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.
Kinda like those evil SUVs that kill people, huh? How do we stop these inanimate objects from destroying lives like this?
BTW, name the company, it is there. About 10 different big ones in all.
Can you back up your statement with real facts and stats?
Until you get that done, maybe you should just shut up.
Oh Nanny please change my depends ....
Ron explained that they discriminate against sidewalk drivers in Texas.
Did you forget your /sarcasm tag?
Totally twisted logic to equate the two. We're against DUI laws because nothing's more American than copping a perfectly Red, White & Blue alcohol buzz and getting behind the wheel of a car. The War on Drugs is a necessary and welcome endeavor, mostly because we don't do those nasty illegal type drugs.
You seem to be in belief of a police state that never does anything wrong.
The fact is this policy sets people up for confrontation. They are not told that if they refuse the breathalyzer they’re taking blood. If you give people an ‘either / or’ situation - which is exactly what it is - instead of HIDING that fact, just tell ‘em. Most people would rather take the breathalyzer.
This country is going totalitarian and police are being taught not to look at people as innocent before guilty, but everyone is guilty and it’s only a matter of time before we collect enough evidence against you before we get you. We’re passing more and more nanny laws that are turning regular people into law breakers for doing non-criminal things (not wearing a seat belt, for example).
The last thing this country needs is a DNA database full of innocent people. Having to give up samples on arrest (whether or not you are guilty) is just not right. It’s like UK’s orwellian progress. The police wind up being more interested in taking assets and property rather than taking down real criminals. They just become an extension of the collection arm of government.
Show me the stats where sobriety checkpoints are more effective than having the same 20 officers doing routine patrol work, stopping people with probable cause? You won't be able to. They are a unconstitutional invasion against unreasonable search and seizure.
[No wonder our DWI fatalities are off the charts.]
AZ has blood testing and we still have off the chart DUIs.
Or... someone who has seen, first hand, the money-making racket and complete disregard for right/wrong or guilty/innocent that can be run by 'law enforcement'. I have... I've seen police arrest 80 people in one night.. and convict 79 of them based on a Breathalyzer that the police KNEW was not working properly.. No one cared. And, most people can't afford to even try to fight.
I still say... define the limit of "drunk" at a higher, less ambiguous level, and then set severe penalties. People will adapt to this kind of law, and the problems will be solved. What we are doing now is... trying a backward, unwarranted approach to prohibition.
“The stats on DUI fatalites (and what makes up a fatality) are available through the NHTSA.”
I’m not inclined to trust them, either. I’ve heard it said that they include all accidents in which anyone involved had consumed ay amount of alcohol.
You never cease to amaze me.
Mop Buckets, huh?
Yeah. I can see it now. MAMB. (Mothers Against Mop Buckets)
If I tell you there are over 17,000 American killed each year due to DWI fatalities, will you then tell me the number of toilet fatalities?
Geez Elk... you are embarrasing yourself and all those who want to swallow your “DWI is good” message.
Good. Get drunks off the road.
Didn't do that here in ohio they just put 2 confusing laws on the ballots both leading to the same thing and of cours the sheep gave away the rights of others !
Oh well sheep never learn !
“How does your diabetes affect the issue?”
Can’t drink. No dog in the fight.
Google is your friend. Start with the NHTSA.
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.