Forcing people to give blood for dwi??

[txstangguy]

I just heard about Fort Worth starting a drunk driving program that forces "suspected" drunk drivers to give a blood sample for the court. What the hell do we not have the fifth ammendment to hide behind anymore I mean it does say that we have the right not to incriminate ourselves... How can this be legal? or is it at all?

[David]

The way they get around it is by finding a judge to get a warrant signed off.

[txstangguy]

Fuck the warant isn't it still unconstantutional?

[Zarathustra]

ABSOLUTELY!

Yes, 100%

[David]

Fuck the warant isn't it still unconstantutional?
Nope. Everything is constituional until it's challenged.

It's the same process and theory as getting a search warrant for your house.

[Zarathustra]

Obviously you've no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know what the constitution is?

Do you know what the fourth amendment says?

No it is not.

[David]

Obviously you've no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know what the constitution is?

Do you know what the fourth amendment says?

No it is not.
Yes IM well aware of what the 4th amendment is. Problem is how do you argue illegal search and seizure when the 4th amendment also states, "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"

Sounds to me a hard one to argue when a police officer can produce necessary paperwork and statements of facts that show probable cause and then have a warrant issued and signed by a judge.

[txstangguy]

Yeah a warant for your house. How do they get a WARANT for your blood a fluid that your body produces that belongs TO YOU how do they get a warant to stick a needle into your vein and basically steal from you your blood without your permission. THIS is the kind of shit people need to be fighting. Whats next random house to house searches and random drug tests for the general public?

[David]

Yeah a warant for your house. How do they get a WARANT for your blood a fluid that your body produces that belongs TO YOU how do they get a warant to stick a needle into your vein and basically steal from you your blood without your permission. THIS is the kind of shit people need to be fighting. Whats next random house to house searches and random drug tests for the general public?
Your house is your property also. With probable cause, affidavits, and a judge to sign off they can search that also etc. Blood is property in the states eyes.

Until someone challenges it, it's constitutional. They have probable cause, they have a warrant, what are you gonna do?

Best option is to either pay millions to an atty to challenge it, or dont drive drunk.

[Cooter]

Yeah a warant for your house. How do they get a WARANT for your blood a fluid that your body produces that belongs TO YOU how do they get a warant to stick a needle into your vein and basically steal from you your blood without your permission. THIS is the kind of shit people need to be fighting. Whats next random house to house searches and random drug tests for the general public?

if an officer has been trained in spotting effects of alcohol intoxication and smells alcohol on you and swears under oath that he believes that someone is intoxicated and asks for a warrant, a judge just might grant that warrant.

fucked up system? yes...

constitutional? yes

[big_tiger]

Whats next random house to house searches and random drug tests for the general public?


You know, you should sumbit your ideas to Fort Worth. They will like your thinking. Probable cause is very conflicting to innocent until proven guilty.

[DFWtechie]

I think it is the best thing to be put into law. Next they need to sentece a DWI/DUI to a min of 10 yrs and if they do it again stick the needle in there arm. Fucking drunk drivers need to to die. If you drink be and adult and don't drive bottom line. hell who knows mabe they will reuse needles and infect the worthless drunk drivers with HIV from some drunk/ drug abuser.

Just my opinion btw. :)

[Zarathustra]

It has been challenged. Random dwi checkpoints were outlawed under the constitution.

On a side note:
If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...

[txstangguy]

I think it is the best thing to be put into law. Next they need to sentece a DWI/DUI to a min of 10 yrs and if they do it again stick the needle in there arm. Fucking drunk drivers need to to die. If you drink be and adult and don't drive bottom line. hell who knows mabe they will reuse needles and infect the worthless drunk drivers with HIV from some drunk/ drug abuser.

Just my opinion btw. :)
Kind of a strech going from unconstitutional to execution don't ya think? Why don't you take some of that thinking and put it to use and join the military so you can put it to use.

[txstangguy]

It has been challenged. Random dwi checkpoints were outlawed under the constitution.

On a side note:
If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...
X2

[thesource]

I heard an advertisement on the radio the other day from a DWI lawyer telling the general public to deny the breathalizer test and do not give a blood sample under no conditions . This was the first time I'd ever heard someone come out and say it that was a lawyer and on the radio at that .

[Big_Richard_Pornstar]

if an officer has been trained in spotting effects of alcohol intoxication and smells alcohol on you and swears under oath that he believes that someone is intoxicated and asks for a warrant, a judge just might grant that warrant.

fucked up system? yes...

constitutional? yes
Not Constitutional

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to provide evidence that would or might lead to your prosecution for a crime. :eek: :eek:

[txstangguy]

I hope that someone who has this happens to them files a suit ang gets the supreme court to rule it unconstitutional.

[F8LSVT]

It has been challenged. Random dwi checkpoints were outlawed under the constitution.

On a side note:
If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...



They get around that by calling them "vehicle safety checkpoints" now.

[Cooter]

Not Constitutional

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to provide evidence that would or might lead to your prosecution for a crime. :eek: :eek:

cool, next time they come to my door w/ a warrant, I'll keep them out so that they won't find the evidence of my meth lab! :D

I see what you're saying. Like David said, it'll have to be contested and a precident set otherwise

[David]

Not Constitutional

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to provide evidence that would or might lead to your prosecution for a crime. :eek: :eek:
The 5th amendment doesent apply to being fingerprinted or supplying a DNA sample.

[Cooter]

It has been challenged. Random dwi checkpoints were outlawed under the constitution.

On a side note:
If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...

they'll oblige that request

[F8LSVT]

I think it is the best thing to be put into law. Next they need to sentece a DWI/DUI to a min of 10 yrs and if they do it again stick the needle in there arm. Fucking drunk drivers need to to die. If you drink be and adult and don't drive bottom line. hell who knows mabe they will reuse needles and infect the worthless drunk drivers with HIV from some drunk/ drug abuser.

Just my opinion btw. :)



Have you ever considered seeking professional help? Damn, people that make these sorts of extreme statements scare me more than drunks.

[Big_Richard_Pornstar]

The 5th amendment doesent apply to being fingerprinted or supplying a DNA sample.
Never been challenged...........in fingerprints you're not giving up anything physical.

[DFWtechie]

Have you ever considered seeking professional help? Damn, people that make these sorts of extreme statements scare me more than drunks.

No I am only want kill drunk drivers ask the 10 or 12 I have chased down and the 1 I shot at who tried to hit my truck. I just have no tolerence for a drunk driver.

Now ask your self would you want to shake the hand of the drunk who was so drunk didn't feel a thing after he just crashed into a loved ones car and killed them or would you want to beat them to death?

[4.6 Love]

A persons blood is not protected under any constitutional amendment..

[txstangguy]

Have you ever considered seeking professional help? Damn, people that make these sorts of extreme statements scare me more than drunks.
x2

[txstangguy]

People who wish other people to die need to seek professional help DFWtechie if you were to come chasing me in your truck because you thought I was drunk you would probly get your ass plugged with a .40 S&W. Less the other case that you are a cop. Doing shit like that will get your ass killed.

[txstangguy]

Regardless of the BS though the discussion is on whether this is legal, constitutional, and peoples opinions an the policy not shit talking about how you feel about drunk drivers.

[David]

Never been challenged...........in fingerprints you're not giving up anything physical.
It's in the annotations.

[F8LSVT]

\

No I am only want kill drunk drivers ask the 10 or 12 I have chased own and the 1 I shot at who tried to hit my truck. I just have no tolerence for a drunk driver.

Now ask your self would you want to shake the hand of the drunk who was so drunk didn't feel a thing after he just crashed into a loved ones car and killed them or would you want to beat them to death?



Are you a cop? If not you need to leave the police work to them.

As far as your last question, thats what courts are for. I'm not going to throw my life away and go to jail because of some dumb ass. Im a firm believer in the old addage that if your times up, it's up.

[forever_frost]

Actually something like this was brought before the Supreme Court. A man swallowed a couple condoms of drugs and the officers had the paramedics pump his stomach. The court ruled that it was "so offensive to the court" that it was Unconstitutional.

[Paladin]

Guys this has been tested and appealed and there is nothing unconstitutional about getting a warrant for blood. It is the way our founding fathers wanted it done. The idea is that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement for searches and arrests, but basically you have to show when you do not have a warrant that the arrest/search met those exceptions.

There is so much legal precedent for getting warrants to obtain evidence it is amazing. Why should getting blood for a DWI be any different than other crimes when an evidentiary search warrant is obtained?

BTW, Zurethra, I agree with Cooter, FWPD will gladly oblige you if you want to fight. Others have tried, and they basically got subdued and the blood was drawn. Usually the guys who fight the most are the serial rapists and murderers who have evidentiary blood warrants served on them.

It took a long time for mandatory arrests on family violence cases, and now the tide has turned on DWI. There was a time when both family violence and DWI were considered nuisance offenses, not anymore.

[Paladin]

Actually something like this was brought before the Supreme Court. A man swallowed a couple condoms of drugs and the officers had the paramedics pump his stomach. The court ruled that it was "so offensive to the court" that it was Unconstitutional.

Yeah, drawing blood and pumping a stomach are so similar. :rolleyes:

[Paladin]

...Probable cause is very conflicting to innocent until proven guilty.

So what threshold, since you dislike probable cause, do you propose to allow the arrest of people who have possibly committed a crime?

[Paladin]

BTW, I have not read the whole opinion, but this is what was presented by me from ADA Richard Alpert, who is a well known expert on DWI prosecution. This exerpt was taken from some literature on the SW for blood court cases and subsequent police department policy statements.

"Many times there will be a serious crash but the injuries will not rise to the level of death or serious bodily injury. There are also times when an arrested person who has been convicted of DWI on one or more occasions will not give a specimen. In those cases, the officer may seek a search warrant to obtain a blood specimen. In Beeman v. State 85 S.W. 3d 613 (Tex. Crim.App 2002), the Court of Criminal Appeals approved this method of getting a blood specimen. This case involved a rear end collision with no injuries. After arresting the defendant for DWI, he refused to give a specimen and the officers obtained an evidentiary search warrant and got a specimen drawn over the defendant’s objection. The defense argues that the implied consent law prohibits this procedure. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected that argument and pointed out that under that theory DWI defendants would be afforded greater protection than other criminal suspects."

So far, the Tarrant County DA's office has gotten 100% conviction rates on cases with blood draws. Unless one has happened recently (which I probably would have heard about), there have been no SW's served in FW that had less than .08 BAC. I am no longer the supervisor of our unit that investigates fatality accidents, so that is why my data is not completely current.

Disclaimer: This post was copied from the other thread where I posted about DWI
search warrants.

[5.0_CJ]

the fifth amendment is still in effect, you simply decline to test.

[line-em-up]

A persons blood is not protected under any constitutional amendment..

If that's the case, I can just imagine in another 20 years when they make it mandatory for everyone to give blood or organs to the rich or whoever can afford it, just because they consider blood the property of the state. Can you see where that would lead?

[line-em-up]

Im a firm believer in the old addage that if your times up, it's up.

So, when a drunk runs over and kills your mom, you're just going to say, "it's not the drunk's fault, her time was up"? Good sport!

[BP]

So what will they do if you wear a medic alert bracelet saying you have hemophilia? They could potentially kill you. How about needlephobia?

[Mr Majestyk]

It has been challenged. Random dwi checkpoints were outlawed under the constitution.

On a side note:
If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...

Maybe if he PIUYB you'd give it more willingly, given your fondness for such.

[Paladin]

the fifth amendment is still in effect, you simply decline to test.

The reason they get the search warrant is because of a refusal to consent. You can choose to refuse a voluntary sample, you cannot refuse a sample ordered by a magistrate.

This is basic constitutional stuff guys.

[Paladin]

If that's the case, I can just imagine in another 20 years when they make it mandatory for everyone to give blood or organs to the rich or whoever can afford it, just because they consider blood the property of the state. Can you see where that would lead?

Come on now, the blood is taken pursuant to a signed search warrant from a magistrate. This is not something new, it is what our founding fathers envisioned for the government to do when searching/intruding upon someones privacy, property or body.

[Paladin]

So what will they do if you wear a medic alert bracelet saying you have hemophilia? They could potentially kill you. How about needlephobia?

This is a medical question, not a legal one. Maybe some medical experts can chime in and answer it.

[Slowhand]

STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLES!

...and you won't even have to deal with this situation.

[Mr Majestyk]

Driving is a privelege, not a Constitutional Right. I vote in favor of the blood testing.

[Yale]

The constitution isn't sacred, and shouldn't be bandied about like everyone should stop what they're doing at its mere mention. Don't drive drunk.

[Sean88gt]

Driving is a privelege, not a Constitutional Right. I vote in favor of the blood testing.


While I completely disagree with them taking your blood, and I thought it was only done in the case of an accident, you do sign implied consent when you get your DL's as it is a privilege. Simply, don't drive drunk, don't worry about it.

When a person gets nabbed when they are completely sober is when the court cases will begin.

[F8LSVT]

So, when a drunk runs over and kills your mom, you're just going to say, "it's not the drunk's fault, her time was up"? Good sport!


Twist words much? Since you didn't get the point, let me spell it out for you genius. What good would it do you to get mad about something you have no control over and let the anger eat you up? Can you kill the guy and get off scott free? Push for the maximum penalty and show up everytime the fuck has a parole hearing and move on with your life. Shit happens.

Im done with this "what if, what if" bull shit does about as much good as a monkey fucking a football.

[Fox466]

Come on now, the blood is taken pursuant to a signed search warrant from a magistrate. This is not something new, it is what our founding fathers envisioned for the government to do when searching/intruding upon someones privacy, property or body.


Our founding fathers did not think about blood being drawn as that technology didn't exist then Don, so that arguement doesn't really work here... ;)


Honestly if you were able to sit down with them on this topic I would be willing to bet they would say hell no to it...

[Paladin]

Our founding fathers did not think about blood being drawn as that technology didn't exist then Don, so that arguement doesn't really work here... ;)


Honestly if you were able to sit down with them on this topic I would be willing to bet they would say hell no to it...

I disagree Mike. I think they (founding fathers) would want evidence taken from a suspect to be after a warrant is signed, which is what I was referring to mainly. This is a topic about warrants IMO, not necessarily about the blood. The blood is the evidence we are taking from the search. The same would be the case if we were doing the warrant for a breath sample. It is a search for evidence. The idea is that I can force you to give me blood, but there is no way to force someone to blow if they refuse, it is physically impossible. I guess those who oppose blood being taken from a suspect in general are forgetting murder and sexual assault, which are the most common blood draws done by LE.

I have already said that if someone gets their blood drawn and it comes out .00 BAC there will be a lawsuit. The problem is that if there is a judge who signed the warrant, the lawsuit will go nowhere. Remember, this is only being done to those suspects who refuse to give a voluntary sample.

I think emotion has taken over the logic of some on this issue and they are forgetting this is a pretty simple issue. The blood draw has gotten people upset, but blood search warrants are done for evidence of a crime all the time.

[Denny]

Wow... where are the "YES! Convict those drunk driver" posts? I'd figure most people would want to get a threat like that off the streets. As long as there's JUSTIFIED PROBABLE CAUSE, I think the gloves should come off. Period.

[Fox466]

I think emotion has taken over the logic of some on this issue and they are forgetting this is a pretty simple issue. The blood draw has gotten people upset, but blood search warrants are done for evidence of a crime all the time.

I hear you loud and clear bro. And agree that emotion is the force behind this 'outcry'. But it's also the feeling that 'big brother' is encroaching more and more, with this being one more small step towards that end.

And I agree that they need to be off the streets, but don't agree that forcibly drawing blood is the ticket. Not sure what the answer is but...

[slow99]

...and do not give a blood sample under no conditions . This was the first time I'd ever heard someone come out and say it that was a lawyer and on the radio at that .

So, freely submit to the tests?

[Cartman]

I just heard about Fort Worth starting a drunk driving program that forces "suspected" drunk drivers to give a blood sample for the court. What the hell do we not have the fifth ammendment to hide behind anymore I mean it does say that we have the right not to incriminate ourselves... How can this be legal? or is it at all?
As stated by others only with your consent or a warrent, if they take it without either, then you could be sloppy falling down drunk and you will win due to the cops breaking the law of illegal search.

[Ylw 98~~SNAKE~~]

Dont drive around if you drink problem solved. Yeah its alot easier said than done but the way they fuck you around nowadays it isnt worth the risk. Kinda fucks up everything if you cant drink but you can always call a cab

[fitzwell]

Be interesting to see what happens when the passed out drunk sees an officer sticking a needle in his arm to get blood :D

Agreed, the drunks need to be removed from the streets, but i damn sure don't agree with this method. One of the DWI lawyers was on an interview, discussing the fact that these officers, while trauned, do NOT do this on a daily basis. I don't pretend to know the laws inside out & backwards, but i'm sure the fucktards in the ACLU do :eek:

I see a BIG lawsuit coming out of this one, espically if they pull someone not over the limit.

[Denny]

Be interesting to see what happens when the passed out drunk sees an officer sticking a needle in his arm to get blood :D

Agreed, the drunks need to be removed from the streets, but i damn sure don't agree with this method. One of the DWI lawyers was on an interview, discussing the fact that these officers, while trauned, do NOT do this on a daily basis. I don't pretend to know the laws inside out & backwards, but i'm sure the fucktards in the ACLU do :eek:

I see a BIG lawsuit coming out of this one, espically if they pull someone not over the limit.
It'll just get ran up to the Supreme Court and waste more tax dollars... as usual. Way to go ACLU!

[Sean88gt]

As cops tend to do, they'll overreact. I'm awaiting sobriety check points with needles in the future, followed by the new's story "Are Cops spreading diseases using dirty needles? They could be in your neighborhood! Watch the story tonight!"

[MrEd]

my biggest bitch is its not like we have enough problems with infections and such.
now your going to trust a cop to stick you and test you
"bullshit"

[JP135]

On a side note: If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...

Gosh, a belligerent, fighting drunk. What a novel approach!

[fitzwell]

Gosh, a belligerent, fighting drunk. What a novel approach!

Now....add a "stupid motherfucker" and watch the fun.

sheesh :rolleyes:

[black01gt]

As cops tend to do, they'll overreact. I'm awaiting sobriety check points with needles in the future, followed by the new's story "Are Cops spreading diseases using dirty needles? They could be in your neighborhood! Watch the story tonight!"
Bingo. I don't drink and drive (I hardly drink at all anymore) so I'll do a breath test, but a cop ain't stcking a needle in me. Nope!

"You want to put a needle in me? Fetch a nurse with big titties!"

[TexasDevilDog]

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

I have thought for a while it would be in violation of the 5th amendment. If using my blood is not using my body incriminate myself, then would a machine that can read my thoughts be forcing my brain to incriminate me. A machine like that would save so much time and money in the courts.

[Paladin]

I hear you loud and clear bro. And agree that emotion is the force behind this 'outcry'. But it's also the feeling that 'big brother' is encroaching more and more, with this being one more small step towards that end.

And I agree that they need to be off the streets, but don't agree that forcibly drawing blood is the ticket. Not sure what the answer is but...

I agree with the big brother part if they took the blood without a warrant, but you lose me thinking about big brother with a warrant.

[Paladin]

As cops tend to do, they'll overreact. I'm awaiting sobriety check points with needles in the future, followed by the new's story "Are Cops spreading diseases using dirty needles? They could be in your neighborhood! Watch the story tonight!"

First, sobriety check points are illegal in Texas. Second, the blood draw is done by qualidied technicicans, it just happens to be a certified peace officer doing it some of the time. Usually FWPD does the blood draw at the hospital, they are anticipating a large number of arrests, so they have some certified technicians at the jail who happen to also be LE.

You guys who are overreacting are cracking me up.

[Paladin]

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

I have thought for a while it would be in violation of the 5th amendment. If using my blood is not using my body incriminate myself, then would a machine that can read my thoughts be forcing my brain to incriminate me. A machine like that would save so much time and money in the courts.

So how does getting a warrant for evidence apply to what you have posted? This scenario involves a search warrant signed by a magistrate. This has been tested through courts since the beginning of the constitution. The courst have ruled the way to gather evidence, except when exigent circumstances exist, is to obtain a warrant. This is basic constitutional stuff guys and girls.

BTW, for the people who have tried to use a criminal defense attorney saying this will be appealed, they apparently haven't noticed defense attorneys have alot to lose if evidence is obtained in DWI's that shows definitive proof of guilt and that may be why the defense attorneys are so bothered by this. LOL

[Paladin]

Bingo. I don't drink and drive (I hardly drink at all anymore) so I'll do a breath test, but a cop ain't stcking a needle in me. Nope!

"You want to put a needle in me? Fetch a nurse with big titties!"

I have seen several people, especially when I was a sex crimes detective, who also said they weren't gonna get stuck by a needle. It was fun for the officers who got to hold him down and do it forcibly!

If you ever do get pulled over and decide to refuse to give the breath sample, I sure hope there is a video recording of you telling the officers no to the blood draw. LOL

[Paladin]

I heard an advertisement on the radio the other day from a DWI lawyer telling the general public to deny the breathalizer test and do not give a blood sample under no conditions . This was the first time I'd ever heard someone come out and say it that was a lawyer and on the radio at that .

Just for clarification, the lawyer was referring to giving a voluntary sample. The scenario here is at the order of a magistrate by search warrant. You cannot refuse it, it will be taken by force, and I have seen it done so please don't say it won't happen.

[black01gt]

I have seen several people, especially when I was a sex crimes detective, who also said they weren't gonna get stuck by a needle. It was fun for the officers who got to hold him down and do it forcibly!

If you ever do get pulled over and decide to refuse to give the breath sample, I sure hope there is a video recording of you telling the officers no to the blood draw. LOL
"It was fun for the officers who got to....." :eek: OMG!!!

"...and decide to refuse to give a breath sample,..." And you say reading comprehension escapes me?

[MrEd]

I agree with the big brother part if they took the blood without a warrant, but you lose me thinking about big brother with a warrant.
they do get a warrant "from the magistrate judge"

[Mustangman_2000]

Considering the irreparable damage and loss of life that can be caused by a drunk driver, I say this is a great idea. Some people will bitch and moan about the legality and invasiveness of this new law, but I think it will help improve conviction rates. Drunk drivers kill people, so fuck 'em.

[Sean88gt]

First, sobriety check points are illegal in Texas. Second, the blood draw is done by qualidied technicicans, it just happens to be a certified peace officer doing it some of the time. Usually FWPD does the blood draw at the hospital, they are anticipating a large number of arrests, so they have some certified technicians at the jail who happen to also be LE.

You guys who are overreacting are cracking me up.

I hate needles to begin with. Combine that with my shrinking respect for cops and there is no way that thing is going into my arm at the hands of a cop. It'll be like trying to sew while being strapped to a fucking bull.

[txstangguy]

As stated by others only with your consent or a warrent, if they take it without either, then you could be sloppy falling down drunk and you will win due to the cops breaking the law of illegal search.
The point isn't taking it without a warrant. It is that they can actually get a warrant for something like this. How is it that you have the right not to incriminate yourself, but the only thing they have to prove it with comes from you?

[Paladin]

they do get a warrant "from the magistrate judge"

Yeah, I know. I instituted the policy for FWPD.

BTW, magistrate judge is repetitive.

[Paladin]

"It was fun for the officers who got to....." :eek: OMG!!!

"...and decide to refuse to give a breath sample,..." And you say reading comprehension escapes me?

Please explain. I think your lack of knowledge makes you ignorant enough to not know what was said, and that it makes sense. Then again, it is you.... :cool:

[Paladin]

I hate needles to begin with. Combine that with my shrinking respect for cops and there is no way that thing is going into my arm at the hands of a cop. It'll be like trying to sew while being strapped to a fucking bull.

So far, all of those who have said that have had their blood drawn. We will get as many officers as needed to take the blood. Strap the suspect to the gurney, hold him down with a few officers, and bingo, the nurse takes the blood.

I have seen it done.

[Paladin]

The point isn't taking it without a warrant. It is that they can actually get a warrant for something like this. How is it that you have the right not to incriminate yourself, but the only thing they have to prove it with comes from you?

They have been getting warrants for evidence of crimes since the Constitution was signed. //repeats// This is basic stuff guys //repeats//

[ffrc91gt]

So far, all of those who have said that have had their blood drawn. We will get as many officers as needed to take the blood. Strap the suspect to the gurney, hold him down with a few officers, and bingo, the nurse takes the blood.

I have seen it done.

FWPD use to hog tie people as well!! Just sayin.....

[Fox466]

I agree with the big brother part if they took the blood without a warrant, but you lose me thinking about big brother with a warrant.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree... ;)

[Quick '91 GT]

This thread sounds like a bunch of people (not all) who are pissed because the law has found another way to catch them drinking and driving. Most of you who are quoting the 5th Amend. knew nothing about it until this issue came up. It is real simple....don't drink and drive!

[PWTRTXSS]

They should just find a way to lower a DUI suspect's credit rating 150 points. If that doesn't stop people from getting behind the wheel loaded, nothing will.

[PWTRTXSS]

BTW, magistrate judge is repetitive.

I think he was trying to defecate the deliberating spontaneity of the persisting lack of ingenuity thereof.

And it was more redundant than repetitive.

[BP]

I solved the problem by not driving at all last night, worked like a champ.

Now I suppose the next step will be to start getting blood samples from people in bars that appear to be intoxicated.

It's sad but I really think there is a fine line between law enforcement and revenue generation.

Has lowering the limit to .08 from .10 lowered the accident level at all? I doubt it but they sure have increased the conviction rate. If anything there are more DWI related accidents now since lots of people that were borderline are now officially drunk. Does it make us safer?

[TexasDevilDog]

So how does getting a warrant for evidence apply to what you have posted?

Actually it does not apply to a warrant. Thats ok, many people here are uneducated and can't have a rational progressing discourse.

[03trubluGT]

On a side note:
If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...

That can be easliy arranged :D

Just kidding, but drunk drivers need to be held accountable for their actions. The best way to avoid a blood draw is not to drink and drive.

[03trubluGT]

my biggest bitch is its not like we have enough problems with infections and such.
now your going to trust a cop to stick you and test you
"bullshit"


Do you people REALLY think that the cops are going to be the ones doing the draw??

It is done by a RN (usually at JPS) using a non-alchol sanitizer (betadine).

[black01gt]

It is done by a RN (usually at JPS) using a non-alchol sanitizer (betadine).
Will she have big tits?

JPS? :eek: I think I'd rather take my chances with Fat Louie the squad mechanic and his greasy hands.

[98BlownSS]

I guess warrants for DNA are unconstitutional as well since you may be providing incriminating evidence against yourself? Good grief....

Even though I have no medical training I am going to stick a needle in your arm and take blood. Ya, that's it exactly.

We use RNs for the blood draw.

[8mpg]

I find it amazing how people get so crazy over a way to catch a criminal. The sheer dependency on alcohol in this country amazes me. Its not hard to figure out if you dont drink and drive, you wont have to worry. Im going to say that most of the people here that get their panties in a wad over this are the ones that do drink and drive. Many people drink and drive and dont even care about anyone else. I have met a couple families that have lost children or parents due to drunk drivers when I did my shifts at JPS and Baylor...its really sad. Im all for this law and I hope it spreads to other towns. I also hope out laws change to punish the assholes more for their drinking and driving. I have a couple friends sad to say that didnt learn... I wouldnt feel bad if they got locked up for life, because I know they will keep doing it.

[Nestromo]

What do they do, strap you down and stab at your kicking screaming body till they get some?

[Nestromo]

I find it amazing how people get so crazy over a way to catch a criminal. The sheer dependency on alcohol in this country amazes me. Its not hard to figure out if you dont drink and drive, you wont have to worry. Im going to say that most of the people here that get their panties in a wad over this are the ones that do drink and drive. Many people drink and drive and dont even care about anyone else. I have met a couple families that have lost children or parents due to drunk drivers when I did my shifts at JPS and Baylor...its really sad. Im all for this law and I hope it spreads to other towns. I also hope out laws change to punish the assholes more for their drinking and driving. I have a couple friends sad to say that didnt learn... I wouldnt feel bad if they got locked up for life, because I know they will keep doing it.


I don't drink and drive but I do support the constitution and common sense. What if you are forced to give a blood test and it comes up negative? Where are your rights? I suppose they were thrown out of the window for the "common good".

You are pretty much saying that anything is OK as long as it is done to catch a lawbreaker. Thats messed up. The end does not justify the means.

[Pwebbz28]

There are only 3 words you need to remember when you get arrested. Where's my lawyer!!

[8mpg]

I don't drink and drive but I do support the constitution and common sense. What if you are forced to give a blood test and it comes up negative? Where are your rights? I suppose they were thrown out of the window for the "common good".

You are pretty much saying that anything is OK as long as it is done to catch a lawbreaker. Thats messed up. The end does not justify the means.
90 Notch said they had a 100% success rate...Im sure they have to have probable cause before they can do the blood test. If you are being accused of drunk driving, whats the big deal of a blood test? If they are pulling over random cars just for fun and giving a blood test on the side of a road its another story. Your ass is under arrest before they give you a blood test...

I dont care if you are "legally drunk" as in .08 or higher...a person at .07 shouldnt be driving either.

[Nestromo]

Well, we enforce laws not opinions.

I see where you are coming from and it seems OK until you are the guy with big brother sticking a needle in your arm when you haven't committed a crime. If I got stuck and came up .06 I would be ready to shove a barrel 9 inches down someone's throat and pull the trigger a few times... and I'm a pretty nice guy.

[8mpg]

Well, we enforce laws not opinions.

I see where you are coming from and it seems OK until you are the guy with big brother sticking a needle in your arm when you haven't committed a crime. If I got stuck and came up .06 I would be ready to shove a barrel 9 inches down someone's throat and pull the trigger a few times... and I'm a pretty nice guy.

I think the key here is still... DONT DRINK AND DRIVE... If you are the guy that comes up .06, sue the city for false arrest or whatever its called. Then say they are discriminating against you, they are racist, etc etc :p

[564826]

Don't drink and drive, problem solved!

[Paladin]

What do they do, strap you down and stab at your kicking screaming body till they get some?

The situation that comes to mind first for me is the case of 3 males who went around robbing people here in FW. They had robbed a guy of his wallet and car and were driving down the road when they came across a female who had gotten out of her boyfriends car because they were arguing and the boyfriend was pretty drunk. They stopped and forced the girl in the car, took her to a secluded location, and 2 of the 3 males began to rape her at the same time. (use your imagination on what all they did to her) The 3rd male stayed in the car and went through her purse taking money and checks, etc.

The case went unsolved for a few weeks because we didn't know the guys were in a stolen car and that they were the ones who had been robbing people all over the metroplex. The detective assigned the case got a note from the jail from the guy who stayed in the car saying he wanted to speak with him about the rape. We pulled him out of jail, he told us the story, and then we got search warrants for all 3 males blood to check DNA since the rapists left semen all over and in the victim. When we pulled the 2 who raped the girl out of jail and told them what we were gonna do, they both got very upset. The first resisited a little but the 2nd guy fought the whole time. We held him down and had the lab tech drew the blood as he was screaming and yelling. This is why I said it was fun taking blood from the guys who resisted, becuase this case was very fun to solve and hold that puke down as he resisted.

BTW, we charged all 3 with aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The two guys who we thought had raped her were the only ones who left semen on the victim, so the 3rd guy did tell the truth. He was quoted as saying, "Hey, I don't mind robbing people, but I ain't no rapist. What they did to that woman was wrong."

[Paladin]

90 Notch said they had a 100% success rate...Im sure they have to have probable cause before they can do the blood test. If you are being accused of drunk driving, whats the big deal of a blood test? If they are pulling over random cars just for fun and giving a blood test on the side of a road its another story. Your ass is under arrest before they give you a blood test...

I dont care if you are "legally drunk" as in .08 or higher...a person at .07 shouldnt be driving either.

I will email the sergeant of the unit who prosecutes the DWI's currently and see if he still have 100% of the blood warrants above .08 or not.

You are right about probable cause for the arrest and before we get the warrant. FWPD does not do random checkpoints for DWI.

BTW, you can be prosecuted for DWI with less than .08 if there is enough evidence to suggest you were impaired badly enough to meet the requirements. We have had .06 BAC people who were sloppy drunk and got prosecuted. The field video and intox room video (where the suspect is swaying terribly, beligerent, cussing, slurring speech, etc.) were enough proof along with the BAC test to get the DA to prosecute. The .08 BAC is prima facia evidence of guilt, not the minimium threshold. We will definitley go for prosecution if the person has injured or killed someone and his/her BAC is less than .08.

[Paladin]

Here is a story about the program. It addresses alot of the questions brought up in this thread. Sorry, I couldn't get it to cut and paste to post the story. Maybe someone else can get the article posted.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/385560.html

[Nestromo]

The situation that comes to mind first for me is the case of 3 males who went around robbing people here in FW. They had robbed a guy of his wallet and car and were driving down the road when they came across a female who had gotten out of her boyfriends car because they were arguing and the boyfriend was pretty drunk. They stopped and forced the girl in the car, took her to a secluded location, and 2 of the 3 males began to rape her at the same time. (use your imagination on what all they did to her) The 3rd male stayed in the car and went through her purse taking money and checks, etc.

The case went unsolved for a few weeks because we didn't know the guys were in a stolen car and that they were the ones who had been robbing people all over the metroplex. The detective assigned the case got a note from the jail from the guy who stayed in the car saying he wanted to speak with him about the rape. We pulled him out of jail, he told us the story, and then we got search warrants for all 3 males blood to check DNA since the rapists left semen all over and in the victim. When we pulled the 2 who raped the girl out of jail and told them what we were gonna do, they both got very upset. The first resisited a little but the 2nd guy fought the whole time. We held him down and had the lab tech drew the blood as he was screaming and yelling. This is why I said it was fun taking blood from the guys who resisted, becuase this case was very fun to solve and hold that puke down as he resisted.

BTW, we charged all 3 with aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The two guys who we thought had raped her were the only ones who left semen on the victim, so the 3rd guy did tell the truth. He was quoted as saying, "Hey, I don't mind robbing people, but I ain't no rapist. What they did to that woman was wrong."


"Yes" and "No" are perfectly acceptable answers. ;)

[Paladin]

"Yes" and "No" are perfectly acceptable answers. ;)

Yes and no then. LOL

[AL P]

So how does getting a warrant for evidence apply to what you have posted? This scenario involves a search warrant signed by a magistrate. This has been tested through courts since the beginning of the constitution. The courst have ruled the way to gather evidence, except when exigent circumstances exist, is to obtain a warrant. This is basic constitutional stuff guys and girls.


While I agree with your policy in regard to blood evidence for more serious crime, the fact of the matter is that if you are ok with this policy then you are OK with a random police officer making a judgement call on the side of a road and taking blood from any person on the street on a whim. The circumstances are a bit different than in a rape or murder case.

Are you OK with a cop from say, the Cleburne PD taking a blood sample from your daughter? Dalworthington Gardens maybe? I know I'm not comfortable with that scenario but that is exactly what we are leaving ourselves open to. The concern is not the 99.9% of cases where this idea gets executely correctly but the .1% where it does not. Abuse or incompetence is the primary concern, as it should be in all matters like this.

[Fox466]

Here is a story about the program. It addresses alot of the questions brought up in this thread. Sorry, I couldn't get it to cut and paste to post the story. Maybe someone else can get the article posted.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/385560.html

In Fort Worth, police draw blood during New Year's Eve crackdown
By MELODY McDONALD
Star-Telegram staff writer

S-T/AMY PETERSON
Fort Worth officer Collin Harris on a traffic stop. Eighteen people were arrested on suspicion of drunken driving Monday night.
In Fort Worth, police draw blood during New Year's Eve crackdown
FORT WORTH -- Just before 6:30 p.m. on New Year's Eve, a 58-year-old man was arrested on a charge of driving while intoxicated after he was involved in a minor traffic accident in far south Fort Worth.

It was his third DWI arrest.

Several minutes later on the north side of town, a 45-year-old man also found himself in handcuffs on a DWI charge after being pulled over for minor traffic violations.

He has at least five previous convictions for driving drunk.

Both men refused to take breath tests, but police got around it -- with search warrants and needles.

At least 18 motorists suspected of driving while intoxicated were arrested Monday night and Tuesday morning during the Fort Worth Police Department's "no-refusal" DWI campaign. Of that number, 10 drivers refused breath tests, prompting police to obtain search warrants to draw their blood for testing. In Texas, drivers must not have a blood-alcohol level above 0.08.

At least one driver had to be restrained while his blood was taken, said Lt. Dean Sullivan, a police spokesman.

The campaign marked the first time that Fort Worth police have taken such measures to combat drunken driving on a notoriously dangerous holiday.

"Far too many innocent lives have been lost at the hands of intoxicated drivers," Sullivan said. "We were fortunate not to have recorded any traffic collisions involving serious bodily injury or fatal crashes. The campaign, so far, is perceivably a success."

On Friday, Fort Worth police announced their intentions to draw the blood of suspected drunken drivers who refused breath tests. They also warned motorists not to get behind the wheel if they had imbibed. The campaign ran from 5 p.m. Monday to 8 a.m. Tuesday and from 5 p.m. Tuesday until 8 this morning.

The idea for the no-refusal DWI campaign came from senior prosecutor Lloyd Whelchel of the Tarrant County district attorney's office. After attending a recent training seminar, he reminded officials that authorities in El Paso and Harris County had similar programs in place.

Fort Worth police decided to try it and were out in force on New Year's Eve, pulling over suspected drunken drivers. Some were young; some were older. Some were caught speeding (including two who were clocked going over 100 mph), while others had committed minor traffic violations.

Six consented to breath tests. Those who refused were taken to police headquarters, where officers obtained a search warrant from a magistrate.

The suspects were then taken to a room where officers with the Dalworthington Gardens Department of Public Safety drew their blood. Dalworthington Gardens officers drew the blood because they run a similar program year-round and have been medically certified to take blood, officials said.

Sullivan said it could take up to two weeks to get results.

Assistant District Attorney Richard Alpert, who is chief of the district attorney's misdemeanor section and who specializes in the prosecution of DWI and intoxication manslaughter cases, said Tuesday morning that he was satisfied with the initial results of the campaign.

"I am pleased that there were no fatalities and that the number of arrests were not higher," Alpert said. "It would seem that a number of people made the decision that ending up dead or in jail would be a bad way to bring in the new year."

* * *

18 Number of motorists arrested Monday night or Tuesday morning on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

10 Number who refused breath tests, prompting police to obtain search warrants to draw blood for testing.

MELODY McDONALD, 817-390-7386

[redheadintx]

I don't understand why people would be opposed to a process that will take irresponsible and dangerous drivers OFF of our roads. If you aren't drinking and driving you have nothing to worry about and if you are... well, fuck you.

[AL P]

I don't understand why people would be opposed to a process that will take irresponsible and dangerous drivers OFF of our roads. If you aren't drinking and driving you have nothing to worry about and if you are... well, fuck you.

Not true, as long as a police officer THINKS you have been drinking and convinces a judge that you have, that's all that matters. Thus my point.

[1slocoupe]

It has been challenged. Random dwi checkpoints were outlawed under the constitution.

On a side note:
If a cop told me he wanted to take some blood out of my body to test it for alcohol I'd laugh at him and tell him to fuck right off. He'd have to beat if outta me...


X2 Only way someone will get blood out of me is in a fight...and their chances arent all that great when MMA and Jiu jitsu is being used ;)

[Mr Majestyk]

^^^^^

FudgePecker's BF

[AL P]

X2 Only way someone will get blood out of me is in a fight...and their chances arent all that great when MMA and Jiu jitsu is being used ;)

I bet you tap out when they hook the taser up to your balls!!

[1slocoupe]

I bet you tap out when they hook the taser up to your balls!!

Nope wont happen....My dads a sheriff and my mom works for the Border patrol....I dont have police troubles :cool:

[AL P]

Nope wont happen....My dads a sheriff and my mom works for the Border patrol....I dont have police troubles :cool:

Didn't someone have your mugshot as their avatar for a while?

[Mr Majestyk]

http://usera.imagecave.com/football2001/MyPhoto.jpg

[5.0_CJ]

The reason they get the search warrant is because of a refusal to consent. You can choose to refuse a voluntary sample, you cannot refuse a sample ordered by a magistrate.

This is basic constitutional stuff guys.

By then you're sobered up.

[David]

So now we're all gonna start whooping up on cops and be charged with something greater than a DWI. Yes!

[1slocoupe]

http://usera.imagecave.com/football2001/MyPhoto.jpg


LMFAO!!! :cool:

[forever_frost]

I was talking to my law professor about this. I was thinking that Rochin would be used to oppose this, he said there were subtle differences. So, until it's challenged it's going to be used.

[1slocoupe]

So now we're all gonna start whooping up on cops and be charged with something greater than a DWI. Yes!


Why are you complaining?? Thats just more business for you and your dad!! :p

[Nestromo]

I don't understand why people would be opposed to a process that will take irresponsible and dangerous drivers OFF of our roads. If you aren't drinking and driving you have nothing to worry about and if you are... well, fuck you.


In America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If they are having to draw blood then you have obviously not been proven guilty, so you are at that point still presumed innocent.

FTP

[sonicblue]

Will she have big tits?


good chance, but probably have big everything else, too!

[Paladin]

Not true, as long as a police officer THINKS you have been drinking and convinces a judge that you have, that's all that matters. Thus my point.

I see why you are concerned about this, but what is the solution? The people who would refuse to blow are the ones who get their blood drawn, so filed units to blow for BAC are not the answer.

I think the chance that someone gets arrested for DWI and has not had a drink of alcohol is less than 1%. I bet very few things in this world are 99% accurate. The paperwork involved with a DWI is so involved that most officers hate doing them, so doing more than absolutely necessary is probably not a problem.

[Paladin]

In America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If they are having to draw blood then you have obviously not been proven guilty, so you are at that point still presumed innocent.

FTP

LOL, since when is being arrested being proven guilty? Since when is collecting evidence presuming guilt?

[Paladin]

By then you're sobered up.

So far, there have been about a hundered or so warrants served on DWI suspects in FW. The average BAC is .16 (double the limit) and none have been below .11 that I know of. If the assumption is that the person is sobering up by the time the blood is drawn, then imagine what the BAC of these people was when they were driving? LOL

[Paladin]

I bet you tap out when they hook the taser up to your balls!!

LOL, I can tell some stories on the Taser also.

<--- got Tasered in instructors school.

[Nestromo]

LOL, since when is being arrested being proven guilty? Since when is collecting evidence presuming guilt?


So if you can be mutilated in the name of collecting evidence then just how far can you take it?

What if you suspected that someone had swallowed a big of ice when you were pulling them over, can you hack into their stomach to check for it? I just see it as a slippery slope leading to fewer and fewer rights.

99% isn't nearly good enough.

[F8LSVT]

So if you can be mutilated in the name of collecting evidence then just how far can you take it?

What if you suspected that someone had swallowed a big of ice when you were pulling them over, can you hack into their stomach to check for it? I just see it as a slippery slope leading to fewer and fewer rights.

99% isn't nearly good enough.


America has traded liberty for "security". Didn't you get the memo?

[Nestromo]

:mad: Yeah, I got the memo. :mad:

[Pro Trash]

LOL, I can tell some stories on the Taser also.

<--- got Tasered in instructors school.

I knew something was wrong with you :D

[jewozzy]

driving is not a constitutional right it is a priviledge granted by the state. therefor the state can require you to give blood, urine, or breath with driving related cases.

So if you can be mutilated in the name of collecting evidence then just how far can you take it?

What if you suspected that someone had swallowed a big of ice when you were pulling them over, can you hack into their stomach to check for it? I just see it as a slippery slope leading to fewer and fewer rights.

99% isn't nearly good enough.

no you can't just cut them open but you can however force them to goto the hospital and take x-rays and your given the option to either drink the charcoal or have it forced down your throat so that the stuff in your stomach will show up when they test.

[Nestromo]

no you can't just cut them open but you can however force them to goto the hospital and take x-rays and your given the option to either drink the charcoal or have it forced down your throat so that the stuff in your stomach will show up when they test.

Doesn't sound like an option. Sounds like a loss of liberty.

Out of curiosity are you a pig? Don't get me wrong, I've considered it too, but I couldn't bring myself to flush my conscience.


And what rights DO you think we should have?
Jonathan

[AL P]

I see why you are concerned about this, but what is the solution? The people who would refuse to blow are the ones who get their blood drawn, so filed units to blow for BAC are not the answer.

I think the chance that someone gets arrested for DWI and has not had a drink of alcohol is less than 1%. I bet very few things in this world are 99% accurate. The paperwork involved with a DWI is so involved that most officers hate doing them, so doing more than absolutely necessary is probably not a problem.

Does the current system not work well enough? Do police officers not have enough tools at their disposal without resorting to police state tactics of drawing blood from people unwillingly? I think they have enough tools without resorting to that. Not only that but what comes next after this policy is deemed to be acceptable?

Keep in mind that even if your 1% number is correct you are saying you are fine with the wrongful arrest of thousands of people a year. As I mentioned above, many people will be fine with this idea until it is their mother, sister, daughter that is the one who is in that 1%.

The fact of the matter is that the DWI is about money. MADD is just the modern equivalent of a Women's Temperance Union. This has all happened before, believe it or not, and will happen again.

[Paladin]

So if you can be mutilated in the name of collecting evidence then just how far can you take it?

What if you suspected that someone had swallowed a big of ice when you were pulling them over, can you hack into their stomach to check for it? I just see it as a slippery slope leading to fewer and fewer rights.

99% isn't nearly good enough.

Since when is drawing blood being mutilated? Do you overdramatize everything or just this? LOL

The courts have ruled that we cannot pump someones stomach to collect evidence and we can't choke them to make them vomit to recover evidence. We can collect the remnants of the stomach if the doctor orders the pumping of the stomach to save the violators life however.

Here is my theoretical for you, how about some female in your family has been sexually assaulted and the only way to find the person responsible is through DNA. By your logic we should not obtain warrants to get blood from the possible suspect(s) to get your family member justice, correct? How dare we nutliate the poor guy in the name of solviong crime or collecting evidence! Do you see how stupid your logic, or lack thereof, is?

BTW, you saying 99% is not enough means nothing. I have so far seen 100%, but left out the possibility that there may be 1% error.

[AL P]

Since when is drawing blood being mutilated? Do you overdramatize everything or just this? LOL

The courts have ruled that we cannot pump someones stomach to collect evidence and we can't choke them to make them vomit to recover evidence. We can collect the remnants of the stomach if the doctor orders the pumping of the stomach to save the violators life however.

Here is my theoretical for you, how about some female in your family has been sexually assaulted and the only way to find the person responsible is through DNA. By your logic we should not obtain warrants to get blood from the possible suspect(s) to get your family member justice, correct? How dare we nutliate the poor guy in the name of solviong crime or collecting evidence! Do you see how stupid your logic, or lack thereof, is?

BTW, you saying 99% is not enough means nothing. I have so far seen 100%, but left out the possibility that there may be 1% error.

I totally agree with drawing blood in cases of rape and things like that.

For DWI cases where there has been no accident, I disagree. Here is the important thing to remember when you think about this subject in regard to DWI. The premise of DWI enforcement is to prevent an accident. Sure DWI is a crime but the reason it is a crime is the possibility of an accident. When you take a blood sample from someone for a non-accident DWI you are doing so under the premise of preventing something that MIGHT happen.

To me that makes it quite a bit different than solving a violent act that has already occured. As I implied above, where does that leave us in the future, what other things should we do to prevent things that MIGHT happen? I think it crosses the line into nonsensical safety crusades.

[jewozzy]

Doesn't sound like an option. Sounds like a loss of liberty.

Out of curiosity are you a pig? Don't get me wrong, I've considered it too, but I couldn't bring myself to flush my conscience.


And what rights DO you think we should have?
Jonathan

well your option is to either drink it or not drink it. however, if you do not drink it then they will forcibly put the stuff in your stomach. Dont get me wrong you have to have pc to do this and simply thinking someone swallowed something isn't good enough. each time ive done it i saw the person stuffing bags in their mouth.

as for getting into law enforcement you made a good decision your part of the reason there are so many loop holes with our government.

[jewozzy]

I totally agree with drawing blood in cases of rape and things like that.

For DWI cases where there has been no accident, I disagree. Here is the important thing to remember when you think about this subject in regard to DWI. The premise of DWI enforcement is to prevent an accident. Sure DWI is a crime but the reason it is a crime is the possibility of an accident. When you take a blood sample from someone for a non-accident DWI you are doing so under the premise of preventing something that MIGHT happen.

To me that makes it quite a bit different than solving a violent act that has already occured. As I implied above, where does that leave us in the future, what other things should we do to prevent things that MIGHT happen? I think it crosses the line into nonsensical safety crusades.

look at it as a way to prevent future dwi's though. the same with speed traps set up a mile ahead of an area where there have been several accidents. you slow down because of the police presence. in the dwi drawing blood scenario people maybe pay more attention before they leave the bar from drinking becasue of what could happen. i agree that drawing blood should be with an accident and that is how our policy is set up here, but if it works for them then it will probably become the norm in the state.

[turbo93gt]

look at it as a way to prevent future dwi's though. the same with speed traps set up a mile ahead of an area where there have been several accidents. you slow down because of the police presence. in the dwi drawing blood scenario people maybe pay more attention before they leave the bar from drinking becasue of what could happen. i agree that drawing blood should be with an accident and that is how our policy is set up here, but if it works for them then it will probably become the norm in the state.

Benjamin Franklin said it best

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

[AL P]

look at it as a way to prevent future dwi's though. the same with speed traps set up a mile ahead of an area where there have been several accidents. you slow down because of the police presence. in the dwi drawing blood scenario people maybe pay more attention before they leave the bar from drinking becasue of what could happen. i agree that drawing blood should be with an accident and that is how our policy is set up here, but if it works for them then it will probably become the norm in the state.

You could use this reasoning to justify anything though. That was my point above with the safety crusade comment. You could also prevent future DWIs by cutting someone's hand off with a hacksaw if they are accused. The important point is, where do you draw the line? In my opinion, in what is supposed to be a free society where the state has the burden of proof, this goes too far.

[BradM]

Does the current system not work well enough? Do police officers not have enough tools at their disposal without resorting to police state tactics of drawing blood from people unwillingly? I think they have enough tools without resorting to that. Not only that but what comes next after this policy is deemed to be acceptable?

Keep in mind that even if your 1% number is correct you are saying you are fine with the wrongful arrest of thousands of people a year. As I mentioned above, many people will be fine with this idea until it is their mother, sister, daughter that is the one who is in that 1%.

The fact of the matter is that the DWI is about money. MADD is just the modern equivalent of a Women's Temperance Union. This has all happened before, believe it or not, and will happen again.

Time to brush up on making bathtub gin.

[jewozzy]

You could use this reasoning to justify anything though. That was my point above with the safety crusade comment. You could also prevent future DWIs by cutting someone's hand off with a hacksaw if they are accused. The important point is, where do you draw the line? In my opinion, in what is supposed to be a free society where the state has the burden of proof, this goes too far.

true but it goes back to my original post which is that driving is not a given right but something the state gives as a privilege. that in my opinion is enough to enforce it with drawing blood.

[AL P]

true but it goes back to my original post which is that driving is not a given right but something the state gives as a privilege. that in my opinion is enough to enforce it with drawing blood.

As long as you ignore the 5th amendment or try to label a phone call to a judge as "due process".

[turbo93gt]

true but it goes back to my original post which is that driving is not a given right but something the state gives as a privilege. that in my opinion is enough to enforce it with drawing blood.

the state already has the power to suspend your drivers license if you refuse a breathalizer/blood test. so why forcibly draw blood?

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/search/searchresults.asp?type=cache&q=cache:http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/alr.htm+field+sobriety&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=DPSInternet&site=ER&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=DPSInternet

"ALR went into effect on January 1, 1995. This program is the administrative process by which the Department suspends the driver licenses of individuals who are arrested for the offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Specifically, an individual may be suspended if he/she either refused to submit to a chemical test or provided a specimen with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater. The DPS is also authorized to suspend the driver licenses of minors who commit the offense of driving under the influence (DUI)."

[jewozzy]

the state already has the power to suspend your drivers license if you refuse a breathalizer. what more needs to be done?

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/search/searchresults.asp?type=cache&q=cache:http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/alr.htm+field+sobriety&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&client=DPSInternet&site=ER&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=DPSInternet

"ALR went into effect on January 1, 1995. This program is the administrative process by which the Department suspends the driver licenses of individuals who are arrested for the offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Specifically, an individual may be suspended if he/she either refused to submit to a chemical test or provided a specimen with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater. The DPS is also authorized to suspend the driver licenses of minors who commit the offense of driving under the influence (DUI)."

yeah and what happens when you appeal get your license back and then the state has no evidence against you?

[DrDr]

I think it is the best thing to be put into law. Next they need to sentece a DWI/DUI to a min of 10 yrs and if they do it again stick the needle in there arm. Fucking drunk drivers need to to die. If you drink be and adult and don't drive bottom line. hell who knows mabe they will reuse needles and infect the worthless drunk drivers with HIV from some drunk/ drug abuser.

Just my opinion btw. :)


Ouch!!

Next time try decaf.

[AL P]

yeah and what happens when you appeal get your license back and then the state has no evidence against you?

What happens after the person is found guilty, pays all the fines and then drinks and drives again?

The only constant here is that the state keeps getting money, which as I said above, is what the program is about.

[turbo93gt]

yeah and what happens when you appeal get your license back and then the state has no evidence against you?

"Penalties for Adults
Refused to provide a specimen following an arrest for an offense prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle or watercraft while intoxicated, while under the influence of alcohol, or while under the influence of a controlled substance:

180 days for the first offense

2 years if previously suspended for failing or refusing a specimen test or previously suspended for a DWI, Intoxication Assault or Intoxication Manslaughter conviction during the 10 years preceding the date of arrest."

as you said, driving is a priviledge, not a right. as such your refusal to give a sample voids the agreement you made with the state when you were issued your license. all they have to do is enforce the agreement all drivers have already made with the state since 1995. so there is no reason to forcibly take blood. refuse=loose license. again, why forcibly take blookd when you can just enforce the old law?

[turbo93gt]

yeah and what happens when you appeal get your license back and then the state has no evidence against you?

"Penalties for Adults
Refused to provide a specimen following an arrest for an offense prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle or watercraft while intoxicated, while under the influence of alcohol, or while under the influence of a controlled substance:

180 days for the first offense

2 years if previously suspended for failing or refusing a specimen test or previously suspended for a DWI, Intoxication Assault or Intoxication Manslaughter conviction during the 10 years preceding the date of arrest."

as you said, driving is a priviledge, not a right. as such your refusal to give a sample voids the agreement you made with the state when you were issued your license. all they have to do is enforce the agreement all drivers have already made with the state since 1995. so there is no burden of proof, so there is no reason to forcibly take blood. refuse=loose license. again, why forcibly take blood when you can just enforce the old law?

[jewozzy]

What happens after the person is found guilty, pays all the fines and then drinks and drives again?

The only constant here is that the state keeps getting money, which as I said above, is what the program is about.

the state would have then accomplished what the program is there for. its first purpose is for conviction and its secondary purpose is to try and bring down the number of dwi's.

but its an issue that can go back and forth so basicly its something the courts have upheald and until its ruled against leo will continue to use it.

[turbo93gt]

double post

[jewozzy]

"Penalties for Adults
Refused to provide a specimen following an arrest for an offense prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle or watercraft while intoxicated, while under the influence of alcohol, or while under the influence of a controlled substance:

180 days for the first offense

2 years if previously suspended for failing or refusing a specimen test or previously suspended for a DWI, Intoxication Assault or Intoxication Manslaughter conviction during the 10 years preceding the date of arrest."

as you said, driving is a priviledge, not a right. as such your refusal to give a sample voids the agreement you made with the state when you were issued your license. all they have to do is enforce the agreement all drivers have already made with the state since 1995. so there is no burden of proof, so there is no reason to forcibly take blood. refuse=loose license. again, why forcibly take blood when you can just enforce the old law?

your missing the fact that the state will not be able to convict without evidence. i know all about the suspension but im saying once you get your license back there needs to be a penalty set in place regardless of the fact that you do or do not have your license taken away from you.

its not as simple as enforcing an old law. your not accomplishing much if a person simply gets their license taken from them and do not receive a conviction.

[turbo93gt]

your missing the fact that the state will not be able to convict without evidence. i know all about the suspension but im saying once you get your license back there needs to be a penalty set in place regardless of the fact that you do or do not have your license taken away from you.

its not as simple as enforcing an old law. your not accomplishing much if a person simply gets their license taken from them and do not receive a conviction.

what you are missing is that anyone that is a habitual offender will drink and drive again and do it without a license, and more then likely will get busted. they'll get theirs in the end one way or another based on what we already have on the books. getting a DUI conviction isnt the only way to get drunk drivers off the road.

fort worth police officers physically and forcibly taking blood at the scene only violates ammendments 4 and 5 of the bill or rights and will get your DUI case thrown out.

[AL P]

the state would have then accomplished what the program is there for. its first purpose is for conviction and its secondary purpose is to try and bring down the number of dwi's.

but its an issue that can go back and forth so basicly its something the courts have upheald and until its ruled against leo will continue to use it.

The Supreme Court in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), held that a State could force a defendant to submit to a blood-alcohol test without violating the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

From the opinion:

"The test chosen to measure petitioner's blood alcohol level was a reasonable one, since it was an effective means of determining intoxication, imposed virtually no risk, trauma or pain, and was performed in a reasonable manner by a physician in a hospital."

That's a little different than what we are talking about. This issue will end up at the Supreme Court again, I am sure.

[Nestromo]

Since when is drawing blood being mutilated? Do you overdramatize everything or just this? LOL

Only when I think something is an injustice. And it is mutilation, you are taking a long skinny piece of metal and stabbing it through someone's skin against his or her will. Heres your sign. :eek:

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/swastika.gif

[jewozzy]

what you are missing is that anyone that is a habitual offender will drink and drive again and do it without a license, and more then likely will get busted. they'll get theirs in the end one way or another based on what we already have on the books. getting a DUI conviction isnt the only way to get drunk drivers off the road.

forcibly taking blood only violates ammendments 4 and 5 of the bill or rights and will get your DUI case thrown out.

so you would like to base everything on "more than likely will get busted"? why not convict them each and every time they commit the offense so that eventually the penalty becomes so stiff that they are behind bars?

i do dwi grants 1-2 times a week and stop habitual offenders at times and the penalty gets more severe only with each conviction.

Also look at the post above mine where it doesn't violate the 5th ammendment.

[AL P]

so you would like to base everything on "more than likely will get busted"? why not convict them each and every time they commit the offense so that eventually the penalty becomes so stiff that they are behind bars?

i do dwi grants 1-2 times a week and stop habitual offenders at times and the penalty gets more severe only with each conviction.

Also look at the post above mine where it doesn't violate the 5th ammendment.

Why not convict them once and make the penalty harsh as fuck? Oh yea, the state wouldn't get their money from repeat offenders.

[turbo93gt]

so you would like to base everything on "more than likely will get busted"? why not convict them each and every time they commit the offense so that eventually the penalty becomes so stiff that they are behind bars? i do dwi grants 1-2 times a week and stop habitual offenders at times and the penalty gets more severe only with each conviction.

so you are a police officer? thats sad. why not convict them every single time, maybe because the way you want to accomplish this is to violate citizens civil rights. what about this is so difficult to understand? based on how you want to do things, we should burn the bill of rights and throw them in jail without a trial. you would be violating their civil rights all the same. just because the legal system doesnt work doesnt mean LEOs need to start stabbing citizens with needles.

Also look at the post above mine where it doesn't violate the 5th ammendment.

the case AL P cited the blood was drawn under a doctors care in a hospital. exactly what doctor was supervising the officers that were taking blood on site on new years? seems as you have a case of selective interpretation.

due process is part of our justice system for a reason, so citizens dont get screwed by power hungry individuals under the guise of governmental duty. so what is the recourse when you guys put a needle in someone that has not given consent and they are not intoxicated? or worse yet they have an adverse medical reaction and no doctor is present? you seen to want a lot of latitude in order to enforce the law and none of the personal responsibility for the fuck ups. doctors can be sued for malpractice, at this point legal recourse for LE doesnt seem to be an option. exactly how much power would you like?

[Zarathustra]

It's clear this is a product of the state raising fines and experiencing rises of over 100% in some areas in DWI cases. So why not make more? This is just the next step in the deterioration of the democracy those that came before us once held so dear, just on a smaller scale. Al, I agree with you, this has been a gem from a revenue aspect, and from a justice aspect, they've got it all wrong as far as penalties and fines go. That's alot of money, somewhere around $9500 for each individual case, and that's only for the first offense.

[Zarathustra]

In my opinion, in what is supposed to be a free society where the state has the burden of proof, this goes too far.

Way too far, especially in non-accident cases. Well put, sir.

[Zarathustra]

Only when I think something is an injustice. And it is mutilation, you are taking a long skinny piece of metal and stabbing it through someone's skin against his or her will. Heres your sign. :eek:

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/swastika.gif

agreed.

[jewozzy]

the case AL P cited the blood was drawn under a doctors care in a hospital. exactly what doctor was supervising the officers that were taking blood on site on new years? seems as you have a case of selective interpretation.


yes im a police officer, and i have requested blood from inmates whenever they refused to give any other samples and refused tests. when i did it they were involved in wrecks and SBI was involved. each time i have done it there has been a doctor adminster the test here at the jail. An officer cannot legal by law take blood from any arrested person so where are you getting information that it was an officer that actually took the blood?

seems you have a case of not knowing what actually goes on and basing it off of assumptions.

[jewozzy]

Why not convict them once and make the penalty harsh as fuck? Oh yea, the state wouldn't get their money from repeat offenders.

i agree x10 however its not so much the repeat offenders they are worried about it would be more like the kids of the people in office. why do you think a first offense is only a m/b?

[Paladin]

Does the current system not work well enough? Do police officers not have enough tools at their disposal without resorting to police state tactics of drawing blood from people unwillingly? I think they have enough tools without resorting to that. Not only that but what comes next after this policy is deemed to be acceptable?.

The current system was allowing people to be very drunk, refuse to cooperate at the traffic stop location, refuse at the video room, refuse to give a breath sample, and then get off after being highly intoxicated because there was no evidence of a crime. The first warrants for blood, which started in the early 90's if I remember correctly, showed that the people who do the above were way over the limit, yet they were not getting convicted for the crime. The results from the blood warrants on cases that would have been a refusal were very impressive, since there were not any that came back below the legal limit, much less negative.

You ask if we don't have enough tools, well the search warrant is a tool we have and are using, so now we have enough. I can't predict what will be next, but I can tell you that this policy came from past defendants attacking old police procedures and the courts told us we had to get more proof of guilt in DWI cases, especially refusals to give breath samples.


Keep in mind that even if your 1% number is correct you are saying you are fine with the wrongful arrest of thousands of people a year. As I mentioned above, many people will be fine with this idea until it is their mother, sister, daughter that is the one who is in that 1%..

I left open the possibility that someone would get blood drawn and it come back negative, since people have given a breath sample and it came back negative. The idea is that they gave the sample of breath, it was negative and there was no need for blood to be drawn against their will. So far the people who have refused FWPD have all been way over the limit on average. The issue of it coming back negative is theoretical, but not factual yet. It may never happen.

I can tell you some stories about how it could happen that someone has been arrested for DWI with a negative breath sample if you want, but it would be by PM or in person over a soft drink somehwere. I have no desire to have the average armchair lawyer from the site trying to pick my scenarios apart.

The fact of the matter is that the DWI is about money. MADD is just the modern equivalent of a Women's Temperance Union. This has all happened before, believe it or not, and will happen again.

There was a time not so long ago, like 1988 when I was a rookie when we didn't make mandatory arrests for family violence assaults unless the victim told us, usually in front of her husband, that she would press charges. That changed to mandatory arrest and file on people even if the victim refused to cooperate. It has happened with DWI in the last 20 years also, and it is starting to happen to cigarrettes now. These are changes brought on by citizens demanding change, and frankly, after 2 years working in the Traffic Investigation Unit as sergeant and seeing all the deaths from drunk drivers, I have no tolerance for DWI's. Every one of them that caused a fatality was just a simple little old DWI until they killed someones loved one. The fact is, that every DWI who gets stopped before he kills someone is a good thing for everyone, since the ones who don't get caught are the ones who kill people.

I can also tell you stories about the great, decent, honest, hard working, and innocent people who were killed during the 2 years I supervised that unit if you want. The two times I nearly cried as a cop came during my time in that unit, one was when a 4 year was killed riding his bike(not a drunk driver), and the other was talking to the mother of teenager, one of 4 in the same car, who was killed by a drunk driver. Oh I have stories let me tell ya.

[Paladin]

yes im a police officer, and i have requested blood from inmates whenever they refused to give any other samples and refused tests. when i did it they were involved in wrecks and SBI was involved. each time i have done it there has been a doctor adminster the test here at the jail. An officer cannot legal by law take blood from any arrested person so where are you getting information that it was an officer that actually took the blood?

seems you have a case of not knowing what actually goes on and basing it off of assumptions.

Have you had any come back negative? What was the BAC from them?

[Paladin]

Only when I think something is an injustice. And it is mutilation, you are taking a long skinny piece of metal and stabbing it through someone's skin against his or her will. Heres your sign. :eek:

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/swastika.gif

OK, is it the same injustice for a blood draw on a sex crime or a homicide?

[jewozzy]

Have you had any come back negative? What was the BAC from them?

no generally most of them were at least double im not going to lie i dont remember the actual BAC's. In most cases the people could hardly walk.

[Zarathustra]

The current system was allowing people to be very drunk, refuse to cooperate at the traffic stop location, refuse at the video room, refuse to give a breath sample, and then get off after being highly intoxicated because there was no evidence of a crime.



This is what happens when peoples rights are taken away. 50 years ago tell me the average citizen didn't consider driving drunk a right. It's hard to prosecute someone when the evidence gathering process is null and void. Sure some drunk drivers kill people and fuck shit up, but what can be said about the other 90% of people driving under the influence that made it home to their wife and kids? Your average 'drunk driver' is not a fucking criminal, they're just people who jump behind the wheel after some drinks. You can't chastise a society for the actions of a few...



I have no tolerance for DWI's. Every one of them that caused a fatality was just a simple little old DWI until they killed someones loved one. The fact is, that every DWI who gets stopped before he kills someone is a good thing for everyone, since the ones who don't get caught are the ones who kill people.


What about the ones that don't get caught and also don't kill anybody? It would be hard to argue that the ones you find driving drunk were actually going to kill or injure someone in their vehicle on that exact night in question. Similarly, the ones that get away with driving sloppy drunk and actually make it home are not penalized, which can in some cases serve as even more reason to do so all of the time.

There are undoubtedly more drivers that exist in these two groups and get away with driving drunk all the time and should be punished for their continual stupidity. For example habitual drunk drivers and those who drink irresponsibly all the time. These people are the ones who should be bearing the brunt of all the heartache that comes from making one mistake on one night.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the law is a good one, in and of itself, but the enforcement of the law is a whole different ball game. Literally, the policing agencies who are responsible for the enforcement of this law are not geared towards the law's original intent, to get drunk drivers off the street. But instead their aim is to generate as much revenue as possible, regardless of who they prosecute for 'crimes' they may or may not be guilty of. Then you throw in the variable of the burden of proof, and you have one gigantic clusterfuck of a law whose end result is so far off from the original intent that some people begin to wonder why they can't drive drunk. Which leads to more and more of the same problem.... You can probably see what I'm getting at.




Through your reasoning, it's not far off when one would say that you're simply not doing your job. When a drunk driver is pulled off the road and slapped with fines, jail, stress, deadlines,

[Zarathustra]

OK, is it the same injustice for a blood draw on a sex crime or a homicide?

We've been over this already, Mr. Fallacy,

No.

[turbo93gt]

yes im a police officer, and i have requested blood from inmates whenever they refused to give any other samples and refused tests. when i did it they were involved in wrecks and SBI was involved. each time i have done it there has been a doctor adminster the test here at the jail. An officer cannot legal by law take blood from any arrested person so where are you getting information that it was an officer that actually took the blood?

seems you have a case of not knowing what actually goes on and basing it off of assumptions.

i got my information based on what was in the dallas morning news

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122907dnmetfwdwistop.21c51ba.html

i especially liked this part....

"The Fort Worth initiative is patterned after "no refusal" programs in Houston, El Paso and Dalworthington Gardens, which started mandatory blood testing 2 ½ years ago.

Since then, 13 of Dalworthington Gardens' 30 police officers and volunteers have been trained to draw blood specimens.

...Because Fort Worth officers are not yet trained as blood technicians, three of Dalworthington Gardens' trained officers will be working with the Fort Worth police during the holiday weekend.

...A magistrate will be on hand to sign search warrants for the blood evidence, if needed. "

nowhere in the article did they mention a doctor being present. however a judge was there to issue warrants. ironic.

"For officers working the hectic holiday weekend, the new technique might make things run a little smoother.

Lt. Dean Sullivan, a Fort Worth police spokesman, said it takes five minutes to draw blood as opposed to 25 minutes to run a breath test. "

so glad violating civil rights is so convienent for the FWPD. so again i ask; what is the recourse when you guys put a needle in someone that has not given consent and they are not intoxicated? or worse yet they have an adverse medical reaction and no doctor is present?

heres some more of my "assumptions"

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/010308dnmetfwnorefusal.200d34f.html

[turbo93gt]

OK, is it the same injustice for a blood draw on a sex crime or a homicide?

big difference between a violent crime having been commited and someone having been arrested based on physical evidence by detectives, and someone hopping behind the wheel of their car and being suspected of drinking by a patrol officer. i dont see detectives (let alone patrol officers) getting warrants for getting blood drawn from citizens suspected of violent crimes (but not yet arrested) with nothing more then observation of suspicious behavior of what, at most, could be considered circumstancial. and i certainly dont see the blood being drawn by said detectives without medical supervision, while in a less then sterile environment in the field.

[Zarathustra]

i got my information based on what was in the dallas morning news

Sounds like a police state where every possible avenue for circumventing the 'rule of law' and 'due process' has been thoroughly examined and employed. They'll continue to be unconstitutional and ruining peoples' lives until someone musters the balls to appeal until it reaches the higher courts so we can put a stop to this shit. So much for democracy...


Read: Police. State.

[jewozzy]

Since then, 13 of Dalworthington Gardens' 30 police officers and volunteers have been trained to draw blood specimens.


i hadn't seen the article but now that i have i still dont see whats wrong with it as far as the person drawing it? i hadn't thought about people that are trained to draw blood i would assume they have to goto some EMS type classes to be able to do it. as far as here in dallas county it has to be an RN with a doctors supervision or the doctor that draws the blood.

[turbo93gt]

i hadn't seen the article but now that i have i still dont see whats wrong with it as far as the person drawing it? i hadn't thought about people that are trained to draw blood i would assume they have to goto some EMS type classes to be able to do it. as far as here in dallas county it has to be an RN with a doctors supervision or the doctor that draws the blood.

once again, whats wrong with it is there is big difference between a violent crime having been commited and someone having been arrested based on physical evidence by detectives, and someone hopping behind the wheel of their car and being suspected of drinking by a patrol officer. i dont see detectives (let alone patrol officers) getting warrants for getting blood drawn from citizens with nothing more then observed suspicious behavior (let alone a patrol officers observation) of what, at most, could be considered circumstancial. and i certainly dont see the blood being drawn by said detectives without medical supervision, while in a less then sterile environment in the field. so what isnt wrong with it?

appearantly you dont have a whole lot of respect for the rights of the citizens who pay the taxes that pay your check.

[ffrc91gt]

It will get interesting when these "officers trained as blood technicians" forcibly draw blood from someone who has a phobia of needles and goes into a state of "excited delirium" and ends up arresting. I would hate to be the officer on the stand trying to justify these kind of statements....

I have seen several people, especially when I was a sex crimes detective, who also said they weren't gonna get stuck by a needle. It was fun for the officers who got to hold him down and do it forcibly! If you ever do get pulled over and decide to refuse to give the breath sample, I sure hope there is a video recording of you telling the officers no to the blood draw. LOL

It will be taken by force, and I have seen it done so please don't say it won't happen.

So far, all of those who have said that have had their blood drawn. We will get as many officers as needed to take the blood. Strap the suspect to the gurney, hold him down with a few officers, and bingo, the nurse takes the blood.

I have seen it done.

While I don't drink and drive and I don't approve of it, I am against "Big brother" drawing blood forcibly from suspected drunk drivers when there is not an accident. It will also be interesting to see what happens when you "forcibly" take blood from someone who is resisting and your "sterile technique" is jeopardized and you cause an infection in someone.

[jewozzy]

once again, whats wrong with it is there is big difference between a violent crime having been commited and someone having been arrested based on physical evidence by detectives, and someone hopping behind the wheel of their car and being suspected of drinking by a patrol officer. i dont see detectives (let alone patrol officers) getting warrants for getting blood drawn from citizens with nothing more then observation (let alone a patrol officers observation) of what, at most, could be considered circumstancial. and i certainly dont see the blood being drawn by said detectives without medical supervision, while in a less then sterile environment in the field. so what isnt wrong with it?

appearantly you dont have a whole lot of respect for the rights of the citizens who pay the taxes that pay your check.

your compairing apples and oranges. in violent crimes where DNA was left behind they DO require blood or saliva. the reason your asking for blood in an alcohol related case is because the alcohol shows up in the blood. i couldn't understand the rest of your post about being in the field and drawing blood. what makes you think that they are out on the side of the road drawing blood? like i said here in dallas county (all cities within dallas county) if you draw the blood its by the medical staff at the jail.

and i have plenty of respect for citizens who pay taxes. i however dont have respect for people who break the law then try to find the easy way out of it.

[turbo93gt]

your compairing apples and oranges. in violent crimes where DNA was left behind they DO require blood or saliva. the reason your asking for blood in an alcohol related case is because the alcohol shows up in the blood. i couldn't understand the rest of your post about being in the field and drawing blood. what makes you think that they are out on the side of the road drawing blood? like i said here in dallas county (all cities within dallas county) if you draw the blood its by the medical staff at the jail.

and i have plenty of respect for citizens who pay taxes. i however dont have respect for people who break the law then try to find the easy way out of it.

if you indeed respected the citizens rights you would respect the rights of all citizens. innocent until PROVEN guilty isnt a punchline.

so you dont understand why i, or anyone else has concern s with patrol officers forcibly taking blood without medical supervision or in a less then sanitary environment? again, just because you do it in dallas at the jail under medical supervision, doesnt mean that is what is happening in fort worth.

who cares whether its DNA evidence or what, if the police dont have the right to take blood from someone that is suspected of a violent crime (but not yet arrested and cannot be because of only circumstancial evidence) who refuses, why is it that the police automatically have the right for a non violent crime? they dont. its a double standard.

also, you conveinently forgot to answer my question about the recourse when you guys put a needle in someone that has not given consent and they are not intoxicated? or worse yet they have an adverse medical reaction and no doctor is present?

you dont need a conviction to take DUIs off the road. we already have laws on the books that can be used to get them off the road, lets use them.

as i said before, you seem to want a lot of latitude in order to enforce the law and none of the personal responsibility for the fuck ups. doctors can be sued for malpractice, at this point legal recourse for LE doesnt seem to be an option.

[jewozzy]

if you indeed respected the citizens rights you would respect the rights of all citizens. innocent until PROVEN guilty isnt a punchline. .

how is getting blood from someone automaticly make them guilty?


so you dont understand why i, or anyone else has concern s with patrol officers forcibly taking blood without medical supervision or in a less then sanitary environment? again, just because you do it in dallas at the jail under medical supervision, doesnt mean that is what is happening in fort worth. .

if the person is trained in taking blood then i would concider them medical supervision. have you ever installed something at your house or in your car? were you an installation expert? you followed instructions and everything worked out exactly as it was supposed to.



who cares whether its DNA evidence or what, if the police dont have the right to take blood from someone that is suspected of a violent crime (but not yet arrested and cannot be because of only circumstancial evidence) who refuses, why is it that the police automatically have the right for a non violent crime? they dont. its a double standard. .

Who said police don't have the right to take blood from someone associated with a violent crime? i have personally taken salava swabs of sex offenders and seen people forced to take blood in cases where there is DNA present. the law doesn't read for DWI's only a warrant can be issued for any crime in which the DNA will act as evidence.


also, you conveinently forgot to answer my question about the recourse when you guys put a needle in someone that has not given consent and they are not intoxicated? or worse yet they have an adverse medical reaction and no doctor is present?.

taking blood from someone forcefully who is not intoxicated would be no different than searching someones car and finding nothing. it was used to determine whether a crime was commited or not. as for a medical reaction to getting stuck with the needle i would venture to say thats why they go through training to learn that type of stuff incase something like that happens.


you dont need a conviction to take DUIs off the road. we already have laws on the books that can be used to get them off the road, lets use them. .

what laws will take them off of the streets if they are not locked up behind bars?


as i said before, you seem to want a lot of latitude in order to enforce the law and none of the personal responsibility for the fuck ups. doctors can be sued for malpractice, at this point legal recourse for LE doesnt seem to be an option.

isn't malpractice where they fuck something up as opposed to doing it the correct way?

how do you figure there is no legal recourse? your bringing up scenarios that have not been encountered at this point. until then there is no solution. i guess no different than if a doctor performs a surgery (with or without your concent) that he feels is life threatening and you end up dying because of said surgery he is not liable.

[Nestromo]

yes im a police officer, and i have requested blood from inmates whenever they refused to give any other samples and refused tests. when i did it they were involved in wrecks and SBI was involved. each time i have done it there has been a doctor adminster the test here at the jail. An officer cannot legal by law take blood from any arrested person so where are you getting information that it was an officer that actually took the blood?

seems you have a case of not knowing what actually goes on and basing it off of assumptions.

Yeah Clem, quit criticising the system.

I've got a dismantled German flag in a WWII rations box that belonged to someone that would be very very upset about this.

[jewozzy]

Yeah Clem, quit criticising the system.

I've got a dismantled German flag in a WWII rations box that belonged to someone that would be very very upset about this.

doubt it.

[Nestromo]

doubt it.
DOUBT WHAT? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[jewozzy]

DOUBT WHAT? :mad: :mad: :mad:

that they'd be very very upset. (i.e. being a smartass)

[Nestromo]

that they'd be very very upset. (i.e. being a smartass)

OH, OK. I thought you were doubting my grandaddy's flag. I was about to get a touch pissed off.

And I'm pretty sure he would be upset after having 2 arms and 1 leg coming back looking like swiss cheese to have some hardon cop try to put another hole in him. I wish I could ask him but I can't.

[turbo93gt]

how is getting blood from someone automaticly make them guilty?


you said "i however dont have respect for people who break the law then try to find the easy way out of it." which can be read as the suspect hasnt been tried yet and therefor not proven guilty.




if the person is trained in taking blood then i would concider them medical supervision.

what you would consider medical personel and what the AMA would consider medical personel might actually be different.

have you ever installed something at your house or in your car? were you an installation expert? you followed instructions and everything worked out exactly as it was supposed to.

if you are too dense to realize that a human life is different then your car or house, i dont have the patience to convince you otherwise.


Who said police don't have the right to take blood from someone associated with a violent crime? i have personally taken salava swabs of sex offenders and seen people forced to take blood in cases where there is DNA present. the law doesn't read for DWI's only a warrant can be issued for any crime in which the DNA will act as evidence.

ok, tell me when you have seen someone forced to give DNA for a violent crime soley based on suspicious activity with no physical evidence? you gonna tell me the DNA sample was taken by an arresting patrol officer or even a detective?



taking blood from someone forcefully who is not intoxicated would be no different than searching someones car and finding nothing.

you missed the word forcibly. theres a big difference between searching someone car without their consent and inserting a needle into them without consent. the latter would otherwise be considered assault. but i guess a cop doing makes it all better.

it was used to determine whether a crime was commited or not.

i hope you have some proof other then an illegal search and seizure to determine whether a crime was committed. for the same reason you cant just go and search anyones home you feel like just to determine if a crime was committed with no other evidence, is the same reason you cant forcibly take someones blood with no other evidence. citizens have rights.

as for a medical reaction to getting stuck with the needle i would venture to say thats why they go through training to learn that type of stuff incase something like that happens.[/QUTOE]

please tell me when youve seen it done under the guise of a warrent without a licensed doctor or nurse present?



[QUOTE]what laws will take them off of the streets if they are not locked up behind bars?

if you dont already know the answer to that you arent much of a cop.


isn't malpractice where they fuck something up as opposed to doing it the correct way?

definitions:

Improper or negligent treatment of a person under a medical professional's care, which results in injury or death.

Broadly, a claim brought against a health-care professional based on professional negligence wherein the health-care professional violates the applicable standard of care and an injury results

These claims involve injuries due to negligence on the part of hospitals, physicians, nurses, and other staff members, generally referred to as Health Care Providers (HCP), as defined by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ...

A form of negligence where an injury results from a medical professional’s or medical facility’s failure to exercise adequate care, skill or diligence in performing a duty

Medical malpractice is an act or omission by a health care provider which deviates from accepted standards of practice in the medical community and which causes injury to the patient. Simply put, medical malpractice is professional negligence (by a healthcare provider) that causes an injury


how do you figure there is no legal recourse? your bringing up scenarios that have not been encountered at this point. until then there is no solution. i guess no different than if a doctor performs a surgery (with or without your concent) that he feels is life threatening and you end up dying because of said surgery he is not liable.

because if a police officer who is not a licensed medical professional forcibly performs a medical procedure on someone that is not intended to help that person what is the recourse? when was the last time you heard of a police department being successfully held responsible for medical negligence? how is drawing blood from someone for use as evidence against them medically necessary?

im done with this topic, you obviously are too brainwashed for the rest of us to convince. you keep twisting words, not giving answers to questions asked, and putting the burden of proof on us as to why law enforcement shoudnt be able to INFRINGE upon our RIGHTS as citizens.

[Nestromo]

Translation : Eat a dick.

[jewozzy]

because if a police officer who is not a licensed medical professional forcibly performs a medical procedure on someone that is not intended to help that person what is the recourse? when was the last time you heard of a police department being successfully held responsible for medical negligence? how is drawing blood from someone for use as evidence against them medically necessary?

im done with this topic, you obviously are too brainwashed for the rest of us to convince. you keep twisting words, not giving answers to questions asked, and putting the burden of proof on us as to why law enforcement shoudnt be able to INFRINGE upon our RIGHTS as citizens.

it is you who is too dense to realize without convictions people who continue to drive while intoxicated cannot be locked up behind bars for long. i guess when AL P showed where it has been proven and upheald in court wasn't enough for you. its not i who is brainwashed it is you. yes i understand that it would be harsh for someones blood to be drawn when no accidents are involved but that is what the policy is in those areas and it has obviously been working out for them concidering they have been doing it for a few years now. your the type of person who thinks what is written on paper has to be that exact way and there are no other ways to inturpet something.

[turbo93gt]

do you know how to read? the case Al cited was blood taken in a hospital by a doctor. how can you not see a difference? local policy does not supercede the United States Bill of Rights, you should read it sometime. god forbid i want to keep power hungry governmental employees such as you from violating citizens rights based on your biased interpretation.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. " -Benjamin Franklin

[jewozzy]

do you know how to read? the case Al cited was blood taken in a hospital by a doctor. how can you not see a difference? local policy does not supercede the United States Bill of Rights, you should read it sometime.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. " -Benjamin Franklin

so your entire argument is based on the officers drawing blood and not medical staff at a hospital? or is it based on the practice of drawing blood forcefully? because if it is the sanitation issue i understand what your saying and uneducatedly disagree with you only because of how it is done in our jails and not having seen how it is done in other places. if the arguement is drawing blood forcefully then i disagree with you as previously stated because your license is a privilege and not a right.

[turbo93gt]

so your entire argument is based on the officers drawing blood and not medical staff at a hospital? or is it based on the practice of drawing blood forcefully? because if it is the sanitation issue i understand what your saying and uneducatedly disagree with you only because of how it is done in our jails and not having seen how it is done in other places. if the arguement is drawing blood forcefully then i disagree with you as previously stated because your license is a privilege and not a right.

i disagree with it as a whole. i disagree with being able to take someones blood forcefully. whether by doctor or not. like you stated, driving is a priveledge. if they refuse a breathalizer, suspend or revoke their license. make the punishment for driving with a suspended license more harsh. we dont need to take peoples blood to keep suspected drunks off the road. there are other alternatives. that is my point. i dont know of a much more invasive search and seizure then invading someones body forcefully. something such as this would otherwise be considered assault, and that is at the very least, a violation of the 4th ammendment. as AL P said, the court has ruled that under those circumstances it is not a violation of the 5th ammendment.

[jewozzy]

i disagree with it as a whole. i disagree with being able to take someones blood forcefully. whether by doctor or not. like you stated, driving is a priveledge. if they refuse a breathalizer, suspend or revoke their license. make the punishment for driving with a suspended license more harsh. we dont need to take peoples blood to keep suspected drunks off the road.

then write your representitives and explain that to them. until then i will continue to support what i can legally do to convict someone of a crime.

[turbo93gt]

then write your representitives and explain that to them. until then i will continue to support what i can legally do to convict someone of a crime.

its already a RIGHT we have guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. it is the FWPD who is in violation, as such, doing so is not legal, it is circumventing the law based on biased interpretation by the law enforcement officials. and you just go along with it without giving thought to the greater implications.

do i like drunk drivers, no. yes we need to get them off the road, but we need to not violate their civil rights while doing so.

considering i dont drink, i would love to be pulled over for DUI and forced to give blood. just because law enforcement does something doesnt automatically mean they are legally justified in doing so.

[Mr Majestyk]

Does a drunk driver give a rats ass about the civil rights of the other drivers on the road with them?

FWPD FTW.

[Nestromo]

Does a drunk driver give a rats ass about the civil rights of the other drivers on the road with them?

FWPD FTW.

If someone had already been proven to be a drunk driver then they wouldn't be getting the test.

[Fox466]

Out of curiosity, do any of the dna patterns from the collected blood specimens go into any sort of databases?

After all, the results would have to be logged, so how in depth is the logging? Are the LEO's involved in this even able to answer that question?

[turbo93gt]

Does a drunk driver give a rats ass about the civil rights of the other drivers on the road with them?

FWPD FTW.

once it is considered acceptable to violate the rights of one section of society, what stops the government from volating the rights of any other section of society they see fit?

[Mr Majestyk]

It is governments duty to enforce the law. If the civil rights of a drunk driver or any other law violator who, as a result of said violation may kill innocent citizens, are elevated above those that they may kill, government has failed.

[AL P]

i guess when AL P showed where it has been proven and upheald in court wasn't enough for you.

Easy there cowboy, the opinion I posted was based on the fact that the suspect was already in the hospital for an injury accident, the blood was drawn by a doctor and due to circumstances didn't involve any further pain to the suspect. As I mentioned in that post that is a bit different than what we are talking about.

Something tells me that a Supreme Court that has agreed to review lethal injection as "cruel and unusual" may have a problem with this same blood drawing scenario when it is done outside of the specific scenario named above.

[AL P]

There was a time not so long ago, like 1988 when I was a rookie when we didn't make mandatory arrests for family violence assaults unless the victim told us, usually in front of her husband, that she would press charges. That changed to mandatory arrest and file on people even if the victim refused to cooperate. It has happened with DWI in the last 20 years also, and it is starting to happen to cigarrettes now. These are changes brought on by citizens demanding change, and frankly, after 2 years working in the Traffic Investigation Unit as sergeant and seeing all the deaths from drunk drivers, I have no tolerance for DWI's. Every one of them that caused a fatality was just a simple little old DWI until they killed someones loved one. The fact is, that every DWI who gets stopped before he kills someone is a good thing for everyone, since the ones who don't get caught are the ones who kill people.

These changes weren't brought on by citizens, they were brought on by lobbyists for MADD. States had to comform or lose their federal highway funds. As I mentioned above, MADD is basically a Women's Temperence Union for modern times. While I don't disagree with the dangers of DWI and I agree that there should be enforcement, lets not mix words here and pretend that people were marching in the streets in an effort to lower the BAC maximum to .08, that simply didn't happen. Basically what this has become is a modern day witch hunt and cash cow for the state. It's a hot political issue and like any political issue involving crime, no politician is going to stand up and say that he/she is opposed to harsher penalties. Not if they want to get elected anyway. So we end up with things like mandatory AA meetings for people who get charged, even though someone who drinks may not be an alcoholic. And we end up with some white collar office clown who drinks three beers and starts his car up in a parking lot and gets charged with DWI. For every case where some drunk driver that blew a .21 was apprehended I can name one where someone was hit with some bullshit charge just because this is a hot issue and makes the state several thousand bucks each time.

I can also tell you stories about the great, decent, honest, hard working, and innocent people who were killed during the 2 years I supervised that unit if you want. The two times I nearly cried as a cop came during my time in that unit, one was when a 4 year was killed riding his bike(not a drunk driver), and the other was talking to the mother of teenager, one of 4 in the same car, who was killed by a drunk driver. Oh I have stories let me tell ya.

I'm sure you have plenty of stories like that. On the flip side, there are plenty of stories of people whose lives have been ruined by wrongful prosecution. You have to have compassion for all of these people but you can't let emotions dictate public policy. You have to use logic and reason for that. Otherwise you are going to be in a world of shit.

[turbo93gt]

It is governments duty to enforce the law. If the civil rights of a drunk driver or any other law violator who, as a result of said violation may kill innocent citizens, are elevated above those that they may kill, government has failed.

by that rationale it could be argued that anything could be prohibited based on what *may* happen. for instance, one could argue that....

every car that is put on the road has the possibility of being involved in an accident and therefor hurting or killing people. if this happens the government will have failed. they must be prohibited.

because people have been known to commit acts of violence with knives, the possibility of it happening again is very real. because of this, knives should be prohibited because if this happens the government will have failed.

just because someone hurts or kills someone does not mean that they have no rights or the criminals rights have less value then that of the victim. i can give you an example from my life. in 1990 my grandmother was murdered. the killer was suspected by the police from the onset, yet they couldnt arrest him based on suspicion and circumstancial evidence. he was later arrested for another offense at which time the police found physical evidence to tie him to the murder of my grandmother. because the evidence was collected improperly it was only deemed circumstancial rather then inadmissable in the case (this happened in Idaho in the early 90s). the jury could not convict based on circumstancial evidence, if they had it would have violated his rights.

several years later he was arrested for kidnapping and rape. while awaiting trial he confessed to the murder of my grandmother. however, because of his right to not be tried again for the same crime he could not be convicted for the murder. wheres the justice for my grandmother? what about her rights? appearantly the criminals rights are not null and void if they violate the rights of someone else, let alone null and void based on the speculation that they may cause harm.

at the time it was this was very difficult for me to accept, but as time as passed i realize that protecting the rights of the scum of the earth is protecting our rights as well.

[Mr Majestyk]

by that rationale it could be argued that anything could be prohibited based on what *may* happen. for instance, one could argue that....

every car that is put on the road has the possibility of being involved in an accident and therefor hurting or killing people. if this happens the government will have failed. they must be prohibited.

because people have been known to commit acts of violence with knives, the possibility of it happening again is very real. because of this, knives should be prohibited because if this happens the government will have failed.

just because someone hurts or kills someone does not mean that they have no rights or the criminals rights have less value then that of the victim. i can give you an example from my life. in 1990 my grandmother was murdered. the killer was suspected by the police from the onset, yet they couldnt arrest him based on suspicion and circumstancial evidence. he was later arrested for another offense at which time the police found physical evidence to tie him to the murder of my grandmother. because the evidence was collected improperly it was only deemed circumstancial rather then inadmissable in the case (this happened in Idaho in the early 90s). the jury could not convict based on circumstancial evidence, if they had it would have violated his rights.

several years later he was arrested for kidnapping and rape. while awaiting trial he confessed to the murder of my grandmother. however, because of his right to not be tried again for the same crime he could not be convicted for the murder. wheres the justice for my grandmother? what about her rights? appearantly the criminals rights are not null and void if they violate the rights of someone else, let alone null and void based on the speculation that they may cause harm.

at the time it was this was very difficult for me to accept, but as time as passed i realize that protecting the rights of the scum of the earth is protecting our rights as well.

First and foremost, condolences regarding your grandmother.

One significant difference with drivers is intent......fatal accidents will happen in vehicles involving completely sober drivers who in most cases are not willfully committing acts that increase their chances of involving themselves or others in such accidents. The drunken driver knowingly increases the odds of a fatal accident by deliberately choosing to drive in his/her impaired state. That becomes criminal intent, and allowing police to stop such criminal intent by collecting the evidence necessary to at least temporarily eliminate, through the criminal justice system, the suspected perpetrator's ability to commit the crime is completely justified. Note too that DWI encompasses many substances other than alcohol. The breath test will not detect THC, cocaine, etc. in a driver suspected of being impaired. Is it acceptable or fair to be able to convict a driver impaired by alcohol based on a breath test but not be able to have similar means to convict drivers impaired by other substances?

[turbo93gt]

First and foremost, condolences regarding your grandmother.

One significant difference with drivers is intent......fatal accidents will happen in vehicles involving completely sober drivers who in most cases are not willfully committing acts that increase their chances of involving themselves or others in such accidents. The drunken driver knowingly increases the odds of a fatal accident by deliberately choosing to drive in his/her impaired state. That becomes criminal intent, and allowing police to stop such criminal intent by collecting the evidence necessary to at least temporarily eliminate, through the criminal justice system, the suspected perpetrator's ability to commit the crime is completely justified. Note too that DWI encompasses many substances other than alcohol. The breath test will not detect THC, cocaine, etc. in a driver suspected of being impaired. Is it acceptable or fair to be able to convict a driver impaired by alcohol based on a breath test but not be able to have similar means to convict drivers impaired by other substances?

thats an excellent point, i hadnt thought of that. i do however believe that we need to iron out the double standard that makes it illegal to get a warrant to have someones stomach pumped to prove they have illegal substances in their system, but it is assumed to be legal to take their blood. an alternative to taking someones blood would be to detain suspected DWI drivers until they provide a urine sample. why does it have to be blood? a urine sample is much less invasive then drawing blood against someones will.

[Mr Majestyk]

Good idea, that would work.

[Fox466]

That would work quite well, actually. It is already common practice on PIs to detain for however many hours, why is this so different? In the end you would still have the proof to convict (on any substance) and you wouldn't have to resort to such a heavy handed method of obtaining that proof.

[AL P]

I'd rather it be a policy where they draw blood if there is an accident (not necessarily an injury involved) or any case where a person has already been indicted on a previous DWI charge. That way this tool is still available for repeat offenders but you don't have some $35K a year dipshit from the Dalworthington Gardens PD running around playing doctor on everyone he deems necessary.

[turbo93gt]

I'd rather it be a policy where they draw blood if there is an accident (not necessarily an injury involved) or any case where a person has already been indicted on a previous DWI charge. That way this tool is still available for repeat offenders but you don't have some $35K a year dipshit from the Dalworthington Gardens PD running around playing doctor on everyone he deems necessary.

+1

[Paladin]

We've been over this already, Mr. Fallacy,

No.

You can kiss my ass boy.

[Paladin]

no generally most of them were at least double im not going to lie i dont remember the actual BAC's. In most cases the people could hardly walk.


This has been our experience at FWPD. The average was .16 with none lower than .11. The highest by warrant was .26 if I remember correct.

[Paladin]

i got my information based on what was in the dallas morning news

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122907dnmetfwdwistop.21c51ba.html

i especially liked this part....

"The Fort Worth initiative is patterned after "no refusal" programs in Houston, El Paso and Dalworthington Gardens, which started mandatory blood testing 2 ½ years ago.

Since then, 13 of Dalworthington Gardens' 30 police officers and volunteers have been trained to draw blood specimens.

...Because Fort Worth officers are not yet trained as blood technicians, three of Dalworthington Gardens' trained officers will be working with the Fort Worth police during the holiday weekend.

...A magistrate will be on hand to sign search warrants for the blood evidence, if needed. "

nowhere in the article did they mention a doctor being present. however a judge was there to issue warrants. ironic.

"For officers working the hectic holiday weekend, the new technique might make things run a little smoother.

Lt. Dean Sullivan, a Fort Worth police spokesman, said it takes five minutes to draw blood as opposed to 25 minutes to run a breath test. "

so glad violating civil rights is so convienent for the FWPD. so again i ask; what is the recourse when you guys put a needle in someone that has not given consent and they are not intoxicated? or worse yet they have an adverse medical reaction and no doctor is present?

heres some more of my "assumptions"

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/010308dnmetfwnorefusal.200d34f.html

There is no requirement for a doctor to be present. Hell, when we serve a warrant on a guy for a sex crime and he is not resisiting we have done it by a lab technician in a freaking interview room at the office. You guys are so overreacting it is making me laugh.

If they have an adverse medical reaction we would call an ambulance like we do for any prisoner/person who is at the jail and needs medical attention.

[Paladin]

big difference between a violent crime having been commited and someone having been arrested based on physical evidence by detectives, and someone hopping behind the wheel of their car and being suspected of drinking by a patrol officer. i dont see detectives (let alone patrol officers) getting warrants for getting blood drawn from citizens suspected of violent crimes (but not yet arrested) with nothing more then observation of suspicious behavior of what, at most, could be considered circumstancial. and i certainly dont see the blood being drawn by said detectives without medical supervision, while in a less then sterile environment in the field.

The same standard applies for a DWI blood search warrant as it does for a violent crime search warrant. The same judge can sign both, the same officer can possibly get a warrant for both is required. The same person who draws blood for a search warrant for a violent crime can draw blood for the search warrant for a DWI case. This is why I am so confused by the people getting so upset at this.

[Paladin]

Sounds like a police state where every possible avenue for circumventing the 'rule of law' and 'due process' has been thoroughly examined and employed. They'll continue to be unconstitutional and ruining peoples' lives until someone musters the balls to appeal until it reaches the higher courts so we can put a stop to this shit. So much for democracy...


Read: Police. State.


This has been appealed and ruled constitutional. The search warrant is the rule of law and due process. Your ignorance or lack of reading skills are amusing.

I keep posting it and people still keep saying it "will be appealed" and it isn't legal. LOL

[Paladin]

if you indeed respected the citizens rights you would respect the rights of all citizens. innocent until PROVEN guilty isnt a punchline. .

Since when is collecting evidence by search warrant violating the innocent until proven guilty assumption? Getting a search warrant is respecting citizens rights. Getting blood without a warrant would be not respecting rights.

so you dont understand why i, or anyone else has concern s with patrol officers forcibly taking blood without medical supervision or in a less then sanitary environment? again, just because you do it in dallas at the jail under medical supervision, doesnt mean that is what is happening in fort worth. .

Why do you keep focusing on "a patrol officer" taking the blood? The officers from DWG were trained technicians. Any chance you have gone to a lab for a blood draw at your doctoirs request? Guess what, you had your blood drawn by a person who had the same training as the officers from DWG and there was no doctor in the building if it was just a lab like the one I go to as required buy my insurance.

who cares whether its DNA evidence or what, if the police dont have the right to take blood from someone that is suspected of a violent crime (but not yet arrested and cannot be because of only circumstancial evidence) who refuses, why is it that the police automatically have the right for a non violent crime? they dont. its a double standard. .

We do have the right to collect blood from a perso, regardess of the crime, once a judge signs the search warrant. There is no double standard.

also, you conveinently forgot to answer my question about the recourse when you guys put a needle in someone that has not given consent and they are not intoxicated? or worse yet they have an adverse medical reaction and no doctor is present?.

If someone gets injured by a technician, nurse, doctor or any other person who draws their blood, you can sue. That doesn't change at all.

you dont need a conviction to take DUIs off the road. we already have laws on the books that can be used to get them off the road, lets use them.

I addressed this in an earlier post. You may want to go back and read it.

as i said before, you seem to want a lot of latitude in order to enforce the law and none of the personal responsibility for the fuck ups. doctors can be sued for malpractice, at this point legal recourse for LE doesnt seem to be an option.

Who, other than you, thinks there is no personal responsibility for their actions? LE can be sued and when there is error, negligence, or other culpable action on the part of the officer, there will be compensation.

[turbo93gt]

The same standard applies for a DWI blood search warrant as it does for a violent crime search warrant. The same judge can sign both, the same officer can possibly get a warrant for both is required. The same person who draws blood for a search warrant for a violent crime can draw blood for the search warrant for a DWI case. This is why I am so confused by the people getting so upset at this.

my question is what is stopping LE from pulling blood from everyone they pull over because the driver is suspected of being intoxicated? what is your basis for getting a warrant to stick needles in people against their will? considering there are other ways of getting the evidence, why take blood over urine, for instance? in a non-accident situation where someone has no prior record of DWI, what is the deciding factor in not only getting the judge to approve the warrant, but also for you to ask for one?

[Paladin]

i disagree with it as a whole. i disagree with being able to take someones blood forcefully.

By that logic we could not take a persons blood by search warrant for a violent crime either or after a drunk kills your family(which requires no warrant BTW). I sure hope no one in your family has this happen to them and you speak up and say "Hey, that guy that just raped my family member/killed my family in a drunk driving accident has rights to not have his body invaded FORCEFULLY!" How stupid is that? :cool:


whether by doctor or not. like you stated, driving is a priveledge. if they refuse a breathalizer, suspend or revoke their license. make the punishment for driving with a suspended license more harsh. we dont need to take peoples blood to keep suspected drunks off the road. there are other alternatives. that is my point. i dont know of a much more invasive search and seizure then invading someones body forcefully. something such as this would otherwise be considered assault, and that is at the very least, a violation of the 4th ammendment. as AL P said, the court has ruled that under those circumstances it is not a violation of the 5th ammendment.

The problem is your solutions have not worked. They have all been tried, yet people still drink and drive and kill and injure innocent people.

[turbo93gt]

By that logic we could not take a persons blood by search warrant for a violent crime either or after a drunk kills your family(which requires no warrant BTW). I sure hope no one in your family has this happen to them and you speak up and say "Hey, that guy that just raped my family member/killed my family in a drunk driving accident has rights to not have his body invaded FORCEFULLY!" How stupid is that? :cool:


it wouldnt be the first time someone in my family was murdered and the perpatrators rights were put above those of the dead. been there, have the shirt.

[Paladin]

All good questions.

my question is what is stopping LE from pulling blood from everyone they pull over because they suspected of being intoxicated?

The judge who signs the warrant, the supervisor who reviews the arrest, the potential for the officer to be held personally liable for false arrest, just to name a few.

what is your basis for getting a warrant to stick needles in people against their will?

It must be asked for with a narrative that describes the probable cause for the arrest. they have been truned down before, but usually the officer has solid PC before the warrant is requested. At FWPD, there is at least one supervisor who reviews the probable cause, sometimes 2 or more depending upon the circumstances.

considering there are other ways of getting the evidence, why take blood over urine, for instance?

There are only 2 accepatble ways to get a BAC level froma human, blood and breath. the warrant is obtained only upon refusal of the breath test which is requested. There is no way to forcibly get a breath test, hence upon refusal the blood test is requested by warrant.

in a non-accident situation where someone has no prior record of DWI, what is the deciding factor in not only getting the judge to approve the warrant, but also for you to ask for one?

The policy before this last New Years Eve DWI program was for officers to obtain warrants where the is a previous DWI conviction, where an innocent person is injured, or the person has 2 or more arreste for DWUI regardless of conviction.

BTW, according to the DA's office in Tarrant County, there has been legislation offfered to make blood draws for DWI arrests legal on all refusals without warrants. That is currently the situation for DWI's who cause serious bodily injury or death. We have to get blood on those cases and there is no warrant requirement. I am guessing it is only a matter of time before it becomes legal for blood draws on all refusals, even first time offenders.

[Paladin]

it wouldnt be the first time someone in my family was murdered and the perpatrators rights were put above those of the dead. been there, have the shirt.

I am really sorry to hear that. I have spent 6 years of my 20 years in LE in the FWPD violent crimes section. I have tried my best to help those, like yourself, who have been affected by violent crimes.

[Paladin]

its already a RIGHT we have guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. it is the FWPD who is in violation, as such, doing so is not legal, it is circumventing the law based on biased interpretation by the law enforcement officials. and you just go along with it without giving thought to the greater implications.

do i like drunk drivers, no. yes we need to get them off the road, but we need to not violate their civil rights while doing so.

considering i dont drink, i would love to be pulled over for DUI and forced to give blood. just because law enforcement does something doesnt automatically mean they are legally justified in doing so.

You have no right to refuse a legally obtained search warrant. I have no idea where people get these ideas. You have a right to refuse before the warrant is obtained, and if there is no PC for the warrant, then you exercised your rights and all is well. If there is PC, the officer gets one, then your rights have still been protected.

We have a right to no illegal searches and seizures. The officer who gets a warrant is doing the search and seizure legally.

[turbo93gt]

I am really sorry to hear that. I have spent 6 years of my 20 years in LE in the FWPD violent crimes section. I have tried my best to help those, like yourself, who have been affected by violent crimes.

and for that i am not ungrateful. you guys do an extremely difficult job. and it is truely appreciated. i think some of my above sentences in this topic of taking blood werent the most complete. i guess my concern is that an officer who believes someone to be intoxicated may take blood and cause harm to the suspect. why would another method of testing not work as well? does the alcohol not show up in urine? i know it would be a messy collection process. i wouldnt want that job.

[turbo93gt]

You have no right to refuse a legally obtained search warrant. I have no idea where people get these ideas. You have a right to refuse before the warrant is obtained, and if there is no PC for the warrant, then you exercised your rights and all is well. If there is PC, the officer gets one, then your rights have still been protected.

We have a right to no illegal searches and seizures. The officer who gets a warrant is doing the search and seizure legally.

so what defines probable cause in a DWI stop where someone has been pulled over but there are no physical signs and no prior history?

[Paladin]

Out of curiosity, do any of the dna patterns from the collected blood specimens go into any sort of databases?

After all, the results would have to be logged, so how in depth is the logging? Are the LEO's involved in this even able to answer that question?

I am. It costs about $400 or so for us to get a DNA sample done. There is no way we would ever pay for a DNA sample to be done for a person arrested for DWI. Hell, it took some selling to get them to pay the minimal fee for the BAC test to be done.

There is a movement for all persons who get convicrted of a felony to have their DNA sample taken. Right now it is strictly limited to sex crimes or crimes that have been committed by a person with a sex crimes history and the new offense is a felony.

Example: Guy gets convicted in 1975 for molesting his daughter and is off parole before the DNA laws go into effect. He gets arrested for burglary and convicted today. He will probably have his DNA taken becuase of his old sex conviction based upon his new non sex-related case.

[Paladin]

so what defines probable cause in a DWI stop where someone has been pulled over but there are no physical signs and no prior history?

PC is articulated facts. They can involve smells, words, actions, statements from passengers, witnesses, driving, plain view evidence (vomit, open containers of alcohol, etc) and lots of other things. There may be all of the above or just a few. Each case is different.

[Paladin]

These changes weren't brought on by citizens, they were brought on by lobbyists for MADD. States had to comform or lose their federal highway funds. As I mentioned above, MADD is basically a Women's Temperence Union for modern times. While I don't disagree with the dangers of DWI and I agree that there should be enforcement, lets not mix words here and pretend that people were marching in the streets in an effort to lower the BAC maximum to .08, that simply didn't happen. Basically what this has become is a modern day witch hunt and cash cow for the state. It's a hot political issue and like any political issue involving crime, no politician is going to stand up and say that he/she is opposed to harsher penalties. Not if they want to get elected anyway. So we end up with things like mandatory AA meetings for people who get charged, even though someone who drinks may not be an alcoholic. And we end up with some white collar office clown who drinks three beers and starts his car up in a parking lot and gets charged with DWI. For every case where some drunk driver that blew a .21 was apprehended I can name one where someone was hit with some bullshit charge just because this is a hot issue and makes the state several thousand bucks each time.

I did not intend to imply that people were marching in the streets. I just don't think this is purely money driven, although I won't try and talk you out of your opinion. This just passes my smell test, so we will just have to disagree.

I'm sure you have plenty of stories like that. On the flip side, there are plenty of stories of people whose lives have been ruined by wrongful prosecution. You have to have compassion for all of these people but you can't let emotions dictate public policy. You have to use logic and reason for that. Otherwise you are going to be in a world of shit.

You know of people who have been arrested and prosecuted for DWI when they had not had any alcohol in their system? I sure would like to hear what evidence the DA took to court. Hell, we can't get the DA to accpet cases unless there is way beyond minimal PC in Tarrant County.

My friends and family who have had issues with DWI all had been drinking and most got off becuase they followed the refusal and go to trial route. They all had been drinking and had a BAC, which would have been uncovered by a search warrant. I say don't drink and drive and this isn't an issue, but that has just been my experience. I have never arrested anyone that had less than .10 myself, but I had some really sloppy ass drunk people refuse.

[Paladin]

thats an excellent point, i hadnt thought of that. i do however believe that we need to iron out the double standard that makes it illegal to get a warrant to have someones stomach pumped to prove they have illegal substances in their system, but it is assumed to be legal to take their blood. an alternative to taking someones blood would be to detain suspected DWI drivers until they provide a urine sample. why does it have to be blood? a urine sample is much less invasive then drawing blood against someones will.

I know I addressed it earlier, but it could be said again. The courts require blood or breath for testing, urine does not give BAC, either none at all or it is not accurate. That detail I do not know for sure. The standard in court is different than a medical standard BTW.

[turbo93gt]

I know I addressed it earlier, but it could be said again. The courts require blood or breath for testing, urine does not give BAC, either none at all or it is not accurate. That detail I do not know for sure. The standard in court is different than a medical standard BTW.

was not aware, thank you for the clarification. id still like to know what happens when someone who isnt drunk gets a warrent drawn up based upon a questionable officers questionable PC. you said it yourself, if a judge signs off on the warrant there is no recourse. id just like to know who would be responsible in the event of this type of situation. not even taking into account this situation happening and someone having an adverse reaction to the blood drawing. and if that were the case, when it comes down to it, is the cross trained officer considered medical personel, or a police officer? if the cross trained officers are considered a police officer in this scenario then who would be responsible? because based on how everything is set up, it appears the citizen would have no recourse.

i guess thats neither here not there though, since that would only be the case after someone refused to breathe. which would automatically suspends their DL, which would be stupid for someone who wasnt guilty.

[Zarathustra]

Of course the justice system won't be held accountable...

[Fox466]

Thanks Don! You've been working your butt off in this thread... :p

[Paladin]

Thanks Don! You've been working your butt off in this thread... :p

No problem, I am actually quite interested in this topic. BTW, I am still gonna respond to your warrant for sex post. //shakes head//

[Fox466]

No problem, I am actually quite interested in this topic. BTW, I am still gonna respond to your warrant for sex post. //shakes head//

It wasn't me, no one saw me type it, you can't prove it... :p

[Paladin]

It wasn't me, no one saw me type it, you can't prove it... :p

I thought I was going crazy looking for it, now I know why I couldn't find it. LOL

[AL P]

You know of people who have been arrested and prosecuted for DWI when they had not had any alcohol in their system? I sure would like to hear what evidence the DA took to court. Hell, we can't get the DA to accpet cases unless there is way beyond minimal PC in Tarrant County.

You have to be prosecuted to be penalized for suspected DWI? I thought you just had to refuse to take a test.

[AL P]

PC is articulated facts. They can involve smells, words, actions, statements from passengers, witnesses, driving, plain view evidence (vomit, open containers of alcohol, etc) and lots of other things. There may be all of the above or just a few. Each case is different.

Herein lies the problem. It is a matter of opinion.

In another post you said the DA is now going to try to make this shit happen without a warrant? And you are seriously ok with that? To me that is absolutely amazing.

[Paladin]

You have to be prosecuted to be penalized for suspected DWI? I thought you just had to refuse to take a test.

Touche'

[Paladin]

Herein lies the problem. It is a matter of opinion.

In another post you said the DA is now going to try to make this shit happen without a warrant? And you are seriously ok with that? To me that is absolutely amazing.

There has been legislation to make all DWI arrests have some form of BAC required, either breath or blood. You can't be physically forced to give breath, so blood would be the alternative. I see this as inevitable.

BTW Al, all PC is opinion based upon articulable facts. This is no different and that applies for search warrants for houses, cars, and blood.

[AL P]

There has been legislation to make all DWI arrests have some form of BAC required, either breath or blood. You can't be physically forced to give breath, so blood would be the alternative. I see this as inevitable.

BTW Al, all PC is opinion based upon articulable facts. This is no different and that applies for search warrants for houses, cars, and blood.

Of course all PC is opinion, getting a search warrant to search something based on opinion is a bit different then getting a warrant to perform a medical procedure on someone unwillingly. And that's my point. You can call it "evidence" all you want, a spade is a spade.

As for the inevitability of blood tests, you are probably right. We've got to progress this safety crusade, 5th amendment be damned. Personally, I'm interested in how the 5th amendment will be circumvented. Will blood somehow not be "property" any more, despite a mountain of case law that demonstrates that bodily fluids are property of the originator. Or will probable cause be somehow morphed into an acceptable substitute for "due process".

[Paladin]

Of course all PC is opinion, getting a search warrant to search something based on opinion is a bit different then getting a warrant to perform a medical procedure on someone unwillingly. And that's my point. You can call it "evidence" all you want, a spade is a spade.

As for the inevitability of blood tests, you are probably right. We've got to progress this safety crusade, 5th amendment be damned. Personally, I'm interested in how the 5th amendment will be circumvented. Will blood somehow not be "property" any more, despite a mountain of case law that demonstrates that bodily fluids are property of the originator. Or will probable cause be somehow morphed into an acceptable substitute for "due process".

I have said it before, I may agree with you when it starts happening w/out a SW, until then I see no problem.

[mikeb]

I have been following this thread and it strikes me that the issue at hand is that the procedure itself is invasive and personal, much like a full body cavity search would be, and that the law is claiming it's right to essentially invade your person in search of evidence whenever it wants to (just get a warrant, right?). For this reason the precedent is troubling, for it lays the groundwork for further personal body invasions, for whatever purposes deemed necessary at the time.

Of course, dwi is no joke, and convicting people that are guilty of it is the thrust.

Still, i'm uneasy with the powers that are being granted to invade my own personal body. A new frontier has been crossed here.

[Nestromo]

I have been following this thread and it strikes me that the issue at hand is that the procedure itself is invasive and personal, much like a full body cavity search would be, and that the law is claiming it's right to essentially invade your person in search of evidence whenever it wants to (just get a warrant, right?). For this reason the precedent is troubling, for it lays the groundwork for further personal body invasions, for whatever purposes deemed necessary at the time.

Of course, dwi is no joke, and convicting people that are guilty of it is the thrust.

Still, i'm uneasy with the powers that are being granted to invade my own personal body. A new frontier has been crossed here.


Yep. Notch keeps saying that they can't do it without a warrant but when a warrant is just a call to one of your pals away, it is really just a formality.

[Paladin]

I have been following this thread and it strikes me that the issue at hand is that the procedure itself is invasive and personal, much like a full body cavity search would be, and that the law is claiming it's right to essentially invade your person in search of evidence whenever it wants to (just get a warrant, right?). For this reason the precedent is troubling, for it lays the groundwork for further personal body invasions, for whatever purposes deemed necessary at the time.

Of course, dwi is no joke, and convicting people that are guilty of it is the thrust.

Still, i'm uneasy with the powers that are being granted to invade my own personal body. A new frontier has been crossed here.

Are you saying the procedure is too invasive for DWI or any crime? This propcedure is done to collect evidence of a crime all the time and has been done for a long time.

[Paladin]

Yep. Notch keeps saying that they can't do it without a warrant but when a warrant is just a call to one of your pals away, it is really just a formality.

LOL, your lack of knowledge is astounding.

[Nestromo]

LOL, your lack of knowledge is astounding.

Just like most of the public. And cops prey upon that constantly.

[mikeb]

Are you saying the procedure is too invasive for DWI or any crime? This propcedure is done to collect evidence of a crime all the time and has been done for a long time.

I'm saying that most common folk see it as a personally invasive "big brother" procedure for testing of DWI, and many have a problem with it. I'm also saying that I see acceptance of these kinds of procedures as a very, very slippery slope toward acceptance of other invasive procedures.

So in your mind the ends justifies the means? Where is the line? *Is* there a line?

[Paladin]

Just like most of the public. And cops prey upon that constantly.

No, most of the public doesn't think cops and judges are "pals" like you do. LOL

[Paladin]

I'm saying that most common folk see it as a personally invasive "big brother" procedure for testing of DWI, and many have a problem with it. I'm also saying that I see acceptance of these kinds of procedures as a very, very slippery slope toward acceptance of other invasive procedures.


While I disagree with you, I can see where this would cause some to be concerned.

So in your mind the ends justifies the means? Where is the line? *Is* there a line?

I see no problem with getting a warrant to collect evidence. The line is following the law.

[turbo93gt]

No, most of the public doesn't think cops and judges are "pals" like you do. LOL

the concern a lot of us have is that all officers arent the caliber that i believe you to be, or the caliber that Hank was. and the only reason i bring him up is because i have never known a finer person, let alone officer. and ive known some really good officers. but i think for many non LE, they feel like they have been screwed rather then treated fairly by LE, and that leaves a bad taste in their mouth. lets face it, there are some bad apples out there, and giving those bad apples a lot of opportunities to make judgement calls may not be a good thing for the rest of us. and thats basically all PC is, using good judgement.

[98BlownSS]

PC is not good judgement. PC is a set of facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe some crime has been committed. The magistrate signing off on the warrant wants to see why we are requesting the warrant.

BTW, Texas currently has a mandatory draw for drivers that cause serious bodily injury involving an accident.

I have yet to arrest anyone for DWI that has blown under .08. I would say I encounter about 50% of people that refuse to provide a specimen. The department I work for does not write warrants for blood at this time. However, I believe it could help with DWIs.

Also, when you are issued your PRIVILEGE to drive you agree to give a specimen of breath or blood if you are asked to by LEO.

[Fox466]

No, most of the public doesn't think cops and judges are "pals" like you do. LOL


With that comment he wasn't addressing the perceived friendships Don, but more-so the lack of knowledge in terms of understanding of the law and the way the LE community exploits it, to which I would have to agree. I believe that there is a reason young kids get pulled over and screwed with constantly, and that is due in part to the lack of knowledge on their part. Part is that they haven't matured in their driving habits, but at the same time a portion of it has to do with the fact that the 'arresting' officers know that kids don't (as a rule) know their rights and as such are generally easier targets than folk who have been around the block...

But in addressing the perceived friendships, I would have to agree as the two parties are in a collaborative relationship to generate revenue and justify their jobs/positions, which is done through producing convictions. They may not be actual friends, but they are predisposed to have each others backs, which is I think the point of the friendship statement... :cool:

[Paladin]

the concern a lot of us have is that all officers arent the caliber that i believe you to be, or the caliber that Hank was. and the only reason i bring him up is because i have never known a finer person, let alone officer. and ive known some really good officers. but i think for many non LE, they feel like they have been screwed rather then treated fairly by LE, and that leaves a bad taste in their mouth. lets face it, there are some bad apples out there, and giving those bad apples a lot of opportunities to make judgement calls may not be a good thing for the rest of us. and thats basically all PC is, using good judgement.

While I have more faith in the system than those people you reference do, I can understand someone feeling the way you do.

[Paladin]

With that comment he wasn't addressing the perceived friendships Don, but more-so the lack of knowledge in terms of understanding of the law and the way the LE community exploits it, to which I would have to agree. I believe that there is a reason young kids get pulled over and screwed with constantly, and that is due in part to the lack of knowledge on their part. Part is that they haven't matured in their driving habits, but at the same time a portion of it has to do with the fact that the 'arresting' officers know that kids don't (as a rule) know their rights and as such are generally easier targets than folk who have been around the block...

But in addressing the perceived friendships, I would have to agree as the two parties are in a collaborative relationship to generate revenue and justify their jobs/positions, which is done through producing convictions. They may not be actual friends, but they are predisposed to have each others backs, which is I think the point of the friendship statement... :cool:

I have very little sympathy for the young "punk" kid who acts like an idiot. I deserved everything I got and then some when I was one. I was never disrespectful to the officer and I had no problems. I guess I have gleaned from my experiences that if you treat an officer minimally decent you wll get the same in return. I have had lots of people give me major attitude and then when I treat them the way they treated me, they complain and lie saying I started it. (good luck with that LOL)

I guess this will just have to be another issue we agree to disagree on Mike. The collaborative relationship you describe doesn't happen in FW IMO. This may be a small town arrangement that I have only a little experience with. It was bad, but I don't let that skew my view of the world.

[mikeb]

I guess I have gleaned from my experiences that if you treat an officer minimally decent you wll get the same in return.

I'm old enough to know that this is the way it should work but i'm telling you the last few encounters i've had with LE (which were not traffic related, we called them) I was nice and they were assholes for no reason whatsoever. The last traffic related encounter I had - a bunch of us were sitting stopped in traffic because of an accident that had occurred. This was on a divided 4 lane street in a residential area. The 10 cars that were behind me all backed up to the previous cross street to turn around. As I did this a cop came charging up from the accident scene with his foot on the floor, bar lights on, and a spotlight shining in my face. As he made the u turn to get behind me his tires were howling. When he came to the window he was red in the face, was huffing noticably, and he made a smartass comment about where I had gotten my driver's license. I realized at that time that there was absolutely nothing I could say to this gentleman; we were not going to be able to have a civil conversation. I just pointed out that there had been 10 cars behind me that had done the same, and that the cross street was a little further back than I thought it was. After he ran my license he seemed to cool off a little and let me go. The dude looked like a bald headed wrestler and it sure seemed a lot like roid rage to me. It is scary that an officer of the law gets into that kind of a mental state when dealing with the public in a non-shootout kind of situation.

[AL P]

PC is not good judgement. PC is a set of facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe some crime has been committed. The magistrate signing off on the warrant wants to see why we are requesting the warrant.

BTW, Texas currently has a mandatory draw for drivers that cause serious bodily injury involving an accident.

I have yet to arrest anyone for DWI that has blown under .08. I would say I encounter about 50% of people that refuse to provide a specimen. The department I work for does not write warrants for blood at this time. However, I believe it could help with DWIs.

Also, when you are issued your PRIVILEGE to drive you agree to give a specimen of breath or blood if you are asked to by LEO.

I think you are drunk right now. PC is not opinion? You are drunk!!

[Fox466]

I have very little sympathy for the young "punk" kid who acts like an idiot. I deserved everything I got and then some when I was one. I was never disrespectful to the officer and I had no problems. I guess I have gleaned from my experiences that if you treat an officer minimally decent you wll get the same in return. I have had lots of people give me major attitude and then when I treat them the way they treated me, they complain and lie saying I started it. (good luck with that LOL)

I guess this will just have to be another issue we agree to disagree on Mike. The collaborative relationship you describe doesn't happen in FW IMO. This may be a small town arrangement that I have only a little experience with. It was bad, but I don't let that skew my view of the world.


Fair enough Don!

I see you disagreed with the second of the two. On the first, would you agree that younger drivers are exploited (loosely used) by officers, on occassion, due to their perceived lack of knowledge?

[jewozzy]

I have been following this thread and it strikes me that the issue at hand is that the procedure itself is invasive and personal, much like a full body cavity search would be, and that the law is claiming it's right to essentially invade your person in search of evidence whenever it wants to (just get a warrant, right?). For this reason the precedent is troubling, for it lays the groundwork for further personal body invasions, for whatever purposes deemed necessary at the time.

Of course, dwi is no joke, and convicting people that are guilty of it is the thrust.

Still, i'm uneasy with the powers that are being granted to invade my own personal body. A new frontier has been crossed here.

what do you suggest leo does to fix this problem then? what a lot of people in this thread are failing to realize without evidence a conviction wont stick. without a conviction your just taking someones license and not actually penalizing them with any kind of jail time.

[mikeb]

what do you suggest leo does to fix this problem then? what a lot of people in this thread are failing to realize without evidence a conviction wont stick. without a conviction your just taking someones license and not actually penalizing them with any kind of jail time.

if someone refuses to blow tow their car and suspend their license for a year, fine them, 30 days in jail, and hit them with the 3 year driver's license add-on fee just like dwi people get. Multiple convictions for refusing to blow should just continue to stack on jail time and fees, and on the 3rd time they get a permanent license revocation.

[jewozzy]

if someone refuses to blow tow their car and suspend their license for a year, fine them, 30 days in jail, and hit them with the 3 year driver's license add-on fee just like dwi people get. Multiple convictions for refusing to blow should just continue to stack on jail time and fees, and on the 3rd time they get a permanent license revocation.

that would be nice if it was done that way.... but its not.