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.
Either way, it's crap and needs to be stopped.
And here I was always taught search incident to arrest stopped at the skin...
I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore, you are wrong. I've shown you to be wrong. If you refuse to believe your lyin' eyes, there's nothing I can do for you.
I don't think that is true at all. If so, it means that all these DUI laws have not worked very well, or there must have been a 98% rate at some time. Please cite a source for this (not one from MADD).
If he were dead I wouldn't think you would need to use force.
How many other laws should we change because of your personal problems?
And that amounts to proving innocence.
Not anymore, apparently. I suspect that if this program suffers a setback, a blood draw will become part of the "inventory" AKA illegal search of person and vehicle before the handcuffs and tow truck come out.
Would you go to a bar, which are still legal by the way, if there was a cop in there watching you and then following you out to your vehicle? I know I wouldn't, even if I had only had one beer.
If you want to solve traffic related deaths due to alcohol, close every bar and nightclub, vfw, eagles, moose, etc and see how Americans react.
If you look into it a little bit, you will find that all of this is both dangerous and impractical in every State now.
In Ohio there are drive-through liquor stores with signs expressly forbidding customers from entering on foot.
Talk amongst yourselves.
I know 2 diabetics that have had DWI charges filed and prosecuted against them AND THEY DON'T DRINK AT ALL.
This is a BS law and will be shot down in the courts.
Let's say just for sake of argument that the cops want a DWI charge and the blood comes back clean so they decide to infuse some alchohol into the sample to get the results they want.
Oh wait I forgot ALL cops are perfect and trustworthy...
I don't think that is true at all. If so, it means that all these DUI laws have not worked very well, or there must have been a 98% rate at some time. Please cite a source for this (not one from MADD).
About 40% of accidents "involve alcohol". The definition of "involving alcohol", however, is rather broad and includes any accident in which anybody present had a BAC of over 0.00. Given that many accidents occur at times when many vehicles have at least one person in them who has had at least something to drink, a 40% "alcohol-related" accident figure should not be surprising.
"Why don't we just ban booze..."
Why don't we just ban MADD...
Isn't forcing you to give your blood compelling you to be a witness against yourself.
MADD is a disease. You said, "You forget that the people that this will be used against are breaking the law".
Having nothing to drink stronger than water or coffee and driving does not make a person a law breaker. There will be those caught up in this who have had nothing to drink. They should not have to give a blood sample. Having said that, I hope you get caught up in one of these 'incidents' and suffer the ridicule and embarrasment of being accused and 'convicted' without trial by a jury of your peers.
Having a police officer stick a needle in me for a blood sample seems like police brutality blending into cruel and unusual punishment.
It looks like the rights of those accused of driving under the influence have been almost completely eroded. This is far worse than I realized.
I cannot stand that bit of propaganda. Driving is in no way a privilege. It is an absolute right.
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.