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.
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. Or that more people are killed due to murderous mop buckets (see #75) than DWI fatalities.
A pro drunk driving enthusiast (Of which many FReepers are apart of) is one who denies the real and serious problems of DWI. They feel it is their right to have a few drinks, then drive anywhere they want to.
Lets look at your predicament. You - of all people - see on a daily basis the reasons why checkpoints are so necessary.
What a depressing job you must have! While I assume you don't drink and drive, I will state that you are part of the problem. That you engage in activities that enable drunks to stagger out to their cars. Engage in activities that mandate more police checkpoints as our nation tries to curtail the deaths and destruction on our highways.
You get hassled by these checkpoints? Well, sir; you are partly to blame.
Doesn’t this violate the Constitutional prohibition on forced self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment???
I remember a point when they actually started allowing for reckless instead of DUI’s if the defendant, in nonaccident or endangerment cases, would consent to full on alchohol treatement. (in residential treatment, everything of a DUI but the “DUI”) the objective was to keep people alive all around.
Then MADD got their fundraising undergarments in a knot and the effort was discontinued.
.3 is super easy to challenge with the right expert witness.
.4 is actually laughed at.
The funny thing is that the false positive in one case cand destroy a whole string of cases derived from that testing machine.
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.
Funny.. this was my FOURTH reply to you 2nd. You seem quick to respond to others... yet, I get crickets..
Well... here’s one more thought for you: I carry scars inflicted by a driver who was sober, but stupid. What laws should I be requesting to protect me?
Its easy to avoid. Just don’t drink and drive.
Driving is a privelege, not a right.
“It is .1% “
People on this thread have been routinely dropping the percent mark. Everyone knows what is meant.
“And I still don’t buy it.”
Yeah, I definitely think you should take the word of MADD and the rest of the crypto-prohibitionists over that of a person who has seen it with his own eyes.
I wasn’t talking about whether there are cops that don’t do their jobs very well (although your lawyer apparantly did a good job, I was totaling about an alternate system to that of forcing a blood test.
Since you wanted to take one anyway, I suppose it would not have bothered you to take it in Texas, either.
I’d love to know which police force you claim assaulted you, since these matters are now normally recorded, if you made your request at an appropriate time. Your lawyer would have opbtained all of the tapes of this activity as part of his or her case preparation.
I wish, it were only a "claim". It was Houston's finest... back in 1983. There were no videotapes of the testing back then. The law did require "observation of the subject" for 15 minutes prior to the test (to make sure the person taking the test didn't burp". The officer that signed as my "observer" was also giving the test, to several people... in another room.
I don't know what the best answer is... I suppose you're right. If people want to try their luck with the breathalyzer... they could have that option. I will never go that route again. But... I must admit, it seemed like the best option at that time. :-)
Oh... and yes, my 'hick' lawyer was fantastic. The trial lasted an entire week. A full audience was in attendance for the closing... including Richard Haynes (aka Racehorse). It was quite a show. But, probably not one I would have undertaken had I known just how stacked it was against me going in...
“Actuallly my definition of a pro-drunk driving enthusiast is anyone who thinks .08 is too low.”
And next year it will be .06, then .04, then .02...
The truth is that .1 is too low, and the empirical data prove it.
“They feel it is their right to have a few drinks, then drive anywhere they want to.”
You’re damn right it is. Unless a person is impaired such that they are endangering themselves and others, government has no standing to interfere with their freedom.
“That you engage in activities that enable drunks to stagger out to their cars.”
He’s a *musician* working where musicians can find work, Carrie Nation. But at least we now see your real aim — the abolition of places that serve alcoholic beverages.
“Engage in activities that mandate more police checkpoints as our nation tries to curtail the deaths and destruction on our highways.”
Your statistics have already been blown out of the water. We have already seen that traffic deaths *caused by* drunk drivers top out at around 5,000 per year, not the tens of thousands often bruited about by the crypto-prohibitionists. Patrol cars looking for drunk drivers would be as good as or better than roadblocks.
“You get hassled by these checkpoints? Well, sir; you are partly to blame.”
The appropriate reply to that is the one you earlier directed at another poster. Instead, I want to make sure we all follow your logic.
Bars sell alcohol. They therefore bear a share of the blame for deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers. Everyone who works at bars—including musicians—is guilty of abetting this.
Tell me how it doesn’t follow that bars should be banned.
I never said a word about MADD or quoted one stat, yet I was tagged as a statist and MADD supporter.
You tend to claim that .1% is safe and that you are the only one that has ever seen anything in their life and maybe that's true. I hope you are never the first to come upon a wreck where the bodies are scattered all over the road, all because someone didn't have the sense to NOT get behind the wheel of an automobile.
Keep on denying there is a problem, that will really help.
You are right, the kinds of video taping that they do now was not done back then. It does keep alot of incidents like the one you describe from happening, because all of the process must be recorded.
If they are properly administered, they are quite accurate, and their accuracy on a scientific basis has been challenged in court, and the courts have ruled that they are accurate enough for this purpose.
I believe that if more people took a chance and challenged the matter before a jury, there would be a surprising number of verdicts for the defense. However, people do not do it because of fear of increased punishment and increased costs and fees.
There is not normally an increase in the punishment if there is a jury trial. There can be increased costs, unless you qualify for a court-appointed lawyer. Sometimes the "hick" lawyers are the best because no matter how smart you are, it is the persuasive abiolity of the attorney that matters. They must relate to the people on the jury. There is no feeling so wonderful as a not guilty verdict when you truly believe you did not wrong. It sounds like the court system worked for you, but the police did not. Have a great New Year! Vote Conservative!
Also, breathylizers have been largely replaced by Intoxilyzer 5000s and do not allow for as much interference with the reading by the operators.
“Convenient, all the while discounting other’s numbers.”
After what has been said about the numbers advanced by the crypto-prohibitionists, you still align yourself with them? When they are clearly inflating their numbers through blatant dishonesty?
“I never said a word about MADD or quoted one stat, yet I was tagged as a statist and MADD supporter.”
Didn’t say that. I indicated that you were accepting the statistics advanced by “MADD and the other crypto-prohibitionists.” I said that because you rejected my statement — formerly in common currency — that .1% is not drunk.
“You tend to claim that .1% is safe and that you are the only one that has ever seen anything in their life and maybe that’s true.”
Oh, road apples. Lots of people know that .1% is safe. They’re just afraid to open their mouths, because the crypto-prohibitionists will vilify them.
“I hope you are never the first to come upon a wreck where the bodies are scattered all over the road, all because someone didn’t have the sense to NOT get behind the wheel of an automobile.”
Now, see, this is the kind of lunatic irrationality I object to.
What in the world does the fact that terrible accidents occur have to do with whether .1% is safe or not? Or whether it should be .08%?
You could lower the level to .000001%, and somebody could still get behind the wheel at .2%.
Lowering the legal limit has no effect on the danger represented by those who drive way over it.
Let me try saying that another way. The accidents are caused by those well over .1%. Lowering the legal limit does not change that.
“Keep on denying there is a problem, that will really help.”
Yeah, it will help almost as much as lowering the legal limit, which has no effect on the danger represented by those who drive well over it.
Ain't that the truth.
You are vastly incorrect in that assumption.
Yes, but that is not new,; nor is it defended by most on this thread.
If you choose to talk about me, courtesy demands that you talk to me.
How could you possibly know that?
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.