Texas Police Will Take Blood By Force in DUI Cases

Ft. Worth Star Telegram via TheNewspaper.com ^ | 9/14/05 | Ft. Worth Star Telegram Staff

[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.

[semaj]

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.

So let me get this straight. You can be forced to give a blood specimen, but if you refuse you'll lose your license? How can you refuse if you're forced? Okay, now I'm confused.

[Larry Lucido]

Oh, this is gonna work real well. Nope, don't see any problems arising at all.

/sarcasm

[A Jovial Cad]

Your anecdotal experience, though unfortunate, doesn't mean we chuck the Constitution out the window, or abrogate the Bill of Rights. Which is precisely what you're suggesting.

[SJackson]

If the "right to privacy", specificaly between a patient and her physician, bars any legislation restricting abortion, can someone explain how a medical practioner can turn over my medical records, at all, much less force a test.

I don't object to access to some records, blood test in an accident, reporting of child abusers or potential criminals by mental health professionals, but it flies in the face of Roe as I understand it.

[1L]

Anyone who has blood taken by these vampires can call me, and I will represent you in a federal civil rights suit against everyone involved.

[LongElegantLegs]

Well, that's better than getting pulled over for some minor sin and getting a blood test, but I still don't think it's a good idea.

[elkfersupper]

How can you refuse if you're forced? Okay, now I'm confused.

You lose your license on the side of the road, before you are forced to submit a blood sample, and a looooooooonnnnng time before you get to court on the charge.

[elkfersupper]

Oh, this is gonna work real well. Nope, don't see any problems arising at all.

My best guess is that every LEO will find themselves able or required to do this very soon.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Pretty much standard for DWI and certain "Domestic Violence" allegations since about 1993."

Still unconstitutional, by my reading of that document, no matter how desireable the purpose for which the unconstitutionality was originally created might have been. Very bad precedent.

[1L]

>>If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about<<

Oh, really? That would be real comfort to a client of mine that spent 5 hours in jail after being arrested because he was painting.

Yes, you read that right: he was painting.

[A Jovial Cad]

The attempt to reinstate alcohol prohibition "at the margins," instead of an outright ban like the failed eighteenth amendment, is one of those peculiar movements that has brought together the oddest of allies: the politically correct left and fundamentalists in what is called the "religious right."

They have different motives, to be sure, but their goals are the same: make alcohol consumption increasingly expensive, "shameful" in public, and a "disease" if imbibed in any amount in private. And they are winning, "at the margins," surely and steadily.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Painting while driving is risky. You might smear the picture.

[elkfersupper]

You have FReepMail

[1L]

You're right. I never thought about that.

[556x45]

pump a round thru his chest?

[LongElegantLegs]

My best guess is that every LEO will find themselves able or required to do this very soon.

"What, you mean with my donut hand?"

[dennisw]

DUI is not a victimless crime, it is indeed a very violent crime........what you say no one was hurt? Think about it this way....If someone shoots thru the windows of a school with kids inside, is it any less violent because no one was hit.

You are really reaching there. Very lame analogy. But maybe MADD will like it

[LongElegantLegs]

Naw, they probably wouldn't shoot him for refusing a blood test...Maybe his dog, though.

[Petruchio]

ROTFLOL!!!!!!

[elkfersupper]

Read all about it here.

"The DUI Exception to the Constitution"