Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: alcohol; billofrights; constitutionlist; donutwatch; dui; dumbideas; dwi; fascism; govwatch; jackbootedthugs; leo; madd; scotus; vampires; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-237 next last
To: HaveGunWillTravel
Vampires.

Mam,please step to the back of the car.Officer Dracula will need to take a blood sample.

81 posted on 09/14/2005 4:45:17 PM PDT by Uncle Meat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
I am surprised at the amount of FReepers who think this is okay. I thought this site was about limited government but we now let the government force us to wear seatbelts, tell us what we can and cannot do with our property, fine us for turning on lights during turtle nesting season (coastal issue), tell private businesses they can't allow smoking, etc.

We even have an Octoberfest is my town where the government closes off the downtown area to vehicles so they can set up beer vendors tents. For a $10 "TAX", you are allowed to enter and drink as much beer as you want. No need to worry about getting caught leaving drunk because the entire police force is there for crowd control.

I have to laugh, at one time it was illegal to drive without shoes but it was legal to have an open container in your vehicle. Welcome to the nanny state.

82 posted on 09/14/2005 4:45:36 PM PDT by Normal4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Petruchio
Not a laughing matter. This issue was at the heart of the civil rights movement in the 1960's. Some would say that it was an element in the War Between the States (or the civil war, or the war of northern agression, or the war of southern secession, whatever your stance).

Better watch out, I might hijack my own thread here.

83 posted on 09/14/2005 4:48:01 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Normal4me
I am surprised at the amount of FReepers who think this is okay.

Me too. It is astounding.

84 posted on 09/14/2005 4:49:56 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Better watch out, I might hijack my own thread here.

1000 posts, here we come!

85 posted on 09/14/2005 4:51:13 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Tell you what, let me know when you plan to go to court and use this lame defense. I want a front row seat to watch!!

You plan to cite Miller ( a firearms case) in defense of DWI?

You anso plan to cite Miranda in defense of DWI?

This I gotta see. . . I need a good laugh.


86 posted on 09/14/2005 4:51:27 PM PDT by Petruchio ( ... .--. .- -.-- / .- -. -.. / -. . ..- - . .-. / .. .-.. .-.. . --. .- .-.. / .- .-.. .. . -. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
ROTFLOL!!! again!

This issue was at the heart of the civil rights movement in the 1960's. Some would say that it was an element in the War Between the States (or the civil war, or the war of northern agression, or the war of southern secession, whatever your stance).

DWI was "at the heart of the civil rights movement in the 1960's"???

DWI was an element in the War Between the States????

87 posted on 09/14/2005 4:54:17 PM PDT by Petruchio ( ... .--. .- -.-- / .- -. -.. / -. . ..- - . .-. / .. .-.. .-.. . --. .- .-.. / .- .-.. .. . -. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

LOL! I have said my peace. Agree or disagree with me, I'm gonna have another beer. I may even watch a little online porn after I run some spyware to see if the nanny state is trying to protect me some more. :-)


88 posted on 09/14/2005 4:54:50 PM PDT by Normal4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs
Ummm...not what I meant...they'd take it by force by popping him in the chest. After that its up to the arrestee to stop the flow. I could even envision a scenario in which he'd be fined for excess bleeding.
89 posted on 09/14/2005 4:55:03 PM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Normal4me
Why don't we all just be good little peasants and go to work and pay our money to the government, and then just go home.

What about the victims of accidents involving impaired drivers? I don't agree with prohibition because it'd be a waste of time & taxpayer money, but around 40% of all accidents with fatalities is caused by a driver that has been drinking.

You want to get plastered at home & play games or watch a movie, who cares?

Because I care, I say: "You drink. You drive. You pay hell."

90 posted on 09/14/2005 4:55:05 PM PDT by Lester Moore (islam's allah is Satan and is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
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.

What do you mean by that? People pass the breathalyzer test but are still charged with DWI?

91 posted on 09/14/2005 4:56:56 PM PDT by psychoknk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

There's nothing in that heap o' stuff saying that YOU have to be allowed to be the driver. If it were hugely impractical to obtain a qualified driver this would be a different story. Would you really want acne-faces taking Mack trucks onto the roads on a whim, no lessons?


92 posted on 09/14/2005 4:56:56 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Petruchio
DWI was "at the heart of the civil rights movement in the 1960's"??? DWI was an element in the War Between the States????

No, the right to peaceably travel on public highways in or on any manner of contemporary conveyance of one's choice without being interfered with, impeded by, or harassed by government agents or anyone else for that matter.

93 posted on 09/14/2005 4:57:25 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Reading this I think some people on this thread have misintepreted the new law. Someone else upthread has posted that if you refuse a breath test, you're license is suspended for 6 months, no matter what, and the police have to prove the DWI in court. However, some judges have been throwing out the breath test as inaccurate, so someone can fail the breath test and still be let go.
The new law states that the police can now request a blood test instead of the breath test and the 6 month license suspension will apply if the test is refused.
94 posted on 09/14/2005 4:59:09 PM PDT by sharkhawk (Play me a dirge matey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
Ah, I see what you mean...And I'm stealing a bit for my tagline.
95 posted on 09/14/2005 4:59:18 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs (Fines for excess bleeding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: psychoknk
What do you mean by that? People pass the breathalyzer test but are still charged with DWI?

Yes. Even the blood test.

DWI....it's not just about booze anymore. I'll post a link from NM MVD shortly, if I get a chance, but it's the same in all the States now.

DWI means whatever the LEO on the side of the road wants it to mean.

96 posted on 09/14/2005 5:00:36 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
You do have a right to travel, as a passenger.

When you are driving a motor vehicle, you are no longer a passenger, but an operator of a heavy machine. As such you need certification of competence to operate said machine.
97 posted on 09/14/2005 5:02:30 PM PDT by Petruchio ( ... .--. .- -.-- / .- -. -.. / -. . ..- - . .-. / .. .-.. .-.. . --. .- .-.. / .- .-.. .. . -. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk

Upon further re-reading, it appears that all that is changed is the police will be drawing the blood, instead of waiting for a doctor to be called. No new law, 180 day suspension still applies. Old trick, request the blood sample to allow extra time for the alcohol to pass through the system.


98 posted on 09/14/2005 5:03:01 PM PDT by sharkhawk (Play me a dirge matey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Black Tooth
In such EXTREME Circumstances, shouldn't the "Defendant" be allowed to REQUIRE "Blood Tests" from his/her Accusor??

I Wonder HOW MANY 'Cops could pass the very "Drug Test" they are Demanding of the Civilians??

At VERY LEAST, the "Playing Field" should be "Level!!"

If the 'Cops are Intoxicated,--they've got NO Business Harassing the "Citizens!"

The "Playing Field" should be LEVEL!!

Doc

99 posted on 09/14/2005 5:04:09 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
There's nothing in that heap o' stuff saying that YOU have to be allowed to be the driver.

Correct. However, that heap of stuff says that nobody has the right or authority to deny me the RIGHT to be the driver.

What is "allowed" is between parent and child, not between citizen and government, at least as regards travel.

100 posted on 09/14/2005 5:04:13 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-237 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson