[sarasmom]

So she is carrying a weapon, is arrested, is said to be visibly under the influence of alcohol, but the cops can't get a blood test drawn after taking her into custody without a special court order,solely because she refused to take a field sobriety test?

That's not making any kind of logical sense to me.

Mostly laws have a decent degree of logic attached to them.

I'm not buying this story at all, that she could be arrested and not tested.

[DoodleDawg]

So she is carrying a weapon, is arrested, is said to be visibly under the influence of alcohol, but the cops can't get a blood test drawn after taking her into custody without a special court order,solely because she refused to take a field sobriety test?

You have that backwards. She was arrested and only afterwards was found to be carrying. She wasn't issued a field sobriety test because there was no reason to. And once arrested you have the right to refuse to cooperate with the police. You don't have to answer questions. You don't have to provide a blood sample. You don't have to take a Breathalyzer.

That's not making any kind of logical sense to me.

Don't confuse what police can do when they suspect you of DWI with what they can and can't do under other circumstances.

Mostly laws have a decent degree of logic attached to them.

The law is the law.

I'm not buying this story at all, that she could be arrested and not tested.

Even people like her have Constitutional rights.