Texas Police Will Take Blood By Force in DUI Cases

Ft. Worth Star Telegram via TheNewspaper.com ^ | 9/14/05 | Ft. Worth Star Telegram Staff

[mcshot]

I carry and will comply by showing my CCW card which indicates a gun on person or in vehicle. To do so and then be force fed "pavemento" would be totally unnecessary and way out of line but not unexpected with members of todays LEO community. My job is to make their(your) life boring and I do a good job of it and plan on continuing.

mc

[inneroutlaw]

Focus on the rest of the argument at the link.

Then, maybe you will understand.

[Petruchio]

I read it, and it's nuts.

We do have a right to travel unencumbered, anywhere in this Country. But to use a firearm court case to jump from a right to travel to a right to operate a motor vehicle is insane. The same can be said by the thought of using Miranda as a reason to drive without a license, it's nuts.

I will concede that anyone can operate a motor vehicle on their own private property. However, public roads are not private property. They are the property of the public at large. And the public at large has agreed that all operators of motor vehicles on public roads need to hold a license that proves they are certified to operate that type of vehicle safely.

[Age of Reason]

What worries me about this is the sterility of the needles used.

What if the cops reuse a needle that was last used on someone with AIDS?

Should anyone other than an MD or RN or other medical professional be sticking people with needles?

[MRMEAN]

Hey assumer, my link supports his contention dont'cha think? You assume way too much.

Nooooo your link did not support the assertion that 40% of fatal accidents were caused by a driver that had been drinking. If you can put aside your evident preoccupation with anal sex for a few moments...please read the content of your own citation, which I have already once posted for you, to wit:

During 2003, 17,013 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 40% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2004a).

I also pointed out to you in my post 128 that "alcohol-related" did not mean that the driver was drunk, it simply means that somebody, anybody, involved in the accident had a detectable BAC content, which could be as low as .01, which is 8 times below the .08 level in use by most (now all?) states, and 15 times the .15 level that used to be the norm. Since you seem not understand simple abstract concepts this evening, I will tell you a little bedtime tale:

Once upon a time there was a man named Pedro, who was a driver of a 1992 Ford EconoVan containing 19 other "undocumented" workers, returning from a day in the groves to to their rented 2 bedroom house. Jose was a passage in the back of the van, and is drinking a type of tequila from his home village, where it is considered a health beverage. Jose is the only person in the van with any alcohol in his system, and at autopsy, it will be found that he had a BAC of .03. Pedro is going 95 MPH southbound on the Florida pike in the passing lane when the music cassette runs out. Pedro pops it out and fumbles for the another mariachi tape...but inadvertently turns the steering wheel and flips the van...into a 2002 SAAB 9-5 wagon, driven by Stephan, a 27 year old father, with his wife Sally in the front passenger seat, and his son, Junior aged 6, and daughter, Tiffany, aged 4, both in proper safety seats in the back. None of the four passengers in the SAAB had been drinking, and all survived, with varying levels of injuries, the accident. But the SAAB careened over the highway, and struck and killed a hitchhiker who was standing next to an entrance ramp to the highway. The hitchhiker had not been drinking. Eight of the passengers in the van were thrown from the van and were killed, including Jose.

In this sad little story we have 25 people involved, and nine dead. No one except one passenger in the van had any alcohol in his system, and his BAC was well below the amount considered "impaired" for driving. Test question: Is this fatal accident "alcohol-related?"

Answer: Yes it is! Jose, in the back of the van, who did nothing to cause the accident, had a detectable BAC content, and so this will be reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as one the 40% "alcohol-related" fatalities. Was the driver drinking? No! So your link does not support the assertion that 40% of traffic deaths are caused by drivers who are drinking.

[Age of Reason]

In our state driving is a privilege.

In New Orleans driving and evacuating are privileges

[supercat]

In this sad little story we have 25 people involved, and nine dead. No one except one passenger in the van had any alcohol in his system, and his BAC was well below the amount considered "impaired" for driving. Test question: Is this fatal accident "alcohol-related?"

Is the hitchhiker's death "alcohol related" since the accident itself is?

[deport]

Assume what you want....... I never said my link supported the 40% driver stat. I gave the guy [saminfl] a link to stats that support his belief that there aren't 40% driver alcohol deaths helping him make his case. You assumed that I was supporting the 40% driver alcohol related death number but I wasn't. The link I gave supports [saminfl] position not the person he was questioning that made the 40% driver alcohol deaths statement.... I can't help it if this all goes over your head.

Have a good Assuming day now, you hear?

[NCLaw441]

I am just saying that blood (as well as fingerprints) can be taken without consent --with a valid warrant-- and that is not a violation of the 5th amendment. Those cases were decided long ago by the US Supreme Court.

[sweetliberty]

Standard procedure around here, in addition to fines and court costs, for virtually any kind of conviction, is an additional $250 (I believe that is the amount) for DNA testing. In other words, not only are people who are not guilty of any violent crime being forced to provide their DNA for a data base, but they are required to pay for it as well. Meanwhile, to convict a child sex offender around here practically takes a verifiable video tape of the perp caught in the act, a signed confession in the presence of his lawyer and an act of Congress. What is wrong with this picture?

Pretty easy to figure out really. One is a money maker. The other is an expense.

[sweetliberty]

On the other hand, the lawyers are going to have field day with this one.

[Ditto]

You already lose your license in Texas if you refuse a sobriety test.

But here are no criminal charges and associated fines and legal fees if all they do is take away the license. They want the evidence to be able to make a criminal complaint.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Isn't forcing you to give your blood compelling you to be a witness against yourself."

Not according to Justice Scalia.

Nor are fingerprints or DNA swabs.

[Nov3]

We don't need no stinkin' Constitution! Where is all this going to stop? Kelo - we just rent our land at the government's pleasure. N.O. - We just have our guns, property and belongings at the government's pleasure. Here - we don't even have a right to our own friggin body!

And the jackboots will all say it is for your safety and countless moron "freepers" will agree with all the above.

I bet you see as many FR cops complaining about this as the gun seizures and illegal searches in N.O.

[hobbes1]

Something tells me this will not survive a serious court challenge

Nor should it. Since the penalty for refusal can just as easily be made the same as it is for guilt.

[joebuck]

Just out of sick curiousity, how do you draw blood "by force"? Strap the guy down?

Yes, at least here in Indiana, that is exactly how they do it. This is not new. This is the law under many model OWI statutes, and has been for 20 years. In Indiana it is also a crime for any physician, nures or technician to refuse to take a forcable blood sample when instructed to do so by a law enforcement office. This has not been much of an issue up to now because of the relilance on breathalyzer tests. Interesting, blood tests are subject to their own set of legal challenges, like chain of custody, serum vs. whole blood test, contamination of the sample and temperature degradation of the sample when stored at imporper temperatures,

[WhiteGuy]

Sieg Heil!

[-YYZ-]

At that point you have refused to give a blood sample voluntarily and at the least lose your license for six months.

[nomorelurker]

Your post and 138 above have hit on the noncriminal law reason this won't last long. A lawsuit alleging AIDS or Hepatitis caused by "by the road" or police station blood drawing even if totally false will be expensive to defend and disastrous to the City, PD, and officers involved if lost. I suspect that we are only seeing this in small cities because the larger city insurers have told them to expect hefty premium increases if they try this. Smaller cities will have less oversight but these guys should expect a visit some from their agents saying something along the lines of "what are you crazy". A lawsuit involving what is medical malpractice coupled with a court saying the whole process is unconstitutional (should that happen) would be something expensive.

[TChris]

In most states, if you refuse a sobriety test, you are convicted of DUI anyway.

B*** Sh**. In most states, refusing a sobriety test gets your license suspended for refusing the test. Show me one case where a defendant was convicted of DUI for simply refusing the test.