Cops plan to draw blood at DUI stops!

[Matt Collins]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549721,00.html?test=latestnews


selected lines from the article:

It's all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program's aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it's still the main reason that drunk driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can't hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that's been upheld by Idaho's Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation's highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

"I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle," said Steve Oberman, chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' DUI Committee.

Under the state's implied consent law, drivers who refuse to voluntarily submit to the test lose their license for a year, so most comply. For the approximately 5 percent who refuse, the officer obtains a search warrant from an on-call judge and the suspect can be restrained if needed to obtain a sample, Layden said.

Outside of Arizona, some law enforcement agencies in Utah have officer phlebotomists, and police in Dalworthington Gardens, Texas are cross-trained as paramedics and have been drawing blood for about three years. The NHTSA is in talks with Houston, Texas about doing the phlebotomy training there, he said.
They're all attracted by Arizona's anecdotal evidence.


"What we found was that the refusal rates of chemical testing lowered significantly since this program began," Haywood said. "Arizona we had about a 20 percent refusal rate in 1995, and today we see about an 8 to 9 percent refusal rate."

 

[Bruno]

that's pretty scary stuff

 

[Dr.3D]

Yep, here is another thread about it with another article.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209887

 

[Dr.3D]

So now we are guilty till our blood proves us innocent.
I can already see how this will be abused.

 

[Matt Collins]

And you can bet your blood sample will be put into a federal DNA database and held there for eternitity, even if you are completely innocent. Think of what happens if the health insurance companies ever get ahold of your DNA!

 

[Liberty Star]

Major law suits. What if someone got some dangerous virus or other infection in a roadside "blood test" by "cops"?

Very bad idea.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I've seen support for this on other sites I visist. I went WTF??!!

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

So now we are guilty till our blood proves us innocent.
I can already see how this will be abused.

Yup. This goes with drug searches at schools. You are presumed a druggie until a dog proves you innocent.

 

[Matt Collins]

You should see the liberty thiefs at Hannity's forums talking about it:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=60931441


It's sickening.

 

[Dr.3D]

I can just imagine driving down the road and some cop pulling me over and then getting poked in the arm just because the cop thought it would be fun to harass somebody. No court, no trial, no verdict but you still suffer the insult and probable pain inflicted by a cop who probably can't find a vein to save his ass.

 

[Dionysus]

Um, what if some dumb cop doesn't use a clean needle, since he has no medical training, and gives you AIDS? Seriously, this is ridiculous. Matt's right, DNA database. Otherwise, you would only need a pinprick of blood like diabetics use to test their blood sugar, not a full blown needle with syringe.

 

[Dr.3D]

Um, what if some dumb cop doesn't use a clean needle, since he has no medical training, and gives you AIDS? Seriously, this is ridiculous. Matt's right, DNA database. Otherwise, you would only need a pinprick of blood like diabetics use to test their blood sugar, not a full blown needle with syringe.

One would think the best way they could do such a thing even if we don't want them doing it, would be for the cop to have a test unit like a diabetic uses except set up for blood alcohol.

From what I understand, it is a lot easier to get septicemia from a poke in the vein rather than from a lancet.

 

[Deborah K]

There is nothing Constitutional about this!!! WTF!!!

 

[silverhawks]

There is nothing Constitutional about this!!! WTF!!!

That's what I said when I read this...how is this not a GROSS violation of the 4th?

Seeing this, I really have to question what kind of country we are living in.

 

[RideTheDirt]

what the fuck america

 

[Anti Federalist]

You should see the liberty thiefs at Hannity's forums talking about it:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=60931441


It's sickening.

I thought these people were our new "allies"?

That's what's being said about the 9/12 protesters.

And where you been on this story?

Us conspiracy kooks were bringing this up last year.

 

[ghengis86]

There is nothing Constitutional about this!!! WTF!!!

actually the government paid judges ruled that the law made by government paid legislatures and enforced by the government paid executive branch is constitutional. Don't you just love checks and balances?

should i ever be a candidate for forcible blood draws (not likely for a variety of reasons), i'd let them have my license for a year. even government run hospitals with government paid doctors gave AIDS, Hep B and Hep C to veterans via dirty colonoscopy equipment; nobody thinks jimbo the overweight local dickhead with a badge won't fuck up?

wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf

 

[TastyWheat]

And you can bet your blood sample will be put into a federal DNA database and held there for eternitity, even if you are completely innocent. Think of what happens if the health insurance companies ever get ahold of your DNA!

I'd rather admit to drunk driving than have my DNA in a federal database.

 

[slothman]

Isn't there a disease, hemophilia or something, that gives you thin blood and a needle could make you bleed alot?

 

[Matt Collins]

A few selected comments on Hannity's forums about this:

how about not driving drunk . then you have nothing to worry about

You can refuse.

However, you can also not drive under the influence, but that's just me.

If you drive on government roads, you gotta go by their rules.

The OP states the officer still needs to call a judge and get a search warrant. As long as this step is involved then the officer is executing a lawful warrant and force would be ok. I'm glad to see some communities are dropping the hammer on drunk drivers. Refusals of any part of the field sobriety tests or breath/blood/urine later on should be grounds for an immediate and lengthy suspension.

lol, If it was up to me, A stick by a needle, would be the last thing a drunk driver ever felt.

My Mother in law was killed by a Drunk Driver, and just recently, one put my Uncle Joe into the hospital.

The officer has already hit the threshold for PC and has made the arrest. A judge has signed a warrant to seize time-sensitive evidence. It's perfectly Constitutional and within the scope of government search and seizure rules. The only quirk in this OP is that the officer is taking the sample rather than the current procedures most agencies use of taking them to a hospital, physically restraining them if needed, then a phlebotomist taking the sample.

Right now if there is an accident with injuries/fatality and the driver refuses then the officer gets a warrant and the blood gets drawn with consent or without. It's kind of hard to argue Nazi tactics when the procedure is spelled out in the US Constitution regarding search and seizure.