Forced blood samples from DWI suspects

[Bolas 5]

Quote

A criminal defense lawyer does not defend the indefensible. A lawyer preserves the integrity of the rule of law by compelling the State to use solid police work, diligent prosecution and bona fide evidence to overcome a person's presumption of innocence.

Great definition...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Police officer arrives on the scene of a fatal auto accident. Passenger in one auto killed. Both drivers are alive and both claim the other caused the accident. Driver of car without fatality appears to be intoxicated but refuses breathalyzer.

Good enough?

Not really.

You'd let the police officer force blood from an accident victim? And just one, based on his personal views?

Maybe it'd be better to just let him force them to give him a blowjob, instead. Oh, wait, that's already the way it works, isn't it?

Good thing all those cops you want empowered to forcibly extract blood from someone are so honest, so trustworthy, and of such high integrity.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

[quades voice]Never mind that anomaly.

That has to be the only case ever of this happening[/QV]

I know quite a few cops, a few of them have standing orders to never let any police officers into their home.

That is an order to their family, one of the cops has had his car vandalized and his wife threatened after he arrested a Chicago Police Officer after that officer beat a 17 year old girl.

Charges got dropped.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Good thing all those cops you want empowered to forcibly extract blood from someone are so honest, so trustworthy, and of such high integrity.

For every single "bad cop" out there, there are thousands of police officers trying their absolute best to do their best to serve their community.

Please, go do a ride along with your local PD one night and see for yourself.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

For every single "bad cop" out there, there are thousands of police officers trying their absolute best to do their best to serve their community.

While I'm inclined to believe that good cops outnumber bad cops, I suspect your stated proportions are off by at least a couple orders of magnitude (i.e. for every "bad cop" out there, there are tens of police officers trying their absolute best to do their best to serve their community). Jackass cops may not make up the majority of LEO's, but they aren't rare.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Good thing all those cops you want empowered to forcibly extract blood from someone are so honest, so trustworthy, and of such high integrity.

For every single "bad cop" out there, there are thousands of police officers trying their absolute best to do their best to serve their community.

I'm not disputing that. But the more extra-judicial authority we give to the good guys, the more chance that one bad guy has to abuse it. And that, in a nutshell, is why we need search warrants and court orders.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Good thing all those cops you want empowered to forcibly extract blood from someone are so honest, so trustworthy, and of such high integrity.

For every single "bad cop" out there, there are thousands of police officers trying their absolute best to do their best to serve their community.

I'm not disputing that. But the more extra-judicial authority we give to the good guys, the more chance that one bad guy has to abuse it. And that, in a nutshell, is why we need search warrants and court orders.

That's my point.

I'm not so very worried about the rare bad cop.

It's the policies and the good cops that think they are doing the right thing as they violate my rights for the sake of public safety.

[AggieDave 6]

Have neither of you read my explanation on how those "force draws" work in Texas (as in reference to the OP's article)? Explaining that search warrants are involved, signed by judges? I explained these things in quite a bit of detail previously in this thread.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Have neither of you read my explanation on how those "force draws" work in Texas (as in reference to the OP's article)? Explaining that search warrants are involved, signed by judges? I explained these things in quite a bit of detail previously in this thread.

I admit I have not. I'll go look back through the thread.

I'm curious how you get a warrant for someone you don't even know is a suspect until you stop them. I'm sure you answered that, so I'll go look.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Ok, so they've got a judge on call signing the warrants as they go? Is that right?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Bibliophile 0]

Quote

Ok, so they've got a judge on call signing the warrants as they go? Is that right?

Policing is a 24/7/365 duty does not stop merely because it is the weekend or late at night or holiday, etc. Judges recognize this. Thus, in many jurisdictions, it is not uncommon for a judge to be on-call 24/7 in the event the police need to obtain a search or arrest warrant.

"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who
can do nothing for him."

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Ok, so they've got a judge on call signing the warrants as they go? Is that right?

Yep, and a nurse present to draw the blood, so they don't have to transport each suspect to a hospital. Very convenient, for the cops. Not so convenient for civil rights.

I wonder how many times a judge declines to sign a warrant based upon a police officers testimony over a phone? Especially one that's on call specifically for this type of request. I'll bet that's darned rare.

In my initial research on this I found a long detailed write-up done by a District Attorney about how they set all this up and operated it. But darned if I can find that now...

[champu 1]

I'm turning my pockets out with this, but I've scrounged up another two cents to throw in...

As I said before, I'm all for doing what it takes to keep drunk drivers off the road and to prosecute the ones that are on the road up to, but not including, where you stick a needle in them. And I don't care if it's a LEO on the side of the road or Ardis Dee Hoven doing the sticking.

I'd probably get on a bandwagon to make refusal of a breathalyzer test as bad as "failing" a breathalyzer test which will, of course, carry different levels of "badness" depending on the situation (i.e. rolling up on a checkpoint vs. running a bus full of nuns of a cliff.)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Ok, so they've got a judge on call signing the warrants as they go? Is that right?

Exactly, its typically not a special judge. There is *always* a judge on call. Search warrants are needed for random stuff sometimes at odd hours, also in Texas if a death is unattended, a JP is needed to pronounce dead and to order autopsies.

The LEO still has to have probable cause to conduct a traffic stop in the first place.

The LEO still has to have probable cause to make a DWI arrest. This is after the totality of the situation, conducting SFSTs (standardized field sobriety tests), etc. Basically the a blood sample is giving the County Attorney a slam dunk trial, after all the probable cause for an arrest has already been established. It also allows for intoxicants other than alcohol to be seen as a contributing factor.

I'm not saying that you have to agree with a forced draw. I'm also not going to state if I agree with a forced draw or not, I just want people to understand HOW this is done so they can make an informed decision. So far, literally no one on this thread has made a decision based on an understanding of the entire process, its been a knee jerk reaction. One with people thinking that the blood is drawn on the side of the road by the cop!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kbordson 8]

Thank you for adding your perspective.


But even with what you're describing, I am still VERY CONCERNED with the direction this is going.

Here in Kansas City, we have random sobriety checkpoints where EVERY CAR IS STOPPED and EVERY DRIVER is questioned. I've been stopped on my way to deliveries, in my white coat, on the way to the hospital... (luckily I still made it there on time even with the 15min delay) But my concern is... could this forced blood draw be incorporated into the random sobriety checkpoint? It's easy to be naive and call anyone that questions it "paranoid" but HONESTLY... could this forced blood draw be incorporated into the random sobriety checkpoints?! Maybe not today... but lets say 5yrs or 10yrs, when you might not need a vial anymore, when you might just need a drop. Technology is advancing and if it gets easier to check BAC with just a finger stick, is it going to be required to have your finger stuck to "prove" that you're innocent in the checkpoints?

Where is the "innocent until proven guilty"?

[livendive 8]

If the officers have sufficient evidence to get a warrant, I'm ok with them taking it by force, just like they would with any other search.

I'm not a fan of the policy in my state, which is that refusal to take a breathalizer or provide a blood sample results in an automatic suspension of the driver's license. Basically, that works out to "Let me search you, else you'll be found guilty, your choice." It doesn't seem like there's much choice there, but I don't have a better solution off the top of my head either.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Good thing all those cops you want empowered to forcibly extract blood from someone are so honest, so trustworthy, and of such high integrity.

For every single "bad cop" out there, there are thousands of police officers trying their absolute best to do their best to serve their community.

I suspect that the honor/service motivated cops represent a minority of the total force approximately equal in size to population of bad eggs. Most police do it for reasons no more honorable (or despicable) than anyone else's reasons for going to work.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,085]

>You and Bill are the bestest friends a bad cop could ever have.

I hope to be a friend to good cops, which make up most of the police I've met. Like firefighters and soldiers, they are out there putting their lives on the line to protect us, and I am grateful for that.

Sure, there are bad soldiers, bad cops and bad firefighters. But they're the minority, fortunately, and I will generally give them the benefit of the doubt.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

It's easy to be naive and call anyone that questions it "paranoid" but HONESTLY... could this forced blood draw be incorporated into the random sobriety checkpoints?!

The way things are now, as you know, it can't. The chain of evidence as well as the requirement for an approved lab to complete the test prevent that. Will it be the case some day? Honestly I don't think so, but I also think that blood draws will be out dated technology in another 10-20 years. So it will be some different test. Maybe a computerized HGN reader that shows to be super accurate or some other non-intrusive test.

I wouldn't call you paranoid, nor would I of anyone else that is concerned for their personal rights. I would rather see LEO's jobs get harder and have some of our personal rights returned; however, I want people to make intelligent discussion on the matter (I know, that's a pipe dream here in SC). That's why I went to the length I did to explain how the process actually works, instead of how people *think* the process works.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Nightingale 0]

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. If you're not willing to take a test, take the bus.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. If you're not willing to take a test, take the bus.

Why is it a privilege?

You need your owner's permission to drive? Get married? Start a business? Carry a firearm?

You really think that's a good way to run things?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. If you're not willing to take a test, take the bus.

So any infringement at all, no matter how intrusive, is okay?

If it's not enshrined as a Constitutional right, then the government can do anything they want, without limits?

I expected better from you...

[billvon 3,085]

>If it's not enshrined as a Constitutional right, then the government can
>do anything they want, without limits?

Nope. The limits are us. We vote for representatives. If someone says "I think there should be a law against yellow dogs!" and you don't like that, don't vote for him.

If he is elected, and he passes a law against yellow dogs, then WE will have passed a law against yellow dogs, via our elected representatives. Heck, here in California, it may even be voted on directly, by the people.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.

That old saw may have its days numbered. Actually, there are some trial-level caselaw and well-reasoned appellate briefs arguing that driving is effectively a necessity of life, and thus should be deemed to be a "rebuttable right", i.e., something more than a privilege. (Don't have citations at my fingertips at 1 a.m., but they're out there.) Still the minority view, since it's thinking out of the conventional box, but it does reflect a certain trend of shifting in thinking.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. If you're not willing to take a test, take the bus.

So any infringement at all, no matter how intrusive, is okay?

If it's not enshrined as a Constitutional right, then the government can do anything they want, without limits?

I expected better from you...

No, but they're getting warrants and following due process. I don't have a problem with this. I also don't think an officer asking someone to take a breath test when they've got a reasonable suspicion that someone's under the influence is unreasonable.