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.
Or, the officials who accept all the tax revenue generated? Or.. hey, how about the other tax payers who don't pay enough to keep the cities from taxing all the bars! :-)
What we need is... a way to legislate RISK FREE lives... and, NO DEATHS for anyone!
I think we ALL know people who shouldn't be behind the wheel, PERIOD! But... life is like that.
It's a shame that better data is not freely available for everyone to see. What I concluded in 1985 was... policy-makers were not interested in factual data regarding true risk. I'd be speculating as to the reasons why.... but, times haven't changed much. Many of the same things apply to drinking ages around the country.. but, that's another issue.
Insults. You used the word insults twice.
Show me where I have insulted anyone.
Besides Elk. (He doesn’t count. Anyone who claims mop buckets kill more people than dunk drivers SHOULD be insulted.)
You are a former deputy sherrif? Then tell us about all the dead bodies you have seen as a result of drunk drivers.
I don't support this crap, but I damn sure don't support the carnage on our highways either.
I know I'm done trying to argue with those that cannot even see the problem and have their pet answers to whatever issue is raised. Our forefathers would not have supported an intrusion like this, but they would not have tolerated drunk buggy drivers running over people in the street either. I don't support this crap, but I damn sure don't support the carnage on our highways either.
Your funny.......MADD doesn’t mean ya have too be .
Answering your own questions in same posts and everything....LOL ! Whats next ya want to demand a resume and 4 references and dare I say it...........a blood sample ?
Sorry to fail your fantasy of blood on the streets from DUI’s but I personally didn’t see that many DUI related deaths.
Albeit one (1) DUI death is too many IMO.......There were a number of em of course as the problem does exist .....that is not the question or issue I bring to this waste of my time to address your support of a solution that has failed repeatedly across the nation.
My last , keep yourself busy with posts too me if ya want.......nite !
BTW there are two (2) f’s in sheriff..... Stay safe !
“they would not have tolerated drunk buggy drivers running over people in the street either”
We don’t have to speculate about that. It’s a matter of historical record. You could see what they did about drunk buggy drivers.
This is mainly just an aside here, but I went to a surprise birthday party tonight for one of my friends. I bet most of the people who drove home from that party were at the legal limit or over it. There was even one narcotics officer among those who I’m sure were over the limit. I saw him pour himself several stiff rum and cokes. Think his buddies would have arrested him had he have gotten pulled over, even if he was .13%? I doubt it. I know of plenty of instances where cops, lawyers, and judges have avoided those charges when others probably would not have avoided them. I was talking with a deputy a couple of days ago who was telling me about a time he’d given one of our judges a ride home after he found him hammered trying to put gas in his car at a convenience store stumbling around with his fly undone and his sweater on backwards, unable to get the gas nozzle in the little hole where you put your gas. I’m a lawyer and I know I’ve been let go when I was probably way over the limit after the officer realized it was me he had pulled over. This is part of the reason why you’ll never see the laws get as harsh as you’d like to see them get. The people making these laws or enforcing them have all driven with too much alcohol in our systems or know others we care about who have done it or do it. The DWI laws are pretty darned harsh as it is in most states. They’ll probably get a little worse but try as they might these MADD wackos aren’t going to push the laws to the extremes they’d like to see.
No, I’m not.
Read your state’s driver license exam.
The second someone gets stuck with a needle that is sober it is not easy to avoid.
Fortunately for me, Colorado hasn’t stooped to that sort of insanity. Yet.
I agree with you.
Had I stopped you or any other lawyer, and you were DUI, I would have arrested you.
You may have missed it, but.. I already said (in an earlier post) that I was not serious about 5 years for 1st offense and life for 2nd. I was being absurd to illustrate my point... that being: The best way to address this problem is... RAISE the legal limit, and increase the penalty.
I still do believe that. I see the same things you do around here. There are a LOT of people who like to drink socially... (surely to above 0.08% and often above 0.10%) and the drive home. MOST of them, are making a judgement call (even if they may not be consciously thinking about it at the time).. that the risk is low enough to accept. Maybe, they are not driving far, or they know the route well. And, they believe the chances of them making it home safely are low enough to risk it. For the vast majority of them, they are right.
What I want to do is... change that risk equation. I actually think, most of these social drinkers I know would SUPPORT tougher penalties for people who are REALLY drunk. What kills public support is the harsh penalties on people who are in the marginal range. That smacks of communties just trying to impose complete abstinence and/or generate revenue.
Personally.. I would favor dramatically increasing penalties for repeat offenders. If you’ve been caught at 0.12% or 0.13%? Your rights change. The risk, for that person, obviously needs to be increased. And, I’m sorry... I don’t have sympathy for a person convicted 3 times. They need to go TO JAIL, AND treatment... for a very long time.
Sadly... I see very little chance that our laws will change in this fashion. We’ll just keep muddling along with alarmist like 2nd throwing around bogus stats like “17,000+ killed”. I do see a building resistance to further reductions in BAC limits though... Enough voters are being affected now to stop this.
If this issue were left TO THE STATES... where it rightly belongs... I’d be 100% happier with the system.
There USED to be proper data collected...and readily available... even in 1985, before the ‘easy’ access of the internet. Now, it seems obvious to me that the available Federal data is slanted and skewed to achieve a result.
The problem is.. it’s not really relevant to discuss raw numbers of “alcohol related deaths”. The MAJORITY of highway deaths are NOT ‘alcohol related’. So.. a fair number of those ‘alcohol’ deaths had nothing to do with the alcohol. What is needed is... death RATES.. as is, fatalities per 100,000 miles, or something like that.
That is the kind of data I found for Texas long ago.
Your’re right though.... it’s PAINFULLY difficult to discuss this issue in any real way.. since, both sides seem to immediately go to political talking points or bogus stats... and, avoid practical realities.
How about one of your local judges? Or how about a fellow cop, one you work with? Would you arrest them if they’d had a little too much to drink? Or would you maybe just follow them home or tell them to be careful and send them on their way? Oh, and how about a prosecutor, one who prosecutes a lot of your cases?
There will never be enough facts presented, on any given subject, to convince everyone and there will always be accusations of bias. Hell, we're all biased in one way or another, so does that discount all of our opinions?
I never used anyone's numbers, I only stated that every one of us knows someone that has died as a result of combining alcohol and vehicles. Of course, that was ignored because there is no argument there. And if by chance there is one person that truly doesn't, I have "extras".
I don't know what the solution is, I do agree that the penalties need to be stiffened or at a minimum enforced. Far too many walk on multiple DWIs and IMO, some of this can be attributed to the lawyers that tell you NOT to take a breath test. How else are the cops supposed to prove their case when the evidence effectively clears itself given a certain amount of time? The argument about special treatment of cops, lawyers, and other people of power, is another issue entirely and should be reserved for another thread.
Well... it started on a Monday, and finished on Friday... Dec. 9, 1983. I guess, that's a week.
It was a long time ago.. but, from what I recall, I think most days actual testimony began ~ 10 am.. and ended ~ 4. Although, I distinctly remember one day dragging on until after 5.
We had a jury.. actually, TWO juries. On the first day, before the judge came in, my attorney told me to sit at the table closest to the jury. We did. Apparently this table is normally reserved for the prosecution. They asked my attorney and I to move, but.. my guy replied, "there are no reservations for this table.. YOU do not have the authority to make me move." This prompted one of the prosecutors to go on a verbal tirade that included several vulgarites". All of this went on in front of the jury (which, I seem to remember as 6 people, not 12??).
When the judge finally arrived, my attorney moved to strike this jury. So, they had to have a little hearing about that.... It was rather humorous.. as, the prosecutor was put on the stand and he repeated EVERY word of what he said. The judge ordered our jury to be swapped with another court room. So.. that took a little while.
There weren't really that many witnesses... Me ( I testified in my own behalf). My best friend (who was with me that evening, but not arrested). The arresting officer. Another officer, who was NEVER present that evening, but claimed that he was. an expert witness from Rice University who testitfied that he had examined the design of the Breathalyzer and determined >300 places in the circuitry that add error to the result. Another expert witness that testified about how he had tried to purchase a Breathalyzer machine to use in biological testing... but, was denied the right to purchase.. seems the machines were ONLY sold to law enforcement. We had the Chief Chemist for Houston HPD, and of course... the technician that worked for him. Oh.. we also had the officer that signed the sheet saying he observed me, .. while he was also testing people in another room...and the guy responsible for maintenance on the machine. We had diagrams of the room layout to go over... We had another person from the waiting area who witnessed the cops smacking me for requesting a blood test.... Hmnn.. I guess there were quite a few witnesses.
Before several of those witnesses, there were little hearings held.. w/o the jury, to determine relevance.. those all took a little while.
And, we ended early on the one day when the prosecution closed their case, then wanted to re-open. The Judge decided to recess that day to "consider" their request. So, that made one day rather short..
Closing arguments didn't last all that long... I'd guess 15-20 minutes each? The chick prosecutor tried a little trick. Her last statement was "Just remember Mr. M's last words on the stand, 'I'll never drive drunk again' ".
Of course, that ISN'T what I said. What I said was, "I can't say I'll never drink and then drive... I'll never drive drunk, I wasn't then.". When the jury went out, they requested the transcript of my last statements. The court reporter apparently had it correctly. My attorney later sent her roses... and, I think actually went out with her once or twice. :-)
Mine was a pretty sympathetic case with which to attack the machine. I'd never been in ANY trouble.. Was a recently graduated Chemical Engineer, who was arrested on an a Wednesday night, as I was out with my "Best Man" a few nights before my scheduled wedding. We were arrested ~ 100 yards from my friend's apartment (he was allowed to walk home). I was picked up as part of a special DWI Task Force... Federal money allotted for OT pay for local police. As I said before, 80 people were arrested that night. When I was pulled over, a wrecker pulled over with us... the driver was looking at my front bumper before I even STARTED talking to the officer. I blew a 0.11%, despite having NOTHING To drink in the 3 previous hours.. and, 2 beers at a baseball game before that. It was a setup from the beginning.
Because of the potential for this case, a couple of large Houston legal firms 'assisted' with co-counsel and the expert witnesses. The prosecution had a team of three people. There were, literally, more than 200 people in the audience for the closing... including Mr. Haynes, who was by far, the most famous attorney in Houston at that time. It was, very exciting. We tried to plea-bargain for months.. but, they only offered probation and would never offer the thing that wipes it from my record after a certain amount of time of good behavior. So... we went all the way.
Oh.. here’s another “funny” part.. the officer’s lies.
1) Of course, they claimed to remember every detail about me, my actions... even what clothes I was wearing.... Shirt color, and blue jeans. (The arrest was in July, the trial in December). The cops had a photo of me that included my shirt.. I had dated photos of me at the Ball game.. where, I was clearly NOT wearing blue jeans.. but, khaki slacks
2) The Officers (one of whom was not even present) clearly remember me failing the field sobriety test... not able to stand on one leg.. on the “flat cement sidewalk”... There was NO sidewalk... only a very small, gravel shoulder and then a sloping grass ditch. My attorney had photos of the scene. At first, the officers tried to say this was not the correct scene... but, we also had a photo that just happened to include the street signs that proved it was. and,
3) The arresting officer testified that he also observed me before my breath test... but, the police logs clearly showed that he dropped me off and then left... he was 20 miles away when I was tested.
It’s really funny.... now! Although, I still hate driving in Houston!
“I never used anyone’s numbers”
I said “the dirty little secret is that healthy people drive better at .1%.” You said that was false. On what basis did you say that, if you weren’t using anyone’s numbers? Women’s intuition?
“I only stated that every one of us knows someone that has died as a result of combining alcohol and vehicles.”
I missed that the first time around, or I would have contradicted it.
It’s a baffling statement. Hardly anybody knows anyone who has died as a result of an accident caused by a drunk driver. I think you must be jumping to the conclusion that your own unfortunate experiences are typical of everyone.
It was a long time ago.. so... some of these details I don’t remember for sure.., but I’ll try.
I honestly do not remember any ‘jury selection’... maybe we did that. I’ve been on jury panels.. so, I know what that entails. Maybe, we did that. But, I sure don’t remember. Seems to me like, they just brought a jury in... then, we swapped them. Maybe we did.... I vaguely remember us striking a couple of people. But, if we did... it wasn’t a long process.
I think, our presentation took most of the day Mon and Tuesday. The State went on Wednesday.... then, closed. When my attorney requested dismissal, the judge recessed until Thursday. I think, we didn’t go very long on Thursday...., but the closing were set for Friday morning. The closings were short... the jury was out for, maybe 30 minutes.. however long it took to get the transcript back. It was not long after that... maybe 10 minutes??
My lawyer did do quite a lot of questioning... he had the two officers each on the stand for more than an hour. I think, my own testimony was fairly short.. maybe, an hour? The experts were each on the stand for a pretty long time... I would guess, 1-2 hours each.
In no way, was this a ‘normal’ DWI trial.. even then. Heck, VERY FEW ever even went to trial. A few months after my case, the Texas Legislature passed a new law that forced Judges to stipulate Breathalyzer readings to the jury... meaning, they COULD NOT be questioned in court. I don’t really know how things went after that.... I lost interest.
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.