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.
F****ng Vampires!
nor is DAM, Mothers Against Dyslexia.
You may have missed this pleasant thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1360891/posts
The police document said Wheeler was handcuffed to a hospital bed and then secured with leather straps after he refused to urinate in a cup. When medical staff tried to insert a catheter to get the sample, Wheeler refused and began thrashing around, the affidavit said.
At one point, police officer Peter Linnenkamp reported, he jumped on the bed with his knees on Wheeler's chest to restrain him. When Wheeler still refused to let the catheter be inserted, Linnenkamp said he twice used his Taser, which sends 50,000 volts into a target.
No they can't. That is tampering with evidence, a felony.
Like they would turn in one of their own for that. lol
Land of the Free.......
This paragraph must contain an error.
I don't think that in America it's legal to punish people for not committing a crime.
Or maybe this is what the "war on [some] drugs" has done to our state and federal constitutions.
It does, but it is a condition of your license to submit to testing ~if~ you have been arrested on suspicion of DUI.
It's important to make a distinction between pre-arrest and post-arrest rights. Pre-arrest roadside sobriety tests are not required, you consent to them willingly. You do not have to submit to any roadside walk-the-line, light in the eyes, or finger-on-the-nose type tests that are performed in an attempt to determine probable cause for an arrest. The roadside type hand held beathalyzers are also not required. The police will ~ask~ you to perform these but you are within your right to refuse them, as well as all questions, and must only hand them your license, registration and insurance information.
Granted, if you refuse, they may still arrest you, but without these results they will have to show that they had other sufficient probable cause to make the arrest before they'll get a guilty conviction. Fun for your lawyer.
However, once you are arrested, you are required to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test. Refusal to do so usually results in revocation of your license for longer than the standard suspension that would be imposed after a guilty conviction. Revocation is different than suspension. At the end of the revocation period, you'd actually have to take the test again to get your license back ;~D
I've been through this, and was arrested for DUI, many years ago now. They did not get a breathalyzer result from me. I had put the thing to my lips and exhaled, but the policeman argued that I didn't really try to blow hard enough. You do actually have to blow fairly hard to get a good result. I did win my administrative revocation action but I had a good lawyer.
This blood draw actually requires less willing participation than the breathalyzer, and is more accurate.
That's just a relatively unbiased description of the law, at least the law as it was in my state, Washington. Your state may or may not be the same, and it pays to know, if you ever might get pulled over after a night out.
"Those cases were decided long ago by the US Supreme Court"
Not on a DUI case.This is unplowed ground
60% of accidents are caused by SOBER drivers.
What's that tell you?
That was way too much thought for the statist amongst us. Blackbird.
It is amazing that so many on this board have such admiration for the man.
Those are the two most dangerous groups - both are totally at war with the constitution and liberty.
I'm working on an IRS complaint to examine their tax-exempt status. All they do is lobby for more laws, get an increasingly large piece of the fine pie, and spread hysteria.
Non-profits can't do that, according to the Internal Revenue Code.
You said: 60% of accidents are caused by SOBER drivers.
That means 40% are caused by drunk drivers. What percentage of drivers are drunk on the road at any one time? I'd bet MUCH less than 40%....
I'm sorry for your loss and believe that dangerous drunk drivers should be taken off the road.
However, the way things are now, there are about 3,000 innocent victims killed in accidents caused by drunk drivers each year nationwide.
For this, we arrest and criminalize 2 million people per year.
There are also about 3,000 people per year who commit suicide while incarcerated on DWI charges.
Major disconnect, and it just isn't worth it.
No, I posted a link. Miller is one of several cases cited in the link. Together, the cases (including Miller) create a compelling argument.
Or the govt. lab can misidentify the samples, and not preserve them for subsequent DNA tests.
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.