Skip to comments.Texas Police Will Take Blood By Force in DUI Cases
Posted on 09/14/2005 3:42:43 PM PDT by elkfersupper
Dalworthington Gardens, Texas police will draw the blood of drunk driving suspects.
After completing a training course, Dalworthington Gardens police officers have been certified to draw blood from any motorist whom they suspect of driving under the influence of alcohol. The small North Texas city joins three counties -- Montague, Archer and Clay -- which have recently adopted similar policies.
These jurisdictions are seeking to make drunk driving convictions less vulnerable to court challenge as mounting evidence shows breathalyzer machines can be inaccurate. Under the new policy, a suspect will be brought to a police station and asked in a videotaped interrogation to submit voluntarily to a blood test. If the request is refused, police will call one of the judges who have agreed to remain on-call to obtain a warrant. If approved, police will draw the blood, by force if necessary. Anyone who refuses a blood test, even if not convicted or formally accused of a crime, will surrender his license to drive on the spot and will not see it again for at least six months.
"It's kind of eerie," Frank Colosi, an attorney who works with the Fort Worth chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union told the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. "It's kind of grotesque that the government can come and take your blood."
Section 724.017 of the Texas code requires that, "Only a physician, qualified technician, chemist, registered professional nurse, or licensed vocational nurse may take a blood specimen at the request or order of a peace officer....'qualified technician' does not include emergency medical services personnel." Dalworthington Gardens believes their twenty-hour course meets this standard.
Why don't we just ban booze altogether and get this crap over with?
Oh, I forgot. We already tried that.
One for your ping list.
oh yeah, and your dna on file too, even if the test shows you had nothing stronger than a 7up.
Oh my, this could get nasty, who's idea is this again???? LOL, I wanna see them take blood by force, lol, this should be good, real good!
Whoah, this is a disturbing developement.
I thought the blood test could be required only after a traffic accident.
I can just see that now. Maybe they didn't think of that aspect.
I think it would be more legitimate if someone refused, to just suspend their license, rather than wrestling them to the floor and removing their blood by force. That's a bit much in my opinon.
Something tells me this will not survive a serious court challenge.
Aklroyd's judge had a bone-skinning machine for scofflaws! Harsh
Having said that, I think it's entirely inappropriate for the civilian world short of cases where the subject is dead or incapacitated beyond acknowledging the source of their intoxication.
Well, from this article, it appears that you only have to be suspected of drunk driving.
All of your suggestions will probably be attempted. Plus there are already news stories out there about people being "Tasered" into submission.
And what happens if, after all that, he turns out not to have any alcohol in his bloodstream?
Odds are he will still be charged with DWI. Happens all the time. All the LEO has to do is say he thought that the accused was "impaired".
Pretty much standard for DWI and certain "Domestic Violence" allegations since about 1993.
That was a long time ago. Tobacco doesn't impair drivers, and it's under massive assault. Why the determination not to do anything about a cancer on society that causes the death of untold thousands of guilty and innocent alike, the destroyed lives, the innocent children... Why not ban booze?
Attention Police Officers: I carry a handgun in my vehicle.
You already lose your license in Texas if you refuse a sobriety test.
They can have my blood over my cold, dead...um...nevermind. :(
Maybe they just beat the snot out of you and then pipette some up.
So ...food and water are a "medical treatment"...but drawing Blood isnt a medical proceedure??
I have no problem with the cops taking blood. You forget that the people that this will be used against are breaking the law, forget that if they are innocent the blood test will show that too. DUI is not a victimless crime, it is indeed a very violent crime........what you say no one was hurt? Think about it this way....If someone shoots thru the windows of a school with kids inside, is it any less violent because no one was hit.
Drunk drivers nnow that what they are doing is wrong but decide to take the chance that they wont hurt someone. Just like the woman who took my leg did......she lost.
Stop wringing your hands about the rights of criminals, If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about,or have you gambled in the past and feel a little guilty or simpathetic.....don't just live right and you will have nothing to worry about.
PS MADD doesnt want you not to have fun! We just want you to call a cab or designate a driver so nobody gets hurt because of a BAD decision
I didn't deserve the decision that a drunk driver made!
My family dodn't deserve the decision that a drunk driver made!
And the young lady deserved a better decision than she made the day she took my leg and ultimately ended up in prison.
I've drawn many chain of custody blood alcohols. I absolutely refuse to draw against a persons will. In fact, I always specifically ask if they are complying of their own free will and understand the implications of their consent.(They are waiving their 4th amendment rights.)
Makes for a much stronger case if you advise people of their rights and make sure they clearly understand their consent.
Of course, most are too drunk to really give "informed" consent. They haven't a clue to the fact they they are handing over incriminating evidence.
Blood, breath, or urine is required upon "suspicion".
Otherwise, automatic license suspension for up to a year on the first offense. That way in most States, now.
What's the big deal? In most states, if you refuse a sobriety test, you are convicted of DUI anyway.
If you take the test, at least you can prove that you may be a lousy driver, but you're not under the influence of anything other than your own carelessness.
Tell a cop that and you'll be eatin' some pavimento, my friend.
Sorry about your leg but that position is never going to fly very far in a free country. Which ours isn't but we still like to pretend there's a fourth amendment.
That may work for Texans, but not me.
It's still better than the breathalyzer. A blood test is actually accurate, as opposed to the breathalyzer which can be wildly off (spritz some breath freshener in your mouth and blow into one when sober - watch the reading.)
Boy, I don't think that this will pass the constitutional test. Pretty far out if you ask me.
There, all fixed.
I do not understand how these nutters can have so much power. They are truly mad, in my opinion.
HEre in TX, the loss of the license is not connected to whether or not you are guilty of the crime -- it is simply an administrative rule. Refuse and lose. The crime is treated separately.
The ACLU is MADD. They won't do a thing.
In a free society, it is a fundamental right to peaceably travel between Point A and Point B in or on any contemporary conveyance, without being interfered with or detained by government agents.
DAMM, (Drunks against mad mothers) isn't real happy either.
First of all I am for keeping impaired drivers off the road. Can you imagine the spectrum of personalities - usually impaired - and their range of reactions to the officer and his blood drawing tools?
basic impaired behavior, fear of needles, fear of jail, fear of catching blood-borne disease (that applies to the officer also)- etc.
Would you feel any better or be any better off if the person who injured you had not been drinking?
If not, why not?
MADD is a vengeful lot, and you just pointed that out.
"I have no problem with the cops taking blood"
I have a real problem with this as it is against the 5th amendment. No one is recquired to give evidence against themselves, no matter if it's murder or petty theft. This shouldn't stand a court challenge.
Exactly. So if you have the blood test, at least you have a chance (assuming you're not drunk or stoned, that is - in which case, you deserved it).
..."It's kind of grotesque that the government can come and take your blood."...
They've taken your homes your rights and your guns, what's left but blood?
No, I just looked up the Texas Transportation Code; it's online. (Chapter 700)
You can refuse breath or blood test, except in the case of an accident. You do get a mandatory suspension for 180 days, but you can refuse.
The statute also states who can draw blood --- and if an EMT can't do it, a cop sure can't do it.
This is flat-out illegal.
for 180 days.
Something tells me that people may not survive this procedure.
I looked this up; I am correct re: only post-accident can it be forced.
Providing, of course, it is your blood they are testing.