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.
Got drunk and didn't drive once in in 1969
Try again.
Wrong.
A nonfatal accident is considered alcohol-involved or alcohol-related whenever a police accident report indicates there is evidence of alcohol present. This does not necessarily mean that a driver, passenger, or nonoccupant was actually tested for alcohol.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/99-r-0154.doc
Texas is one of the last free states that don't conduct sobriety checkpoints.
I'm sure that people like you will end that soon.
Just as I suspected, you drink and drive all the time. No wonder you think LEO is out to get you, it’s because they are.
Works for me!
lololol
I have no idea if the stats you posted from the CDCP are accurate or not, but if you are unaware that the CDCP are a bunch of liberal political hacks then you have been in lala land.
Actuallly my definition of a pro-drunk driving enthusiast is anyone who thinks .08 is too low. Or one who thinks the laws against DWI are too harsh. So... where does this definition leave me? I DO think 0.08% is too low... but, I DON'T believe the laws against DWI are too harsh.
You therefore, are a semi-pro.
troll be gone!
Never call 911.
The only person who's freedom gets endangered by doing that is you.
My attorney destroyed the state’s case on several fronts: he caught the arresting officer in blatant lies on the stand, he discovered and proved the problems with machine maintenance, he presented “expert” testimony that challenged the accuracy of both the machine and the concept of correlating “breath alcohol” with “blood alcohol”, and he even had the HPD head chemist testify under oath that the Breathalyzer was “not a chemical test”... which, at the time was REQUIRED under Texas law..(subsequently changed). Mine was somewhat of a model case that drew free support from a couple of larger firms.
I have little doubt about the machine’s accuracy in measuring alcohol in a person’s breath (when properly maintained) Even in 1983, IR machines were accurate in this way. But, there are MANY other factors that have tremendous affect on a person’s actual impairment. Things like.. TIME since the alcohol was consumed, other compounds in the bloodstream, physical and mental conditioning, the “blood-brain barrier”, etc... All these factors contribute to a significant “measurement error” when correlated with “impairment”.
Again.. that’s why I think the ‘sensible’ way to approach this problem (and, I DEFINITELY think drunk driving IS a problem).... is to get away from aggressive enforcement of marginally impaired people, and get MORE aggressive with punishment for people who are obviously, and demonstrably impaired... and, move toward ZERO tolerance for repeat offenders.
You are correct.
The purpose is to end travel by private automobile.
What has to happen in order to have your property taken away?
Good question. As I carry scars inflicted by a drunk driver, I am a proud MADD supporter as MADD was able to help and assist me in obtaining justice.
You should be advocating against cell phone talkers who drive. Or other stupid drivers.
Some may argue that inattentive drivers who yack on cell phone are just as dangerous as a drunk driver. I don’t know. But I do know that alcohol mixed with a pair of car keys leads to 17,000+ deaths each year.
Read it again. They are talking about the auto driver being drunk or the pedestrian that got run over being drunk or the bicyclist involved in the collision being drunk. They aren’t talking about passengers.
As far as being a prohibitionist, I'm far from it. I don't care if you get sh*t faced daily, just stay off the road. Again, you have your pat argument against issues I never brought up.
You make the claim that it's about rights, but it appears the only right you are referring to is the right to drink and drive otherwise you wouldn't be spouting .1% is safe.
Thanks for posting this.
I’m sadly not surprised to see this, as a Harris County resident.
Eh? Not even close.
I laughed and laughed.
God bless Texas!!
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.