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.
“Alcohol on the scene also gets included regardless of BAC.
(Grandpa going home with liquor in the trunk wins him a spot on the list)”
IOW, the stats are just so much biological methane.
I’ve been on these threads where you post like the drunken idiot. Seriously, what keeps you here?
DUI laws have become (IMO) more of a predictive punishment than the crime itself based on the fines, restrictions and fallout from said act. There are already laws on the books for swerving, tailgating, reckless driving, endangerment, etc, etc..etc! (I'm leaving out distractions that are quasi-legal today but will carry DUI levels of consequence in the future; cell phone? Eating that drive through? Masscarra(sp) anyone?).
DUI is dangerous, no doubt. But to believe that it has not been sensationalized is crazy as well. DUI laws are easy legislation of "feel good" laws that trap up innocent drivers and sacrifice their rights.
Bottom line, the culprit is not being dealt with, alcohol. And it wont be dealt with either because that opens up a whole can of worms that stems into taxation as well as the war on drugs (read prohibition of a substance).
DUI is nothing more than a money maker now when actually caught. DUI laws provide nothing further than what is on the books that can be criminally prosecuted or handled in civil court. So, honestly, what does anyone gain from more DUI laws? How about working within the laws already written (enforcing those laws BTW) and quit punishing the populace so we can "feel" good?
Yes.. well, many of us do see a problem there. There is no reason to ban ALL driving after ALL drinking. There is a reason to ban driving after excessive drinking. And, it can be done.. effectively.
At least now... we can all see your REAL intention.
Try not to choke as you eat your words....
Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities by 20 percent on average according to a 2002 study by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists published in the “Traffic Injury Prevention” journal. Several studies in the 1990s found that sobriety checkpoints save lives when they are conducted frequently and are highly publicized. These studies, which were conducted in both urban and rural areas, showed that the checkpoints led to a decrease of between 18 percent and 24 percent in alcohol-related traffic fatalities, injuries and property damage.
http://maddpa.org/news/recommendations.html
I could post more facts all night long.....
“Actually its Drink. Drive. Go to Jail. I don’t see a problem here.”
Not seeing a problem there constitutes moral turpitude.
You have an absolute duty to see a problem there.
The sole premise for laws regulating drunk driving is that an impaired driver endangers himself and others.
If a person has drunk so little that he is not impaired, as is the case at .08 and even .10 then he is not endangering anyone, and there are no grounds for interfering with him. Period.
See post 126.
thanks for the tip
your solution SMACKS of fascism...but we can’t have that can we comrade?
So if you are a hemophiliac, can they be charged with attempted murder? No way on Gods green Earth in a free country can this be constitutional. Probably more “conditioning” for the sheeple.
Nice unbiased source...
Why yes they should. You could have a firearm or drugs in there. You could have porn on your computer..So yes, the police should be able to monitor all of us very closely. Busting into our homes without probable cause, shooting the vicious dogs, setting off flash bangs grenades, and busting some jaws could keep our neighborhood safe...And if taking our body fluids forcibly at gun point makes us safer, then so be it.
:o
It's harsh.. yes. But, it would get to the REAL problem... people who are driving while REALLY drunk, and are repeat offenders. And, it would get away from criminalizing people who are NOT the problem...
If the laws were clear, and severe..... people would adapt. They do in other countries.
Our government makes statements everyday that are inaccuate or simply wrong.
How do you provide stats on something that never happened? Tell me, how do you know that person that blows 0.09 and arrested was going to have an accident? ANSWER: You can't. You can only assume or speculate. Hell, I bet you think AlGore is telling us the truth about global warming.
DWI fatalities are somewhere between 500 and 3,000.
That is the difference between "alcohol related" and "alcohol caused"
Nobody keeps the causation statistics because it doesn't fit the agenda.
There are every bit as many toddlers killed by mop buckets.
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.