Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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.
This is exactly like the environmental hysteria pushed on us for more than a generation. False figures are used like the ones used to define "alcohol related incidents."We allow emotions, manipulated "facts" and anecdotes to drive us to these unreasonable steps.
I would be willing to bet that no true scientific study has shown or can show whether the impairment figure is .15, .10 or .08. In fact, I will bet that each of us are so different, that the amount of impairment depends on the individual.
I don't understand why the necessity of blood... wouldn't it be easier to get urine? Maybe that's it... you can't force someone to pee on command, or breath in the straw properly, but you CAN strap them down and take the blood.
I still think this crosses the line into a forced self-incrimination.
And once they get the blood, they can magically make the alcohol content appear in it.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Can I take their blood by force if I suspect they have used a substance? If they refuse, can I take their badge away for six months no matter what?
Oh,,they will, they will. And yes, they get as many guys as it takes and use whatever force they need and strap you down. And you lose your licence, no matter what it shows. And no, you have no recourse. The fifth amendment is as dead as all the rest.
Then you are an enemy of the Constitution.
You seem to forget what country you live in. This is NOT the USSR where you are owned by the Government, nor is it China.
If this is the kind of law enforcement you prefer, then go to some Communistic Dictatorship that encourages this.
We don't need Nannies here and there are far too many of you for my tastes.
What, no ping for me? ;-)
I'm coming in late, so I look forward to all the FReepers that applaud this blatant disrespect for individual libertyu.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
First, I am truly sorry to hear about your unfortunate tragedy that has changed your life. Second, the young lady that drove drunk and caused you your pain deserves a very long prison sentence, and much more.
That said, with all of the concentration and demonization on DUI the rest of the risky driving behaviour is being ignored. Is someone less dead if a sober driver kills them? People need to be punished equally for all risky driving that results in actual damage to other people or property. That might actually make the roads saver.
In addition, this concentration is nothing more than revenue generation at this point. It can simply be proven by every time there is a decline in DUI arrests, MADD creates the climate to lower the legal BAC. Whenever revenue drops, the BAC drops and at this point the number of traffic deaths is remaining constant.
I have a couple of very specific questions I would like you to answer:
1) Why does MADD receive money from the courts with each DUI conviction?
2) Why isn't MADD directly involved in the community by offering rides to people that have been drinking? (An example would be a shuttle service or something similar.)
3) What is your specific definition of drunk?
I have stated many times on FR that the loony left and righteous right are equally dangerous to our freedoms. Both want to use government guns to enforce their preferred morality and both feel emotionally satisfied when successful.
Your post was spot on.
"Its an administrative action, separate from an arrest."
Legalistic dodge, akin to the traffic cameras issuing a citation, instead of a ticket. The result of this so-called "administrative action" are inseparable from criminal prosecution, however. And so, it remains unconstitutional. No matter how cleverly the verbage may read.
"..but around 40% of all accidents with fatalities is caused by a driver that has been drinking."
Nope. Around 40% of all accidents with fatalities involves alcohol. Big difference. The pedestrian who had been drinking that gets run over and killed by a sober driver is considered a traffic accident resulting in death that involved alcohol.
Why not treat all drivers, drunk or sober, that cause damage to people or property with the same penalties?
"I lost a son to a drunk driver and I don't believe impared drivers have any rights."
Do you think we should pull our troops out of Iraq because a mother lost her son to a war?
Yes I guess you are right, nor is it illegal to take your property and give it to others who can raise more taxes.
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.