Drawing Blood at DUI Checkpoints..

[G_j]

PBSO To Draw Blood At DUI Checkpoints This Weekend
Controversial Checkpoints Begin Friday, Continue Through Saturday
WPBF-TV
updated 8:17 p.m. ET, Sat., Feb.
28, 2009

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and other local law enforcement will be conducting drunken driving checkpoints, but this time deputies will do things a little differently.

If deputies suspect a driver is under the influence, they'll offer an on-the-spot Breathalyzer. If drivers refuse, deputies will ask to draw their blood.

Attorney David Olson told WPBF News 25 that "would only be lawful if a warrant is issued by a judge."

That's just what deputies plan to do. They'll actually drive to a judge's home for a signature and return to the checkpoint.

Olson said drawing blood from drivers is usually done in extreme cases like homicides and fatal collisions. Olson said he's not sure a judge would actually sign a warrant.

Drivers who refuse will be arrested and charged with driving under the influence.

DUI saturation patrols are set to begin Friday and will continue through Saturday.


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29431626/

[depakid]

1. More lunacy out of Florida

If drivers refuse to abide by the implied consent law- their license ought simply to be taken and their cars impounded.

I guess that's not good enough for some types....

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. It's not just Florida

They have proposed this in other states as well.

I get so sick of the state bashing here. That's why I changed my user name :)

[depakid]

14. First I've heard about rushing out to get warrants for blood tests by the side of the road

(as to Florida- they bring that on themselves through one bizarre story after another- in all sorts of areas, on all sorts of issues. Kansas on the other hand seems relatively quiet- outside of the usual trouble with fundies).

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. They proposed it in MO

And I know lots of good progressives in Florida. Many post here :)

[tammywammy]

75. They do it around here

You're warned on radio and news reports especially around big drinking holidays that the cops will be out in force to pull over drunk drivers.

[depakid]

91. Not sure you get it

Yes, breathalyzers are used to keep the road toll down- and like tazers, there's a use for them.

But that's not what these crazy fools in Florida are doing.

[Edweird]

24. If you spent more time reading about it than posting about it, you'd find

that drivers were able to refuse all tests... even the blood sample.

[acmavm]

73. Yeah, but here's what happens...

<snip>
Drivers who refuse will be arrested and charged with driving under the influence.

<snip>

So, what exactly is your point?

[Edweird]

109. It's 'implied consent', exactly what #1 claims ISN'T happening.

That is my point.

[dem629]

62. Yup. I could have guessed it was FL without even looking.

And I say that as someone who does not hate Florida, so this is not a slam.

[ThomWV]

2. Stick a needle in you and say its not invasive - sure, why not. We've seen worse and got used to it

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Good luck to them with that!

The minute a bruise happens, or worse...

:scared:

[truebrit71]

4. Welcome to the police state...Just wtf is wrong with FL anyway? Is it the heat...

...or the humidity that melts peoples brains down there?

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. too many years of Republican rule.

[alarimer]

47. They've been doing it here (Texas) too.

They call them "no refusal" weekends. Police state, indeed.

[MadHound]

5. Hmm, might have to go down to Florida,

That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. First time a deputy (really a deputy now:wtf:) fucks up a stick on somebody, punching through the vein, missing the vein, etc. I can see a tidy little lawsuit.

Really now, most vampires(phlebotamists) have to go through extensive training before they come near a person. What are they going to do, give a two hour training seminar, stick a few oranges and send them out into the night?

Thank God I listened to my first impression decades ago, and decided to stay away from Florida.

[Earth_First]

7. This is exactly my concern too...

LEO's drawing blood on the side of the highway...

Nope no impending (malpractice?) suit there...

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. I thought the cops were terrified of getting aids via blood contact...

a good cop out ( pun inteneded) is to tell the deputy you might have Hep. C or worse.
Actually Hep. c. would be a real possibility with some drunk drivers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Don't See Anything Wrong With That.

They are offered the breathalyzer first, and only if they refuse is the blood option given. That can be refused as well.

It's pretty simple really though... If you've got nothin to hide, take the damn breathalyzer and be done with it. No real biggie.

[truebrit71]

11. So when exactly did you stop beating your wife?

...the "if you have nothing to hide" mantra...my favourite of all the police state-enabling memes...:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. It's A Breathalyzer. There's Absolutely ZERO Reason To Refuse.

If you refuse, it is likely because you're fucking drunk. And if you're fucking drunk and behind the wheel, than you're a piece of shit scumbag who deserves to have their license ripped from them.

It's a simple and VALUABLE test that helps to protect society. If you're not drunk, there's no reason to not take the test. If you refuse, then suffer the damn consequences. It's really quite that simple.

[truebrit71]

19. So you missed that part about this being at a checkpoint as opposed to being SOP for being pulled...

...over?

Random checkpoint, give up my right? Not bloody likely.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. You Had All Sorts Of Trouble With Reading Comprehension On This One.

First, as ALWAYS, they randomly choose drivers. Then, as ALWAYS, if someone is suspected of being under the influence a breathalyzer is given. ONLY if they refuse the breathalyzer, does blood come into play, and even then it can be refused. You need to read the article better.

[truebrit71]

40. Try reading this...

...FUCK THE POLICE. I refuse to give up my rights and surrender to a police state mentality. Living in a "free" society means I don't have to prove my innocence based on some pigs fucking "suspicion"...

[tanngrisnir3]

60. If there's reasonable suspicion, then you do have something to prove.

You're not giving up your rights by choosing to drive on publically funded roads/highways, subject to the laws of your state, but you are voluntarily choosing to submit to the authority given to the police by that state to pull you over, test you, talk to you, etc... if you are exhibiting certain behaviors that would tend to indicate you're driving while intoxicated.

Oh, and since you apparently missed it while screaming and stamping your feet, most states have determined that random checkpoints must be announced, well beforehand and in a public venue like a newpaper or TV/radio broadcast, so one could simply avoid the street that the checkpoint is on. The Supreme Court has ruled that being in line in a car at a checkpoint, and then exiting that line and driving off elsewhere is not grounds for the police to pull that person over, and they are free to leave unchecked and unmolested.

So, in reality, you're crying and screaming about nothing.

We now return you to your psychotic, unhinged rant.

[truebrit71]

64. And who determines what is "reasonable"? Oh, that's right, the cops...

Yeah...I'm the one that's unhinged... :eyes:

[tanngrisnir3]

65. At the scene, yes. If it's called into question, then a judge at or before trial

Yes, your rant is unhinged.

[truebrit71]

69. Yup. Trust the cops. I get it. Cops are good. They never lie.

....and I am the one that's unhinged? You, however, are completely out of your tree...

[tanngrisnir3]

74. I'm sorry, but where did I say that cops never lie?

Where did I ask you to or recommend that you trust them?

Yes, you're unhinged. To the point, in fact, where you have to misrepresent my position due to the weakness of yours.

Might want to rethink your whole outlook, Sport.

[truebrit71]

83. Sorry..."sport"...

...I have no time for law-and-order apologists...

Have a nice day.

[tanngrisnir3]

87. Why would anyone apologize for law and order?

It's what keeps the society together, Sport.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. Sounds Like Quite The Irrational Rant To Me.

Living in a free society means there has to be laws. There has to be ways to enforce those laws. Boo hoo for you that if a cop suspects you of driving drunk, that puwr wittle tiny wittle you has to breath into a tube. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Cid_B]

92. Just remember...

We love you too.

[Ohio Joe]

29. I agree

When you drink and drive you have decided that other peoples lives are worth less then your drink.

[Gormy Cuss]

49. Reasons to refuse a breathalyzer.

*Poor calibration. This comes both in the form of instruments that have not been maintained properly and the fact that estimations are done off of a fix ratio of BAC:breath alcohol content even though it's well know among those who deal with these tests that the same BAC can produce a fair wide variation in breath alcohol content. Three people with .08 BAC may blow results that estimate as low as .06 or as high as .09 (the higher BAC in this example wouldn't matter much because .08 or .09 is legally DUI, but I include it to show how far off even a well calibrated breathalyzer can be in determining BAC.

*False readings based on other substances in breath. Some diabetics and people working around certain adhesives and VOCs will register positive results on a breathalyzer without having touched a drop. Even mouthwashes have been known to boost the breathalyzer reading.

So if you know all of the above, why would you agree to it? Oh, yeah, because most states have added an implied consent law whereby refusing a breathalyzer test may result in immediate consequences such as privilege suspension. In some states the refusal alone can result in a fine even if you aren't convicted of drunk driving on that stop. Even if you are a teetotaler. That's some mighty fine lawmaking right there.

[Wizard777]

98. Most lawyers I know say refuse the field sobriety test and take the breathalyser.

They says Juries tend to go with the field sobriety test results over breathalysers. They say they've seen juries convict in many cases where the person failed field sobriety but passed breathalyser.

[Gormy Cuss]

100. That makes sense because field sobriety tests can show diminished states

even when the breathalyzer reading is say .06 .

Those tests too can be incredibly wrong for people with balance and coordination difficulties.

[rug]

16. Post your address so the police can come in and look around. You have nothing to hide.

No real biggie.

[tkmorris]

25. Damned straight

I detest people that use the "If you've got nothing to hide..." argument. As if one's constitutional rights are something they should just surrender if they are innocent. Sounds more like a Bush argument than a Democrat.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. What A Crock.

If you are suspected of driving drunk OF COURSE they should give a breathalzyer, and OF COURSE if you're not drunk you should just go ahead and take it. There's no constitutional infringement whatsoever and the responses against this are making many look quite silly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. You're Making A Ridicluously Illogical Leap There. Pretty Silly.

This is about a person already suspected to be drunk, being asked to submit to a breathalyzer as is SOP and perfectly acceptable. ONLY if they refuse does the blood thing come into play, and even then it can be refused. Not surprised to see the void of critical thought knee jerk responses to the issue though.

[rug]

39. No, there's not even reasonable suspicion. It's a checkpoint stop.

To even have a claim to legality, the stops must be planned in advance, e.g., stop every car or every tenth car, without regard to the actions of whom they stop. This is to avoid racial profiling, among other unlawful police practices with which you may agree.

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. The police don't care if you're drinking in your house... quit using failed logic...

Do you support keeping drunk drivers off the road or not?? Some people whine when the cops do their jobs, others whine when they *don't* do their jobs.. and others just whine for the sake of whining...

If a DUI checkpoint saves me, my kids, or anyone that I know from getting killed by a drunk driver, more power to them. If you're drinking, stay out from behind the wheel. Period. Back when I was younger, I drove drunk more times than I can remember. It didn't seem like a big deal back then to be partying in Ft. Lauderdale and wake up in Key West, not remembering driving there, but you're there, and so is your car.... I'm damn lucky *I* never killed anyone...

The bottom line is: don't drink and drive. If you *do* come up on a checkpoint, you have nothing to worry about. The cops only test you *if* they smell alcohol on you.

[noamnety]

43. What do you think's an appropriate punishment for DUI? (nt)

[Ghost in the Machine]

51. The laws in effect right now are adequate... for first time offenders...

Laws vary by state, but here in Tennessee, 3rd time offenders get 120 days in jail, license lost for 5 to 10 years and 80 hours community service. I think they should jail 3rd time offenders for a minimum of one year, confiscate their car and never give them a license again, until they can prove 5 years of sobriety....

[noamnety]

59. I'm not sure of an appropriate punishment, just to be clear

I'm more just thinking aloud.

I know your experience is not unusual - a lot of drunk driving when you were younger, probably combined with the sense you were invincible (part of the reason I oppose lowering the drinking age to 18).

Our views change as we get older, we generally support a permanent loss of a license after three offenses - but not so many of us are willing to stop driving, even if we know we met those standards (3 offenses in our youth). If you ask yourself whether you should voluntarily hand over your license, your answer would probably be no, cause you don't do it anymore.

I don't know if there's a reasonable way to "prove" 5 years of sobriety, or even if that should be a standard. I might support a restriction (enforced through GPS) that you can only drive to and from work. I worry that taking away a person's ability to earn a living when their issue is partying after work will result in them causing even more problems in society.

[rug]

46. They care if you're smoking pot in your house.

Let them in if you have nothing to hide.

Open up your veins if you have nothing to hide.

If the statute of limitations hasn't run, go to the cops and confess in case you fall off the wagon and end up running someone off the road again.

The bottom line: checkpoints, as well as traffic stops, are very useful police tools to step around constitutional protections. Stopping drunk driving is simply the stated reason they exist, not the only reason.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/pretext_traffic_stops

[Ghost in the Machine]

55. Well, if this were a thread about cops coming to houses and testing people you'd have a point...

You still don't seem to grasp the fact that not *everyone* is tested at these checkpoints. They only test you if they *smell* alcohol on you.

Do you have anything to add that's pertinent to the conversation, or do you want to keep battling strawmen that you build?

[rug]

58. No, they test you if your eyes are bloodshot, if you're slow getting your license, if you look

"suspicious", if they want to look in your car, if your tail light is out, if you are disrespectful, or any other pretense they wish.

And now they want to detain you while they get a warrant to stick a needle in your arm.

Do you seriously believe these checkpoints are solely to stop drunk driving?

[G_j]

67. I was stopped at a checkpoint

and I had an eye infection which made my eyes bloodshot. The cop questioned me about it, with obvious suspicion.
Not big deal, he let me pass. If I had been a teenager or a person of color, it might have taken longer. I've been pulled over (and harassed) for various ridiculous reasons,
things like: paint chipped on license plate, or license plate light out.


It's much safer at a checkpoint IMO. getting pulled over in the middle of nowhere, for "driving while being a hippie" is what I dread.

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. I've never been asked to take a breathalyzer because of a nonworking tail light

I've never been asked to take a breathalyzer because a cop wanted to look in my car, either. Getting your license out too slowly?? You should have it out and ready for presentation when you roll up to the officers. Unless you're the very first car in line, you've got time to get your stuff out. 99% of the time all you do is roll up, show your license, registration and insurance card and they wave you on.

I've been through the checkpoints in Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Ohio. I've always been treated respectfully, even though I'm a "long haired, bearded, tattooed, biker looking dude".

Believe me, I understand the outrage over it, and if the time ever came that a cop wanted to try to stick a needle in *my* arm.. let's just say that I'd be going to jail, but it wouldn't be for a DUI...

I wonder what a cop would do if a person asked to see the cop's medical license before they used that needle? When did cops become medical lab technicians? Do state laws require some kind of training before they let a person draw blood from another person? These are the questions that need to be asked in an effort to stop this practice, imho...

"Do you seriously believe these checkpoints are solely to stop drunk driving?"

No, they're also good for getting unlicensed and/or uninsured motorists off the road, too...

[ContinentalOp]

84. I get it, so it was OK for you to do it...

but now that those years are behind you screw the younger generation? Gotcha. This is the same Baby Boomer MADD bullshit thinking that lowered the drinking age when they got the right to vote and then raised it back up again once they had kids. You got yours, who cares if you ruin someone else's life?

[Ghost in the Machine]

85. Wow! You had to dig deep into some stupid for that reply, didn't you?

No, *I* was very stupid when I was younger. I'm lucky I didn't kill myself, or someone else.

I personally think the drinking age should be lowered to 18, or the enlistment age for the military, or the legal age which one can vote, or get married should be raised to 21. If you're old enough to vote, get married or join the service you should be old enough to have a drink.


Please explain, in detail, how *I* would be "ruining someone else's life". Let me guess... you don't give a flying fuck about personal responsibility, do you? You try to find someone else to blame when things go wrong for you, don't you? Here's the deal: if you choose to drink and drive, and you get caught, it's not the cop's fault, it's not the liquor store's fault, it's not the bartender's fault if it "ruins your life". It's your own fucking fault, suck it up and get the fuck over it....

Personal Responsibility: Try it, you'll like it! It'll set you free!



Damn, can someone please run a bead of caulk around the woodwork where these things keep crawling out of??

[Warren Stupidity]

21. unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause

other than that you have a point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Not Even Close To Unreasonable Search And Seizure.

It's a random checkpoint. If someone is suspected of DUI they are asked to take a breathalyzer, as is SOP and something that's a no brainer for the public to support. Only if it is refused does the blood come into play, and that can be refused also. People are just knee jerking like fools with this one, as is often the case here.

[Texasgal]

38. The blood test cannot be refused.

Unless you wanna spend the night in jail.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. In Most States Neither Can The Breathalyzer.

So yes, it can be refused, but with the same consequences as refusing the breathalyzer. Nothing changes.

[Texasgal]

82. Okay...so what's the point of a blood test then?

Same results.

[Trekologer]

86. Can the blood sample be tested by a 3rd party?

Let's say a breathalyzer isn't calibrated properly and you blow an over the limit amount (but you really aren't). The non-calibrated state the tester was in will probably be rectified by the time a defendant tries to challenge the results. You also can't have the test done again at a later date.

With proper chain of custody performed on a blood sample, a defendant should be able to have their blood sample tested at a 3rd party lab to refute the findings of the police's results.

Defendants in DUI cases have tried to challenge the results of breathalyzers and obtain the source code the breathalyzer uses to determine if there is a flaw in it. The company that makes them has refused and courts have mostly sided with the company (although there is a pending case where it has been ordered to release the code). If you want to use the "if you have nothing to hide" argument, does the refusal of the breathalyzer maker to release the code imply that there is a flaw in it?

[Texasgal]

88. The defendant should have the choice to

have blood drawn.... key word... CHOICE. You shouldn't be MADE to give a sample, that's the whole issue here.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. "It's a random checkpoint."

Just because we have grown used to living in a police state does not mean that this police state of ours is constitutional.

[tanngrisnir3]

66. You are free to avoid them and even leave them, utterly unmolested by cops

In most states, they must be announced, repeatedly, beforehand and through a public medium like newspapers and/or broadcast media.

If you're in line, you can simply pull out and drive away, and cannot be followed or pulled over simply for having done so.

[cbc5g]

53. Funny shit there...not unreasonable search and seizure yet its a random checkpoint

Funny shit man. If that's not unreasonable...lol

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. What's Funny Is Your Interpretation.

Time and time again random checkpoints have been held up as constitutional. There's nothing unreasonable about it. And if you are suspected of being drunk behind the wheel, you should absolutely have to blow into the breathalyzer. And if you fail, than I'm glad one more dumb ass drunk will be off the road.

[NashVegas]

101. And Gathering of DNA Material

I hope no one's silly enough to think that's going to be thrown out.

[tangent90]

56. I always read your post and I usually agree with you but not so much on this one.

I'm not defending drunk drivers but I'm really uncomfortable with this kind of "throw out a net and see what we can catch" approach to law enforcement. I know the S.C. has validated it but that's not much consolation - it really isn't that much of a stretch to "let's pick out a random house to barge into and search...if they don't have anything to hide...", etc.

It actually just boils down to revenue anyway - cops are pressured by the local pols to bring in money and they just 'do their jobs.' Like the guys at Nuremburg did.

[SlowDownFast]

61. So Says "Thank God It Passed!" n/t

[Tesha]

77. You can always be counted on to miss the point, can't you? (NT)

[Forkboy]

89. LOL

[varkam]

94. Actually, there's plenty of reason to refuse a breathalyzer.

There are hundreds of DUI cases on appeal right now where the BAC was based on a breathalyzer test. The reason? Because no one knows how the various models of breathalyzers actually work (read: how accurate they actually are).

[Texasgal]

13. This just started in Austin, TX as well

I am 100% against such intrusion of your BASIC RIGHTS!

The whole thing is disgusting. :mad:

[JFN1]

15. Cops are out of control.

They are not our MASTERS - they are supposed to "protect and SERVE" - aren't they????

[TXRAT2]

96. Keeping drunks from behind the wheel is not protecting?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Are they licensed phlebotomists?

Can they insure the safety and integrity of the blood sample taken? What steps will be taken to insure that all biohazardous material is handled properly?

All it will take is one person getting blood drawn to come up with a hitherto undiagnosed blood born disease to sue the whole department.

[Edweird]

22. They were using paramedics to draw the blood.

[Texasgal]

26. Talk about stressing an alreay stressed

out system!

[Oilwellian]

32. Yes, the very same system...

that can't afford teachers.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Semen samples, vaginal, anal, oral swabs too.

Think of the children!

[Texasgal]

23. Sorry... nobody is touching my twat

without permission. PERIOD.

:P

[tkmorris]

27. What? You have something to hide?

[Texasgal]

30. ...

:spray:

[BlooInBloo]

28. Obvious 4th Amendment issue.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Obvious Lack Of Knowledge Of The 4th Amendment And This Issue.

It would be perfectly legal.

[NYC_SKP]

54. You'd think so, but in CA they consider driving a privelege, not a right...

...and if you refuse, you get written up for the equivalent of a DUI.

So, you can refuse the bloodtest, sure, but you give up your "privelege" for the "right" to refuse.

As I see it, you waive your 4th amemdment rights in exchange for the privilege of having a valid license.

It stinks to high heaven, but they get away with it.

[dysfunctional press]

57. why isn't it ever considered a 5th amrndment issue...?

aren't breathalyzers and blood tests ultimately a way of compelling you to give testimony against yourself? :shrug:

[bertman]

31. Just one more way to enable the Police State. Get people used to accepting whatever

invasions of their privacy the fascists demand.

When I was growing up the ONLY time there was a police/highway patrol/sheriff's checkpoint was if there was a prison break or a kidnapping with a vehicle. This police checkpoint stuff grew out of the anti-drunk driving campaigns that started in the 70's. Even when they first started doing this citizens were very incensed and felt like it was something akin to the Soviet KGB or Nazis stopping people for i.d. checks.

I understand the underlying rationale for this but it's really a false premise that law enforcement is better since these things were instituted. Given the number of cell phones on the road, just encouraging other drivers to report erratic driving would likely facilitate more effective capture of truly impaired individuals.

Another legal ramification to this blood-drawing issue: if you have residual evidence of ANY controlled or illegal substance--even below level of intoxication--could you be arrested for that?

This is simply more creeping invasion of individuals' right to privacy.

[onethatcares]

50. the REAL REASON FOR THESE CHECKPOINTS

is to make money for the state. With the taxes being cut and people moving out of here, along with the home prices dropping, and all the rest of the bullshit you get when you live in a state with asshole legislators, the system has to be paid for some how. this is it. The Floriduh state motto is actually, "Come on vacation, leave on probation, return on revocation". Once you get in the system, it's a bit hard to get out.

Peace.

[notesdev]

42. The problem is the 'checkpoint'

There really isn't any lawful justification for stopping people without probable cause. The whole idea of the cops being able to set up camps to fish for evidence of crimes and/or create them is un-American.

[Profprileasn]

45. Good Grief

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is just a piece of paper.

[cbc5g]

52. checkpoints are a slap in the face to the constitution

Some of the worst things have been done with the best intentions. Think about that MADD members.

[Matariki]

63. VAMPIRES!!!

oh no!

[michreject]

70. In Michigan, if you refuse a breathalyzer

You're taken straight to the hospital for blood.

[roamer65]

72. Yup. I used to run those tests.

They sucked because each one was a potential court case.

[bridgit]

71. That's more than a little too Andromeda Strain for me or Florida I would think...

Welcome the camel's nose; "would only be lawful if a warrant is issued by a judge" *is* the slippery slope before all it will take is a PDA fixed with a bloody little viper's fang to confirm...there won't need to be a judge on the other end after the thin blue line becomes an eight lane highway; probable cause should remain just that and the highly invasive collection of fluids at such DUI checkpoints for such reasons doesn't even feign to what is specious - it's wrong - we're aren't talking transfusing blood products to save lives on the scene the article having mentioned "extreme cases like homicides and fatal collisions" so there's no point in drawing their blood least not right then, nor infusing counter-reactive compounds at the scene or in the Bus en route to the hospital; so that such medical procedures should remain inside sanitized laboratory settings able to recognize personal privacy and chains of medical authority.

I understand cops are officers of the court; but by collecting blood evidence in the field as an extracurricular activity to their already established charge of deeming probable causes, taking people down & in where process' are hopefully less chaotic, aren't they then more direct employees of the DA's office?

[G_j]

76. most compelling argument

to me anyway..

[chollybocker]

78. Preparing for legalized marijuana?

[Forkboy]

90. They try to stick a needle in me and my blood alcohol level is the least of their worries.

:P

[taterguy]

93. Cops live for drunken resisters

Go ahead, make their day

[varkam]

95. Don't Taze Me, Bro!

We need a tazer smiley.

[ret5hd]

99. Your statement reveals a whole other argument to distrust cops.

not a new argument, just glad you pointed out the "alpha" mindset of cops. Only complete subservience is acceptable.

[bridgit]

102. Drunken Resisters are a form of paid vacation for cops, they have to bust a sweat chasing...

dedicated B&E peeps over fence after fence in the city where they could drop into a backyard with a pit beside a meth lab where all hell could break loose; gangs have them out gunned and they're x-factors more resolute and that leaves the drunken, the tipsy, and the social drinker for that matter and after hours of interaction and paperwork that could be your shift for the evening piece of cake one day closer to pension one less sweat to bust

[Forkboy]

105. It was a joke.

I've had cops in the family. I know what they live for.

[tanngrisnir3]

106. No, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[TXRAT2]

97. Resist arrest or detainment and a DUI will be the least of your worries.

[Forkboy]

104. I was joking.

You and taterguy need to try decaf. ;)

[taterguy]

107. You failed to use the sarcasm smiley

Therefore it was not a joke

[Forkboy]

108. I never use it.

The smilie face wasn't a tip off? :eyes:

[mwooldri]

103. I don't see a problem here, but maybe with the execution.

In UK usually the rule is that you're breathalyzed - you can submit to this... if you refuse to provide and the police officer thinks you may be drink-driving then he can arrest you and take you down to the station. You can then choose to submit to a blood test or a urine test or a breath-test at the station. Refuse to supply any three of these and you get jailed for up to 6 years, a fine of up to $7000 (at todays exchange rates) and your license is suspended for 12 months.

Drawing blood at the scene of the accident? No, no no... not sterile. But take them to the police station? Sure... go ahead and do that... they have the power of arrest and detention, so do that... and whilst this is going on, someone go see the judge and get the warrant signed.

Either that or the law needs to be changed to look like the UK law. Drink driving is no joking matter, and maybe a six month imprisonment and a $7000 fine might be enough to wake some people up.