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.
I think that California works it thusly:
You can refuse a breath test or blood test, but that means automatic forfeiture of your driving license, and priviledge.
And a presumption of DUI.
But they don't wrestle with you.
There are two "jurisdictions" here; the civil/criminal courts for the violation, and the Department of Motor Vehicles, for driver licensing--the latter has administrative power to revoke/suspend licenses, etc.
I lost a son to a drunk driver and I don't believe impared drivers have any rights. You want to drink, stay off the damn roads.
Brilliant reply. You cite Miller (which is about the legality of a sawed-off shotgun) as cause to show legality of driving without a license. When I say apples don't equal oranges you just say I am wrong and you refuse to talk about it. Do you also stick your fingers in your ears and shout La!-La!-La!-La!-La!-La! ????
>>MADD strikes again, and the witch hunt continues.
Amen. Ironic that Roberts is getting grilled about trifles while the 4th Amendment gets stomped on.
You said"You already lose your license in Texas if you refuse a sobriety test." That is an outright lie! You lose it if you refuse a breathalyzer, not a sobriety test.
>> MADD doesnt want you not to have fun!
Then why is MADD always pressing for BAC limits that are in the zone where impairment is seriously in question?
Why doesn't MADD concentrate on pursuing multiple offenders who, frankly, don't care if they have a license or not and will continue to drive?
Could it be that MADD has a nice lobbying racket going and likes the politicos to help them pick the low-hanging fruit?
Giving blood is not self-incrimination, any more than is giving your name. Sorry, that case was decided long ago.
The government, the police, and the other neo-prohibitionists suckered you into assuming that 40% of traffic deaths are caused by drunk drivers...but "alcohol related" means that any person involved in the accident, driver, passenger, or pedestrian, had a BAC of at least 1%. Also see Supercat's post 113 which puts that in context.
Two places in D/FW you don't want to get pulled over: Dalworthington Gardens and Pantego. I'm not saying the cops are crooked, but I sure wouldn't want to rely on each and every one's honesty for anything. I know too many people who've been cited for B.S.
Correction: My statement "had a BAC of at least 1%" should have read "had a BAC of at least 0.01."
Oh really? saminfl in post 104 asked for a cititation to support this assertion:
... but around 40% of all accidents with fatalities is caused that has been drinking.
Who's the assumer?
Shoot him in the leg and mop up the "evidence."
DUI/DWI is already OVER PUNISHED, and I don't drink, at all! This is really getting out of hand.
Red6
The original assumption was posted by Lester Moore.
Its not that hard, you just need someone to lay on their legs,another to hold the arm that you are going to use and someone to hold the other arm so they can't grab at the needle. Just becareful you don't stick yourself or the person helping you hold the arm with the dirty needle or you will be drawing two samples for aids and hepatitus testing.
"Giving blood is not self-incrimination, any more than is giving your name. Sorry, that case was decided long ago"
BS. This isn't about "giving blood" that's a whole different thing than having blood forcefully taken. If you've had a drink and "give" blood, you are an idiot for willfully testifying against yourself. The state has no right whatsoever to forcefully "take" anyones blood or anything else but your drivers license and or vehicle(s)
"About 40% of accidents "involve alcohol"
In my state, you can be stopped at a redlight, broadsided by an out of control 18 wheeler and if you are over the limit you're guilty of vehicular homicide if the truck driver dies.Another alcohol related accident
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.