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.
Then, maybe you will understand.
What worries me about this is the sterility of the needles used.
What if the cops reuse a needle that was last used on someone with AIDS?
Should anyone other than an MD or RN or other medical professional be sticking people with needles?
Nooooo your link did not support the assertion that 40% of fatal accidents were caused by a driver that had been drinking. If you can put aside your evident preoccupation with anal sex for a few moments...please read the content of your own citation, which I have already once posted for you, to wit:
During 2003, 17,013 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 40% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2004a).
I also pointed out to you in my post 128 that "alcohol-related" did not mean that the driver was drunk, it simply means that somebody, anybody, involved in the accident had a detectable BAC content, which could be as low as .01, which is 8 times below the .08 level in use by most (now all?) states, and 15 times the .15 level that used to be the norm. Since you seem not understand simple abstract concepts this evening, I will tell you a little bedtime tale:
Once upon a time there was a man named Pedro, who was a driver of a 1992 Ford EconoVan containing 19 other "undocumented" workers, returning from a day in the groves to to their rented 2 bedroom house. Jose was a passage in the back of the van, and is drinking a type of tequila from his home village, where it is considered a health beverage. Jose is the only person in the van with any alcohol in his system, and at autopsy, it will be found that he had a BAC of .03. Pedro is going 95 MPH southbound on the Florida pike in the passing lane when the music cassette runs out. Pedro pops it out and fumbles for the another mariachi tape...but inadvertently turns the steering wheel and flips the van...into a 2002 SAAB 9-5 wagon, driven by Stephan, a 27 year old father, with his wife Sally in the front passenger seat, and his son, Junior aged 6, and daughter, Tiffany, aged 4, both in proper safety seats in the back. None of the four passengers in the SAAB had been drinking, and all survived, with varying levels of injuries, the accident. But the SAAB careened over the highway, and struck and killed a hitchhiker who was standing next to an entrance ramp to the highway. The hitchhiker had not been drinking. Eight of the passengers in the van were thrown from the van and were killed, including Jose.
In this sad little story we have 25 people involved, and nine dead. No one except one passenger in the van had any alcohol in his system, and his BAC was well below the amount considered "impaired" for driving. Test question: Is this fatal accident "alcohol-related?"
Answer: Yes it is! Jose, in the back of the van, who did nothing to cause the accident, had a detectable BAC content, and so this will be reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as one the 40% "alcohol-related" fatalities. Was the driver drinking? No! So your link does not support the assertion that 40% of traffic deaths are caused by drivers who are drinking.
In New Orleans driving and evacuating are privileges
Is the hitchhiker's death "alcohol related" since the accident itself is?
Have a good Assuming day now, you hear?
I am just saying that blood (as well as fingerprints) can be taken without consent --with a valid warrant-- and that is not a violation of the 5th amendment. Those cases were decided long ago by the US Supreme Court.
Pretty easy to figure out really. One is a money maker. The other is an expense.
On the other hand, the lawyers are going to have field day with this one.
But here are no criminal charges and associated fines and legal fees if all they do is take away the license. They want the evidence to be able to make a criminal complaint.
"Isn't forcing you to give your blood compelling you to be a witness against yourself."
Not according to Justice Scalia.
Nor are fingerprints or DNA swabs.
And the jackboots will all say it is for your safety and countless moron "freepers" will agree with all the above.
I bet you see as many FR cops complaining about this as the gun seizures and illegal searches in N.O.
Nor should it. Since the penalty for refusal can just as easily be made the same as it is for guilt.
Yes, at least here in Indiana, that is exactly how they do it. This is not new. This is the law under many model OWI statutes, and has been for 20 years. In Indiana it is also a crime for any physician, nures or technician to refuse to take a forcable blood sample when instructed to do so by a law enforcement office. This has not been much of an issue up to now because of the relilance on breathalyzer tests. Interesting, blood tests are subject to their own set of legal challenges, like chain of custody, serum vs. whole blood test, contamination of the sample and temperature degradation of the sample when stored at imporper temperatures,
Sieg Heil!
At that point you have refused to give a blood sample voluntarily and at the least lose your license for six months.
B*** Sh**. In most states, refusing a sobriety test gets your license suspended for refusing the test. Show me one case where a defendant was convicted of DUI for simply refusing the test.
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.