Forced blood samples from DWI suspects

[warpedskydiver 0]

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

When even their peers know it was a wrongful death you would still defend it as "Reasonable"

[Bibliophile 0]

Quote

Isn't this like forcing someone to testify against themself, something which is unconstitutional?

No. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination only applies to testimony and statements by the accused; it doesn't apply to real evidence that may be seized.

Courts in the US have long held that warrants may be issued requiring suspects to give handwriting samples, DNA samples, voice samples, etc, real evidence.

This really is nothing revolutionary. It is no more intrusive than a warrant allowing police to seize a blood sample for DNA testing.

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

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Bibliophile 0]

Quote

One question : Do you have the right to not give finger prints or DNA if arrested?

No.

If arrested, you do NOT have the right to refuse to give fingerprints. They can be taken by force, if necessary.

As for DNA, it depends on the laws of the state. More and more states are passing laws that require DNA samples to be taken from arrestees. Challenges to such laws in court have so far proven fruitless. To know whether they can take DNA from a person who has been arrested, you need to know the laws of that state.

Keep in mind, you do need to be arrested for a search warrant to issue. The police need only show the judge that they have probable cause to believe that you have evidence of the commission of a crime in your possession. DUI is a crime.

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

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

When considering laws like this, you need to consider what it is you are trying to do but what is it you are NOT trying to do.

Are you trying to give police cart blanch to pull blood from a suspect in any crime? Because that is how this will be used.

Figure out a reasonable way to take care of this and not further erode my rights.

I think you hit on a good point. Police will eventually use this for other reasons. No different than taser’s. At first they were to be used as a last resort to shooting, and now, you just never know when they are going to tag you for little or no reason! I have seen the videos!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[Bolas 5]

Forced blood samples?

Sounds like a great deal for the drunk driver.

Get pulled over, refuse FST, refuse breathalyzer. They take them in for a blood test, they refuse it until they get the warrent and force it.

In the mean they time try and throw up and drink as much water as they can.

They insist on an independent lab analysis of the blood as well.

By the time that sample is examined (provided the other one isn't lost) their BAC is far lower, maybe way under the legal limit then.

This seems almost counterproductive as compared to the refusal laws...

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

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Please give an example of circumstances under which it is completely justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not been arrested nor convicted of any crime.

The fact that you've had to put qualifiers on the question proves the point.

I don't see how.

Please describe the circumstances under which you feel it is acceptable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect for testing.

Thanks.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Remember, the police are your friends, and they are here to help you.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Please give an example of circumstances under which it is completely justifiable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect--someone who has not been arrested nor convicted of any crime.

The fact that you've had to put qualifiers on the question proves the point.

I don't see how.

Please describe the circumstances under which you feel it is acceptable to forcibly extract blood from a suspect for testing.

Thanks.

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

Good enough?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

John,

Have you read the fine print when you signed for your DL? It says that by signing that you are consenting to chemical tests.

did you read all the fine print? it also says that refusal will not land you strapped down in a bed with a needle jabbed in your arm. It says it'll land you in an administrative hearing with a state judge to determine if your license will be suspended.

It depends on the jurisdiction:
(a) In some states, that's all that will happen. However...
(b) As I posted up-thread, in other states, refusal to submit to a BAC test is, by state statute, a CRIME, and refusal will get you arrested, charged and prosecuted in criminal court.
(c) Also as I posted up-thread, in some states, the police may quickly get a search warrant from a judge to allow the state to draw blood by force, before the blood alcohol evidence has a chance to metabolically degrade.
Generally, what the police do in this instance is transport the suspect to a hospital to have the suspect's blood drawn my trained medical personnel. In some instances, if the suspect still refuses to cooperate at the hospital, he IS physically restrained, such as by being strapped to a chair or gurney, to enable the medic to draw the blood.

[AggieDave 6]

See, Andy, that person has not read the CCP nor the PC or the TC for Texas and has no idea what his personal rights really are. Literally 98% of all of the US "learned" what their rights are by watching Law and Order or similar dribble. That's sad, since if you don't actually understand your rights and the law, then you don't know when your rights are actually being infringed upon.

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

[Skyrad 0]

Not by force, but if the suspect requires medical treatment where blood is taken that blood should be allowed to be given to the Police irespective of the suspects wishes.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[shropshire 0]

If one drinks and drives... then ones has infinged lots of other peoles rights .... so stuff yours

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Not by force, but if the suspect requires medical treatment where blood is taken that blood should be allowed to be given to the Police irespective of the suspects wishes.

You say that because you do not have an American point of view. (I say that clinically, not critically.) An American's point of view passes through the filter of living with the protections of the American Constitution.

[shropshire 0]

Then there is clearly a fault in your system if it 'tends' to protect anyone who drinks and drives.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Then there is clearly a fault in your system if it 'tends' to protect anyone who drinks and drives.

You misunderstand. It protects criminal suspects from (a) searches and seizures in the absence of a judicial warrant and (b) involuntary self-incrimination. And the proper term, under American law, is not "anyone who acts unlawfully", it is "anyone suspected of acting unlawfully." The difference is crucial.

Again: you and I look at the same issue through different legal/cultural lenses.

[shropshire 0]

I appreciate your point of view ... but, as you say, it feels odd to me.

Do you have a feeling for how many folks get away with, say the current topic, drink driving, because the police are unable to proove what may be obvious to them?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I appreciate your point of view ... but, as you say, it feels odd to me.

Do you have a feeling for how many folks get away with, say the current topic, drink driving, because the police are unable to proove what may be obvious to them?

Yes. Very few.

[shropshire 0]

Thanks Andy-

I'd be a very bad lawyer.... I'd find it very difficult to try to defend the indefensible.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Thanks Andy-

I'd be a very bad lawyer.... I'd find it very difficult to try to defend the indefensible.

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

Prosecution is supposed to be difficult. It's no accident that in the world's most tyrranical countries, convictions are easy to come by.

[shropshire 0]

See, I said that I'd be crap at it

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

If one drinks and drives... then ones has infinged lots of other peoles rights .... so stuff yours

Taking blood out of a struggling person is bloody difficult if not damn near imposible (In a medical situation)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[shropshire 0]

Hi J,

That's O.K .... you just end up extracting a lot more

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Hi J,

That's O.K .... you just end up extracting a lot more

OK... that was funny in a dark humor sort of way!

But, chiming in here. As an American, and one that honestly believes that she has NEVER driven drunk. (I don't go out much... or I have a tea totaller husband that does the driving) I do NOT want to FORCIBLY give up my blood if I were innocent. (and I understand, AggieDave, that there is fine print on the license)

I am innocent until proven guilty.

Once arrested, than the rights are "altered." Once there is reasonable cause for search and seizure.... but not just checkpoints where they poke a needle in everybody.

Am I paranoid about suggesting that? I don't think so. Here in Kansas City, they have sobriety checkpoints all over the place. 2:30am, I'm in scrubs heading to a delivery.... stopped for 15min on the side of the road, like everyone on that road that night, for a sobriety checkpoint. It's a slippery slope to just incorporate a blood test as well.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

but not just checkpoints where they poke a needle in everybody.

I think you missed the point where I was talking about how this is done with probable cause. In other words, after PC has been established for your arrest in the first place. Then an evidentuary search warrant for your blood is completed and signed by a judge before a needle touches skin.

Contrary to what you may think, its not just some cops on the side of the road poking needles into whomever they want to.

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

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Hi J,

That's O.K .... you just end up extracting a lot more

LOL

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca