Posted on 12/28/2007 7:07:11 PM PST by elkfersupper
More Texas jurisdictions are turning to forced blood draws to convict those suspected of DUI.
Jurisdictions within Texas are expanding programs where police use force to draw blood from motorists accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Last week, El Paso announced it had joined Harris and Wilson Counties in a "no refusal" program specifically designed to streamline the blood drawing process.
It works as follows. An accused motorist is arrested and taken downtown. While being videotaped, he will be asked to submit to a breathalyzer test with officers specifically avoiding any mention that blood will be taken by force if the often inaccurate breathalyzer test is refused.
During key holiday weekends, a pre-assigned judge who agreed to wait by the phone will approve search warrants created from pre-written templates -- often within just thirty minutes. With warrant in hand, a nurse whose salary is often paid by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) will draw blood while police officers exert the required level of force. In some cases, this use of force can cause permanent damage. Montague, Archer and Clay counties have similar programs except that these departments do away with the nurse and have police officers perform the blood draw themselves, despite a state law banning the practice (view law).
Two of the twelve motorists subjected to the first blood draws in Harris County on Memorial Day weekend this year were later found to have blood alcohol levels below the .08 limit. The program will return on New Year's Eve.
ISTR that the Supremes ruled checkpoints constitutional, but normally police need a reason to pull you over or question you. .
In 86 Arizona Territory, they dropped the legal to .15 , there was a knashing of teeth then.
Learn to read.
"fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or non-occupant (pedestrian or bicyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value."
The only way your scenario (sober driver, drinker passengers) would be counted is if they ran into a drinking pedestrian or bicyclist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ooops! just opened the gate to a "WUI" and "BUI" discussion... '-]
Any alcohol found on the scene of an accident is counted.
I know you didn’t, I was just trying to say something that should go for a hundred years. The Libs at FR are quite numerous.
Apparently the simple solution to avoiding a blood draw on a suspected DUI is to stay home when you’re drunk.
What I’m saying is that the first non-drunk person who gets their blood drawn doesn’t have that simple solution to use.
Now tell me again how driving while drunk is a GOOD thing?”
____________________________
Still waiting....
I know several people (yes, more than one) who have been convicted of DUI for riding their horse while under the influence of alcohol.
Sooo...following that reasoning, if you are sober, but carry a drunk friend home on your back, can that friend be convicted of DUI even though you're sober?
I'm not from TX, so I looked it up in their statutes. The 3 yrs I got from the thread was wrong. The suspension is automatic and is for 180days(6months), unless there's been a prior(drug, or alcohol), then it's 2yrs automatic. There could be an administrative hearing, but that's only for technicalities. The statute calls for automatic 180days suspension-period.
Tell me. Does your rectum hurt when your head is that far up it?
—”Hooray for Texas in doing this. It can only save lives.”—
Un-F’n-believable.
—”..... making my posts seem all the more brilliant”—
Impossible.
NHTSA is NOTORIOUS for falsifying or using bad information.
If the data is from NHTSA, as a standard rule, it should and must always be considered a dubious source.
Their standards for collecting data are more tenuous than algores global warming hockey stick.
Most DWI cases are tossed because the cops are just plain incomptetent in prosecuting the case. They get ROUTINELY caught in lies, they ROUTINELY falsify DWI reports (even to the point of prefilling out the reports), They do not do proper maintainance on brethalyzers, they do not use proper procedure in the roadside exercises, they do use out dated and already prohibited roadside exercises to justify an arrest and have that fact tossed in their face during cross exam.
Remember folks JURIES find these people not guilty.
Often times the cops are making boneheaded mistakes. (ie doing exams on uneven or unpaved surfaces)
Quoting NHTSA is laughable. (in once case HHTSA reported motocycle fatalities from a state THAT DID NOT RECORD MOTORCYCLE FATALITIES)
gee how interesting, insurance companies are reporting LOWER DUI/DWI fatalities.
Criminal attorneys are reporting FEWER DUI/DWI cases hurting their bottom line. (no crime no client)
The fact is EDUCATION has worked. MOre people are aware to not drive drunk. What is left is sloppy police work which is resulting in cases tossed at trial.
Result: Police applying for convictions by intimidation. (its all legal till the appeal judge says otherwise or the client can actually afford a lawyer.)
Less than one % of those stopped in a DUI checkpoint meet the level of DUI. Quite a feat considering the threshold is now .08 in most states.
I hardly think that result is worth the additional loss of freedom.
Spare me the if it saves one life argument.
—”I’ve been on these threads where you post like the drunken idiot. Seriously, what keeps you here?”—
Of course. Think of the lives it would save!!!! /s
The comments in your post are totaltarian BS. Maybe they will rip out a vein when they force you to experience such an evil atrocity.
Generally the refusal can be contested in an administrative hearing.
If this was in FL, these “consent by deception omission” would be tossed and the administrative suspension cancelled.
I think the previous posters said it best: education has worked too well so now cops have to find a new way to rig the system.
People have learned how to question sloppy police work, people now know Nifong was SOP not an exception, people know cop lie routinely.
I have always recomended to clients REFUSE EVERYTHING. It is easy to challenge in an adminstrative hearing the sloppy police work.
Here’s a couple of relevant statutes. They don’t allow for anyone to escape the system for refusing a test, unless the cop blows the probable cause and/or the paperwork.
§ 724.015. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OFFICER BEFORE
REQUESTING SPECIMEN. Before requesting a person to submit to the taking of a specimen, the officer shall inform the person orally and in writing that:
(1) if the person refuses to submit to the taking of the specimen, that refusal may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution;
(2) if the person refuses to submit to the taking of the specimen, the person’s license to operate a motor vehicle will be automatically suspended, whether or not the person is subsequently prosecuted as a result of the arrest, for not less than 180 days;
§ 724.042. ISSUES AT HEARING. The issues at a hearing
under this subchapter are whether:
(1) reasonable suspicion or probable cause existed to stop or arrest the person;
(2) probable cause existed to believe that the person was:
(A) operating a motor vehicle in a public place
while intoxicated; or
(B) operating a watercraft powered with an engine having a manufacturer’s rating of 50 horsepower or above while intoxicated;
(3) the person was placed under arrest by the officer and was requested to submit to the taking of a specimen; and
(4) the person refused to submit to the taking of a
specimen on request of the officer.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 444, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
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.