 7 a.m. Tuesday.
A registered nurse will be on duty both at the San Antonio magistrate's office and the detention center to draw blood from anyone arrested on suspicion of drunken driving who refused at the scene to take a breath test.
Prosecutors will assist with reviewing blood search warrants, Reed said, and local law enforcement agencies will participate in the effort.
What happened to not being forced to provide witness against oneself?
Out the door with regard to this particular offense.
It is 2008 and you may as well line your line your birdcage with the Bill of Rights.
I’d have to be a lot more than merely .08 for someone to draw a blood sample if I didn’t want them to: I’d have to be unconcious.
But I wouldn’t be the only one...
The denizens of Belarus are more free to travel their roads free from harassment by armed government agents than we are.
Don't forget this weekend and all Summer long "Click It Or Ticket"
Your gas tax dollars are going to buy spots on radio and TV spots every 7 minutes on every station in every market.
This is Texas. They like to take your land, your kids and now your blood. This state is nearly out of the hands of the people.
This has gotta be unconstitutional as in unlawful search and seizure.
Simple solution: DON”T DRIVE DRUNK!
Im many states, If you refuse a test, you lose your license for 6 month. It ststes that in the form you sign when renewinng your license.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Define “Drunk” if you will, please.
You are sadly misinformed.
Let's not forget Prohibition, and how the good intentions of the movement resulted in an amendment to the constitution which in turn, created one of the most violent criminal episodes in American History.
Well meaning busybodies throughout the country, not just San Antonio, are repeating a historical mistake through ignorance of what is a relatively recent past event.
Actually, you're both right. ( and wrong! )
Driving WAS a right, then the people gave the states the power to license drivers and vehicles, require testing, etc., etc..
Driving is now a "privilege" regulated by the various states until such time as the People take that "right" back.
If they fail to control their state's power to control the people, it is no one's fault but their own.
I don’t think that particular right has ever been extended that far—and I don’t think there would really be much reason to do so now.
If they have probable cause to believe you are drunk, they should have some way to enforce the law. However, I’d support allowing you to refuse, but this resulting in automatic suspension of your license for some period (or some other penalty that does not involve criminal penalties).
Note that I don’t think they necessarily have a right to stick a needle in you, just that your right against self-incrimination doesn’t cover it. The Forth Amendment right against unreasonable searches seems far more relevant.
It all began in 1990 when TX sanctioned the privitization of prisons and holding cells.
Since then, this syndicate has no decency or regard for constitutionality when acquiring ‘customers’. And pays handsomely for ‘police’ to haul ‘em in.
As long as the authorities, after forcible blood extraction find you actually had nothing to drink, will give you double what you could have gotten at the blood bank near the projects, I think its a great deal for everyone involved...
Actually I’ve heard, for reason such as these, that people arrested for DUI have a pretty good chance of beating the rap IF they are willing to shell out the money for a good attorney that will bring up issues such as this. There is a local attorney that claims that over 70% of his DUI clients are cleared...
THANK YOU FOR THAT LINK!
That is a terrific summary of the danger posed by the fanatics in MADD, and how they have already eroded our Constitutional rights.
What implications does this have for “Juan Valdez” who gladly blows a 0.15 , gives a vacant lot as an address and is released the next morning after getting a nice breakfast?
I don’t know. I have a big problem with FORCIBLY removing blood from someone who does not want it done.
Besides, you have the right to not have your breath tested and they can’t make you do it. But somehow that right doesn’t extend to your blood?
What happened to the Bill of Rights? Did those get repealed when I wasn’t looking?
I can see using refusal to submit to breath or blood tests as admissible evidence in a criminal case against a suspected drunk driver, but forcibly taking blood is not acceptable in the America I thought I lived in.
Driving on your own property is a right.
Driving on public highways and byways is not.
Note that I’m not saying it shouldn’t be protected, just that it has a lot more to do with unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment) than with self-incrimination (5th Amendment).
Otherwise any use of physical evidence involving your body—even your fingerprints—would arguably involve “self-incrimination” and be prohibited. The 5th Amendment right has far more to do with preventing abuse of your testimony (likely through coersion) that could render it unreliable—a danger that doesn’t apply to physical evidence like this.
From the article: “Prosecutors will assist with reviewing blood search warrants...”
What makes this an ‘unlawful search and seizure’ any more than any other search done under a warrant?
You're very welcome and pass it on.
Your license is suspended (you are punished) long before you ever get to court, there are numerous other punishments whether you are convicted or not, and the thing rides with you for the rest of your life.
It's kind of like feeling up your 13-year-old girlfriend when you are 14 and being branded as a sex offender.
Sorry, the right to peaceably travel is indisputable.
Indeed. The problem is that there are men with guns who have no compunction against using them to ventilate your body who have a never heard of the common law right of Englishmen to travel the public roads without being subject to harassment from highwaymen.
The most dangerous people in this nation IMO have become those who worship the law. You'll find several on this thread, as these kinds of threads always bring out the usual suspects who jump at any chance to support the expansion of the police state.
Welcome to my camp.
Pleased to defend you and watch your back anytime you think it's necessary.
And you feel that there should be no driving test required, eh?
“The most dangerous people in this nation IMO have become those who worship the law.”
Well said, and 100% true!!
Anyone who thinks this is a good thing must go orgasmic over DUI checkpoints.
I've been in your camp for ages. You haven't noticed me because snipers like to take elevated positions so as to have a clear field of fire. :-) I've noticed you (and others) here for quite a while. Certain threads draw out the statists, and defenders of liberty rather efficiently. I found the recent flds threads to be rather interesting in that regard, as many who are otherwise quiet popped up.
Pleased to defend you and watch your back anytime you think it's necessary.
Thanks. Same here.
I got your back as well.
“Your gas tax dollars are going to buy spots on radio and TV spots every 7 minutes on every station in every market.”
I get very angry every time these commercials are run. Nothing like being directly threatened by my own government. It is no longer “for the people or by the people.” These commercials are conclusive proof that “the people” are now the governed. The saddest thing is that the governed just keep reelecting these thugs!
BTW, thanks for the ping to this thread.
“Well meaning busybodies throughout the country, not just San Antonio, are repeating a historical mistake through ignorance of what is a relatively recent past event.”
I would argue that the busybodies are not ignorant of history, instead they are indifferent to the innevitable results of their desires. As long as they get to control others, they don’t care about the collateral damage to our Republic.
” If I understand the new proposal correctly , they would extend the taking of the sample by force ,”
A truly frightening thought just passed through my mind....
If society finds it acceptable that the state can forcibly stick a needle into your vein and withdraw blood, what would stop the state from inevitably finding a reason to stick a needle into your vein and injecting some substance? Think, for the good of society we can make men less aggressive by injecting hormone A or think about the nationalizing of health care and how it relates to this subject.....
I'd say this constitutes an unreasonable escalation in force on the part of the police. Hope they are ready for what comes next.
“I dont know. I have a big problem with FORCIBLY removing blood from someone who does not want it done.”
Unless, of course, the blood is that of tyrants and it is being forcibly removed with the aid of a high velocity lead projectile!
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.