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.
Not to mention eating a slightly overripe piece of fruit...
The answer is no.
I should hope that would be obvious to even the most hard core pro-drunk drving enthusiast.
And no... Cops should not search your car without probable cause either.
But if you are out after 2 AM having beeen spotted leaving a bar, with a tail-light out...
Then guess what they have? That’s right: Probable Cause.
(I ignored you the first time you asked this stupid question, trying not to embarrass you, but since you persisted.....)
Problem is, this is not enforced.
You didn’t answer the question:
How about you? Do you agree with elk? That more people die in America due to unattended mop buckets than do DWI?
Yes or No.
BS
Well then that's the problem. The problem's not going to be solved by dragging non DDers in and forcefully drawing blood.
You didn't embarrass me, you embarrassed yourself big-time, since you want more checkpoints but don't believe cops can stop and search people without probable cause. That's downright irrational.
Honestly, I don’t know how many people attend, nor, not attend mop buckets, yet those that may slip and hit their head may be quite numerous.
“But if you are out after 2 AM having beeen spotted leaving a bar, with a tail-light out...Then guess what they have? That’s right: Probable Cause.”
Oh? And your drunkenness caused that tail light to burn out...how?
Did its little heart just break to see you coming out of a bar drunk again?
Light bulbs burn out, even those owned by tea-totalers. People do stop in at bars at 1:30 for one drink.
What you have is probable cause to think a light bulb has burnt out, nothing more.
I’ve seen it proven, personally.
Back 25 or so years ago, it was 70% of all accidents were caused by drunk drivers. The education and deterrence programs did a good job. Too good a job, because the number and severity of drunk driving accidents dropped drastically.
So, the drunk driving BAC threshold was lowered. Behold, another spike! More stringent and draconian penalties were obviously needed, and so were brought into play.
A couple more years pass by, and arrests once again fall off, so a new set of “weasel words” are used to artificially inflate “drunk driving” statistics.
Enter the phrase : “Alcohol Involved”. When you read this in a newspaper or a NHTSA document, you have been conditioned to automatically associate “AI” with “drunk”. In truth, “Alcohol Involved” only means that there was booze in one or both vehicles! No-one need have consumed any, it just has to be there!
For example: You are driving home from work and your wife asks you to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner. After picking up the bottle, you are t-boned by a little old lady who ran a stop sign. The cops see the booze in your car and you are first off treated like a drunkard, handcuffed and publically humiliated until you can prove sobriety, and secondly the accident is recorded as Alcohol Involved.
Ask me how I know this. All I’ll say is “First hand experience at the gentle hands of our local constabulary”.
Now the BAC limits are being lowered again. If you like tyrannical anti-drinking driving policies, go to Sweden. There, it’s a “zero tolerance” system. Any booze in your system whatsoever, you’re in the crowbar hotel for the night, and will have your licence suspended and some heavy fines to pay.
A world where guilt is automatically assumed and innocence must be proven doesn’t sound like a free world to me. Don’t even get me started on the illegal stop, search and seizure tactics used in every city at their DD check stops.
The fighting goes on and nothing is done about the problem because we all know the stats are wrong and everyone can drive better drunk than sober, but damn near everyone knows of someone that died drunk or was killed by a drunk.
Pick your poison, we are all dead in the end anyway.
.1 is dead.
You explained it well. As the revenue dropped more effort, and laws, had to be made to keep it up. Thanks for the post.
I have the solution - since drivers 65+ are responsible for only 3% of drunk driving fatalities, and drivers under 65 responsible for 97%...
Let's raise the minimum driving age to 65!
No wonder our DWI fatalities are off the charts.
I'm sure that's it and not all those illegals.
So does that mean you lose your license for three years if you refuse the breathalyzer? Does the case go to court at all? Or just automatic?
I don’t think so. Better check your decimals.
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.