[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DUI/DWI Forced Blood Draw (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 5/31/2010 3:16:56 PM EDT
|
For the record: The idea of forcefully drawing blood bothers me quite a bit. No matter how legally acceptable it may be, it's terribly invasive.
On reflection, I'm perfectly okay with the idea that scumbags lose the rights and considerations that good people enjoy; by virtue of their own behaviors. I don't care about the privacy rights of a pedophile. I don't care about the 2A rights of a gang banging hoodlum. Etc. So, now I'm curious. How frequently does a blood draw prove someone to be innocent of DWI/DUI? Why would a blood draw be required above and beyond a breath test? |
|
I have done it in the ER.Guy is under arrest for DUI. This was in Florida. Made sure I used betadine instead of alcohol for swab and documented such.
Handed it off to the PoPo. Alternatively, we drew our usual labs added an ETOH level and then the I guess the DA could get the medical records. Not sure. |
|
I subscribe to the Libertarian belief that if there is a limit beyond which a person's sovereign rights must always trump all other considerations, that limit is certainly his own skin. I vehemently disagree with forced blood drawing under ANY CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. However, I do not disagree with beating the shit out of someone if it is necessary in order to get him to confess to where he planted the IED or buried the body. In that case, any blood shed incidentally may be collected for any required purpose. I have my standards but I also have a deep understanding of the need for greater justice. CJ |
|
Quoted:
I have done it in the ER.Guy is under arrest for DUI. This was in Florida. Made sure I used betadine instead of alcohol for swab and documented such. Handed it off to the PoPo. Alternatively, we drew our usual labs added an ETOH level and then the I guess the DA could get the medical records. Not sure. So, does the DA have to get a warrant to obtain the results? Seems like HIPA would be in effect for any procedures performed by hospital personnel. What's the paperwork like on something like that? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I have done it in the ER.Guy is under arrest for DUI. This was in Florida. Made sure I used betadine instead of alcohol for swab and documented such. Handed it off to the PoPo. Alternatively, we drew our usual labs added an ETOH level and then the I guess the DA could get the medical records. Not sure. So, does the DA have to get a warrant to obtain the results? Seems like HIPA would be in effect for any procedures performed by hospital personnel. What's the paperwork like on something like that? Yes, they have to get a warrant to get any part of a persons medical records. |
|
uhhh what happens when some scumbag who already has hepatitis claims he got it from the blood draw and there aren't any medical records to prove otherwise? DA gets sued silly? I hope so.
Sorry but I can't believe were back to the point where your own bodily fluids no longer belong to you. |
|
Quoted:
i really don't understand the whole forced blood draw procedure. why not just create a law where if a person refuses a breathalyzer they get charged with a DUI. And then we could have one that says if you refuse to allow the White House to edit your newspaper then you get charged with sedition. -Mike |
|
Dirty needles like in a ghetto city ER,fighting the staff to not get blood drawn and cops who have you there and get into a free for all attempt to hold you down and get hurt as in ripped artery ect.
I am with a previous poster,refuse a blow test and automatic DUI with no taking of fluids.The smart drunk will realize as would the one who had just one beer with a sandwich that the breath test will maybe help him with low for impaired or sometimes the blow tube will show no alcohol onboard but a legal medicine reaction getting him in a drunken appearing state |
|
Quoted:
i really don't understand the whole forced blood draw procedure. why not just create a law where if a person refuses a breathalyzer they get charged with a DUI. The person is already arrested and charged with DUI, the blood draw is for evidence of the DUI. |
|
Quoted:
uhhh what happens when some scumbag who already has hepatitis claims he got it from the blood draw and there aren't any medical records to prove otherwise? DA gets sued silly? I hope so. Sorry but I can't believe were back to the point where your own bodily fluids no longer belong to you.  how do you get hepatitis from a blood draw?
|
|
They tried that here... even to the point of calling for a rescue (ambulance) to come to the scene to draw blood.... The chief shut that shit down! Now they have to go to the ER to get it done.
I have read that in some states they are giving cops training in phlebotomy... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i really don't understand the whole forced blood draw procedure. why not just create a law where if a person refuses a breathalyzer they get charged with a DUI. The person is already arrested and charged with DUI, the blood draw is for evidence of the DUI. Especially after MVA's.... Thats the was it is here... Not sure about other places. |
| PCSD has phlebotomy trained deputies. The consent to have a breath or blood test is implied when you get your license, and they tell you up front. Refusing the test means automatic license suspension for a long time (I forget how many months). It might not be right to "force" someone to give blood, but its not like they spring it on you without warning. They also don't just pull you over and take your blood right away. The blood draw is used to collect evidence (of your BAC) for your upcoming DUI trial, not to actually determine if you are impaired. That determination comes from standard field sobriety tests. Knowing how much alcohol is in you determines what statutes they will charge you under. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have done it in the ER.Guy is under arrest for DUI. This was in Florida. Made sure I used betadine instead of alcohol for swab and documented such. Handed it off to the PoPo. Alternatively, we drew our usual labs added an ETOH level and then the I guess the DA could get the medical records. Not sure. So, does the DA have to get a warrant to obtain the results? Seems like HIPA would be in effect for any procedures performed by hospital personnel. What's the paperwork like on something like that? Yes, they have to get a warrant to get any part of a persons medical records. Wrong. No warrant is needed and the ER does not get the blood. It goes to the state lab (in NC). There is no real medical record of the results. The only part the ER plays is to supply a person to draw the blood. |
|
Blame the DUI-defense lawyers and state legislators... If it were not for the attorneys latest tactic of demanding the source code for breathalyzer firmware (which results in either (A) the company refusing, or (B) a befuddled judge/jury, eyes glazed over from the testimony of a defense software expert trying to make minor programming style issues into 'faults' in the device), and the fact that stupid lawmakers make the penalty for 'Refusal of Test' weaker than that for DUI... And there's the 'well where's the evidence he was drunk' line - blood draw provides preserved evidence, breath-test does not (another slimy-lawyer angle closed down).... 'Forced blood draw' would not be an issue.... But it is... And there is no constitutional issue with it at all, so long as a proper warrant is obtained... As for the guy talking about 'dirty needles', this is a medical procedure done in sanitary conditions, it's not like they're shooting the drunk up with Heroin or anything.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i really don't understand the whole forced blood draw procedure. why not just create a law where if a person refuses a breathalyzer they get charged with a DUI. The person is already arrested and charged with DUI, the blood draw is for evidence of the DUI. Try and look at it this way. Officers must have evidence. You have it contained within your blood. The courts have consistantly ruled that the evidence can either convict you or exhonerate you as long as they take it in a medically prescribed manner. If you refuse, the time it takes to get a court order the BAC will be lost. That's why we can take it right then if we need it. This applies here in Cali to felony DUI where injury or death resulted in your arrest. If not, it's a misdemeanor and we cannot force you to give it to us. Of course there is a penalty for the refusal, like loss of your driving priviledge. |
|
Quoted: I subscribe to the Libertarian belief that if there is a limit beyond which a person's sovereign rights must always trump all other considerations, that limit is certainly his own skin. I vehemently disagree with forced blood drawing under ANY CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. However, I do not disagree with beating the shit out of someone if it is necessary in order to get him to confess to where he planted the IED or buried the body. In that case, any blood shed incidentally may be collected for any required purpose. I have my standards but I also have a deep understanding of the need for greater justice. CJ So, a therapeutic removal of blood is a violation of your rights...but torture is okay?
|
|
Quoted: Blame the DUI-defense lawyers and state legislators... If it were not for the attorneys latest tactic of demanding the source code for breathalyzer firmware (which results in either (A) the company refusing, or (B) a befuddled judge/jury, eyes glazed over from the testimony of a defense software expert trying to make minor programming style issues into 'faults' in the device), and the fact that stupid lawmakers make the penalty for 'Refusal of Test' weaker than that for DUI... 'Forced blood draw' would not be an issue.... But it is... And there is no constitutional issue with it at all, so long as a proper warrant is obtained... As for the guy talking about 'dirty needles', this is a medical procedure done in sanitary conditions, it's not like they're shooting the drunk up with Heroin or anything.... This is how it's done here...if you blow over the limit, you are given another blow, and then taken to a hospital for a blood test. If you're ever breathalzyed over the legal limit, you want a blood test, because it's more accurate.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have done it in the ER.Guy is under arrest for DUI. This was in Florida. Made sure I used betadine instead of alcohol for swab and documented such. Handed it off to the PoPo. Alternatively, we drew our usual labs added an ETOH level and then the I guess the DA could get the medical records. Not sure. So, does the DA have to get a warrant to obtain the results? Seems like HIPA would be in effect for any procedures performed by hospital personnel. What's the paperwork like on something like that? Yes, they have to get a warrant to get any part of a persons medical records. Usually the blood test kit, once completed, is turned ovber to the arresting officers and later taken to the respective agencies crime lab for analysis. No need to see the patient records. But it depends on each state and agencies involved. |
|
If there is a crash and someone is killed or seriously injured and the person refuses to provide a breath test or voluntraily give blood I agree with a forced draw.
If nobody is killed or injured I believe a refusal is used a consciousness of guilt and the Judge can use that refusal against you. (One of the times you are NOT presumed innocent) If you fight it in Court the Officers testimony plus your refusal should be enough for a Judge or Jury to convict. But I do not agree with forced blood draw unless someone is killed or injured. |
|
where I work its a little different...
Blood is only taken when they are either 1. suspected of DUI for substance/medication (marijuana, crack, pills, etc etc) or 2. involved in some sort of accident from which they are taken to hospital (for both alc and drug) blood is taken. When I DUI someone for suspected alcohol or drugs, they are given their O'Connell warning (that they do not have the right to remain silent, and by refusing a test to be administered, their understand that their license will be suspended for 1 year automatically and they may face even worse consequences when/if they are found guilty). The law is different for DUI's everywhere you go. |
|
Quoted:
Blame the DUI-defense lawyers and state legislators... If it were not for the attorneys latest tactic of demanding the source code for breathalyzer firmware (which results in either (A) the company refusing, or (B) a befuddled judge/jury, eyes glazed over from the testimony of a defense software expert trying to make minor programming style issues into 'faults' in the device), and the fact that stupid lawmakers make the penalty for 'Refusal of Test' weaker than that for DUI... And there's the 'well where's the evidence he was drunk' line - blood draw provides preserved evidence, breath-test does not (another slimy-lawyer angle closed down).... 'Forced blood draw' would not be an issue.... But it is... And there is no constitutional issue with it at all, so long as a proper warrant is obtained... As for the guy talking about 'dirty needles', this is a medical procedure done in sanitary conditions, it's not like they're shooting the drunk up with Heroin or anything.... Not needed here in Cali if the DUI is injury or death related. Besides the time it takes produce a warrant and get a judge to sign it is ridiculous. The evidence is fleeting, so no warrant need be issued. If the DUI suspect did not injury anyone and no one was killed, then they can simply refuse and nothing happens except the loss of their license. |
|
Quoted:
Yet another violation of the right to be secure in our person perpetrated by the states agents Next they will allow anyone to be tazered upon contact w/ LE and all the idiots will accept it as ok  You are to be secure against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. If you crash and kill or seriously injure someone I believe it is reasonable to draw your blood to help determine if you were driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. |
|
If, if, if, if.
How about NO. If you are driving drunk, blow in the machine. Take your lumps. Admit it and enjoy bumming rides from family. But for God's sake, don't let the state take your blood. It's just another step down the slippery slope. Stand up for what's right. |
|
Former DUI enforcement officer here. I have never participated in a forced blood draw for DUI purposes, and the state of Mississippi prohibits it except under very specific circumstances. Personally, I'm torn on the issue myself. However, if an officer obtains a legitimate search warrant from a judge...I have never seen a judge just hand out a search warrant without a modicum of evidence, so at least locally I know the potential for abuse is extremely low.
As for the blood/urine test itself, I usually give them when a) the substance is something other than alcohol; b) the suspect cannot physically perform the Intoxilyzer test; c) when it's not feasible to administer the Intoxilyzer test (as in the case of a DUI suspect injured in a MVC and being transported to a hospital); or d) the Intoxilyzer is down. The "biological specimen test kit" itself is provided to local agencies through MHP, and the testing is done by the Mississippi Crime Lab. The kit includes all necessary items to collect blood and urine, to include the sterile needle, two blood tubes, and a urine cup, along with consent forms, chain of custody forms, labels, etc. Basically, I take the suspect to the nearest ER, one of their staff takes the blood sample (under my watch), I label it and box it up, and it gets sent to MCL. A few weeks later I get a report from MCL. As for my "accuracy," I'd say 9 out of 10 people I get blood samples from are either over the legal limit (for alcohol) or under the influence of illegal and/or prescription drugs. Now, DUI refusal is certainly allowed in my state, and it doesn't bother me at all when someone refuses––in fact, I like it sometimes when they refuse, because I don't have to spend as much time processing them. When you refuse, the burden of proof shifts to you––maybe not legally, but in reality––and many judges frown on DUI refusals. Even if an officer doesn't have blood/breath/urine results, he should still have video of the violation, stop, field investigation, and subsequent actions, field sobriety results, PBT result, etc., to make his case. If you refuse in Mississippi, we only have to show impairment; i.e., that you operated a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (or other substance). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another violation of the right to be secure in our person perpetrated by the states agents Next they will allow anyone to be tazered upon contact w/ LE and all the idiots will accept it as ok You are to be secure against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. If you crash and kill or seriously injure someone I believe it is reasonable to draw your blood to help determine if you were driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And drawing blood is unreasonable IMO. if I crashed and killed someone it doesnt matter if I was drunk, I killed someone and that in of itself is already illegal except under very few circumstances |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another violation of the right to be secure in our person perpetrated by the states agents Next they will allow anyone to be tazered upon contact w/ LE and all the idiots will accept it as ok You are to be secure against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. If you crash and kill or seriously injure someone I believe it is reasonable to draw your blood to help determine if you were driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And drawing blood is unreasonable IMO. if I crashed and killed someone it doesnt matter if I was drunk, I killed someone and that in of itself is already illegal except under very few circumstances Its about the collection of evidence. Evidence you have. Almost all states tell you driving is a privilidge, not a right. Our founding forefathers had no idea what a car was when they put together the Consititution. And based on that privilidge a great deal of states insist if you sign for the drivers license you also give up the right to refuse to take a blood test if needed. No slippery slope whatsoever here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another violation of the right to be secure in our person perpetrated by the states agents Next they will allow anyone to be tazered upon contact w/ LE and all the idiots will accept it as ok You are to be secure against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. If you crash and kill or seriously injure someone I believe it is reasonable to draw your blood to help determine if you were driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And drawing blood is unreasonable IMO. if I crashed and killed someone it doesnt matter if I was drunk, I killed someone and that in of itself is already illegal except under very few circumstances Its about the collection of evidence. Evidence you have. Almost all states tell you driving is a privilidge, not a right. Our founding forefathers had no idea what a car was when they put together the Consititution. And based on that privilidge a great deal of states insist if you sign for the drivers license you also give up the right to refuse to take a blood test if needed. No slippery slope whatsoever here. Any Attorney worth a damn would skull fuck that logic to death. |
|
Quoted:
LOL at submitting to any type of test from LE especially without your attorney present. Most people fuck themselves up because they don't know or follow their own rights. Yep, I guess someone who know's they're well past drunk should just clam up and shirk their personal responsibility to admit they've violated the law.
That's the problem: Everyone wants freedom, but very few take responsibility. |
|
Quoted:
uhhh what happens when some scumbag who already has hepatitis claims he got it from the blood draw and there aren't any medical records to prove otherwise? DA gets sued silly? I hope so. Sorry but I can't believe were back to the point where your own bodily fluids no longer belong to you. The suit would be against the practitioner that drew the blood, if you were claiming that his error caused you to get hep. And, I can guarantee you that your medical (and many aspects of your personal) history will be called into question by the defendant before they ever respond to your complaint. I can also guarantee you that in addition to having to respond to their interrogotories, you will also be required to list all of your previous medical providers and sign a waiver allowing the defendant's counsel access to your medical, (current and previous) employment, and credit records. |
|
Quoted:
As for my "accuracy," I'd say 9 out of 10 people I get blood samples from are either over the legal limit (for alcohol) or under the influence of illegal and/or prescription drugs. Interesting. I was told in another thread that there is no concern for judges issuing warrants after a cop reads a script since they have a near 100% hit rate. Odd that when there is a person willing to give us his hit rate it is so far below 100%. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL at submitting to any type of test from LE especially without your attorney present. Most people fuck themselves up because they don't know or follow their own rights. Yep, I guess someone who know's they're well past drunk should just clam up and shirk their personal responsibility to admit they've violated the law.
That's the problem: Everyone wants freedom, but very few take responsibility. No they shoudn't get themselves past the limit in the first place but how does incriminating yourself by willingly submitting to a test better your life. Fuck that. Also how many of you officers would arrest a fellow officer for DUI if you pulled him/her over??? Please reply honestly or don't reply at all. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL at submitting to any type of test from LE especially without your attorney present. Most people fuck themselves up because they don't know or follow their own rights. Yep, I guess someone who know's they're well past drunk should just clam up and shirk their personal responsibility to admit they've violated the law.
That's the problem: Everyone wants freedom, but very few take responsibility. And all of the cops you know are perfectly willing to make statements without their own attorney and union rep at their side? |
|
Quoted:
i really don't understand the whole forced blood draw procedure. why not just create a law where if a person refuses a breathalyzer they get charged with a DUI. that's the way it is in Mich. but I also understand they can also draw blood if you refuse the field test? oh, by the way, FBHO |
|
Quoted:
Dirty needles like in a ghetto city ER,fighting the staff to not get blood drawn and cops who have you there and get into a free for all attempt to hold you down and get hurt as in ripped artery ect. ... I have had my blood drawn for plenty of (routine) medical tests (and a couple of small procedures) at an urban hospital (usually through the outpatient lab, which is seedier than the ER)- and they have never reused needles. After they stick you, the needle goes in the sharps box. Flobotomists aren't heroin addicts that have to reuse that stuff on other patients to pinch a couple of cents As far as the other stuff goes- DON'T RESIST. |
|
I don't really feel like arguing this again, but it all comes from the arbitrary line in the sand of .08 and if you are across it you are presumed to be inebriated. Whether you can safely navigate a vehicle or not.
If you are too drunk to drive at .08 it should be easy to prove. The honest fact is, that is isn't easy to prove at that level so they need to resort to shit like breathalyzers and forced blood draws to prove you can't safely drive. It is in fact almost impossible to prove otherwise. Think about that. This is simply an easy way for the state to enforce a law that is impossible to enforce equitably because it isn't equitable to begin with. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As for my "accuracy," I'd say 9 out of 10 people I get blood samples from are either over the legal limit (for alcohol) or under the influence of illegal and/or prescription drugs. Interesting. I was told in another thread that there is no concern for judges issuing warrants after a cop reads a script since they have a near 100% hit rate. Odd that when there is a person willing to give us his hit rate it is so far below 100%. Perhaps I should've clarified: That one person is usually a DUI-Other (controlled substance), and the blood results will show that the substance was below a certain limit or below detectable limits. Also factored in are the times when the crime lab screws up and doesn't test for what I asked them to...it has happened before. |
|
Quoted: If there is a crash and someone is killed or seriously injured and the person refuses to provide a breath test or voluntraily give blood I agree with a forced draw. If nobody is killed or injured I believe a refusal is used a consciousness of guilt and the Judge can use that refusal against you. (One of the times you are NOT presumed innocent) If you fight it in Court the Officers testimony plus your refusal should be enough for a Judge or Jury to convict. But I do not agree with forced blood draw unless someone is killed or injured. This post makes total sense to me. Kill someone and appear intoxicated, expect your blood drawn. If you have harmed no one, you should not be beaten into submission so a needle can be inserted in your veins. And be careful about that guilty until proven innocent factor in DWI prosecution. I said the exact same thing in a thread yesterday and it turned into one long ass night. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yet another violation of the right to be secure in our person perpetrated by the states agents Next they will allow anyone to be tazered upon contact w/ LE and all the idiots will accept it as ok You are to be secure against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. If you crash and kill or seriously injure someone I believe it is reasonable to draw your blood to help determine if you were driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And drawing blood is unreasonable IMO. if I crashed and killed someone it doesnt matter if I was drunk, I killed someone and that in of itself is already illegal except under very few circumstances Its about the collection of evidence. Evidence you have. Almost all states tell you driving is a privilidge, not a right. Our founding forefathers had no idea what a car was when they put together the Consititution. And based on that privilidge a great deal of states insist if you sign for the drivers license you also give up the right to refuse to take a blood test if needed. No slippery slope whatsoever here. Any Attorney worth a damn would skull fuck that logic to death. The US Supreme court has heard & published several cases on implied consent. You would lose. Just don't drive or don't drink and drive and you will be fine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The person is already arrested and charged with DUI, the blood draw is for evidence of the DUI. How exactly did he get arrested and charged with no evidence? Shouldn't that come first in a free society? I arrest and charge based on my observations. <––––––100% conviction rate on DUI's, even those who refuse the breath test. |