digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at briancuban.com —

Cops Are Out For Blood-Can You Refuse?

briancuban.com — Do you have the right to refuse a blood test at a DWI stop? Should you have that right?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • imacommi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+49I don't know what the laws are everywhere else but in PA you can refuse the blood test; but they will revoke your license for 12 Months if you do. It is Something about implied consent for using the roads in the state that gives them the ability to suspend your license for refusal. Not saying you should or shouldn't do it but it might be better for the accused if they know they might be drunk and would rather lose their license than get a DUI/DWI *and* lose their license.
    • adam07, on 05/29/2008, -1/+17I think the article is saying that even if you refuse a breath analyzer test and face the consequences, the cop with say, "Ok, fine, but I'm going to draw your blood anyway." Essentially, the Right to Refuse is being taken away in Texas.
      • btsr7414, on 05/29/2008, -1/+11That's only in Texas. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not issued any such opinion to my knowledge.
    • Tiak, on 05/29/2008, -2/+12There's no way to opt for a breathalyser/hand-sweat-test-thing?... I don't know about your, but personally I don't trust the medical expertise of police officers to not use contaminated needles.
      • jcaino, on 05/29/2008, -0/+15they typically take you to a hospital to draw blood. seriously - think about the liability issues if the police were drawing blood...
        • chanop, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Thank you, I completely face palmed to tiak's comment
        • docbob84, on 05/30/2008, -0/+11In which case, you might be better off getting the blood draw than the brethalyzer. A) the breathalyzer (I'm assuming) has a greater margin of error than a professionally-performed blood test. B) it's a holiday night, your local ER is going to have much better things going on than drawing your blood the second you come through the door. The longer you wait, the more your BAC drops. If you're borderline, this could make the difference for you.
      • mike17032, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1He is half right.

        You have to fail a field test (stand on one leg and walk in a straight line ect) or a breath test to establish probable cause for a blood test. The blood test is required for a DUI conviction, and is done at a hospital.

        Refusing the field test or the breath test is an automatic loss of license. Once you fail those I dont know if you can try and refuse the blood test or not, but I suspect you cant (you would be under arrest after failing).

        This is in PA, local laws will vary.
    • Chompy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2In Nevada, you can refuse a breathalyser, but the cops can then forcibly take your blood.
      • Tenlow, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4See I just don't like that they can take your blood. I see no reason to refuse a sobriety test, but blood? That's a bit much. Just make the penalty for refusing suck, like 10 days in jail AND losing your license for 2 full years.
    • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I dont know about everywhere else, but refusal to test is the same punishment as a DUI in Alaska as i found out the hard way. but because I wasnt sentenced with a DUI my SR-22 is like $80/month instead of ~$250.
    • Jowe, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2CT suspends your license for 6 months if you refuse a BAC test. However, they can't give you a DWI or DUI if you don't submit to the test...
    • H0tKarl, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2In WA you automatically lose your license for 2 years if you refuse the test. What's worse is that you usually still end up charged with the DUI anyway and have to deal with that penalty as well.
  • LewP, on 05/29/2008, -5/+10Dugg and submitted to today's DDD.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8Will someone tell me what DDD is already? I keep seeing this post and have no clue.
      • Dubbsacc, on 05/30/2008, -4/+2DDD Digital/Digital/Digital (audio CD format, recording/mixing/mastering)
        DDD Direct Distance Dialing
        DDD Dangerous, Dirty, and Dull (robotics; tasks often given to robots)
        DDD Dare Devil Dive (amusement park ride)
        DDD Dat, Dicat, Dedicat (Latin: Gives, Devotes and Dedicates)
        DDD Data Display Debugger (GNU Project)
        DDD Deactivation, Decontamination, Decomissioning
        DDD Deadline Delivery Date
        DDD Death, Doom, and Destruction
        DDD Defense Distribution Depot
        DDD Defensive Driving Discount
        DDD Defined Daily Dose
        DDD Definitely Done Deal
        DDD Degenerative Disc Disease
        DDD Delivery Deadline Date
        DDD Delivery Due Date
        DDD Delta Delta Delta Sorority
        DDD Deputy District Director
        DDD Design Definition Document (NASA)
        DDD Desired Delivery Date
        DDD Desired Due Date
        DDD Destination, Deliberation, Determination (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince)
        DDD Detail Data Display (F-14 display console)
        DDD Detailed Design Document
        DDD Detection Discrimination Designation
        DDD Determinant Decision Diagram
        DDD Determination/Decision Document
        DDD Diamond Death Drop (pro wrestling move)
        DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
        DDD Digital Diagnostic Diskette
        DDD Digital Dummy Director
        DDD Direction-Delay Doppler
        DDD Discagem Direta À Distância (Brazilian Portuguese; direct long distance dialing)
        DDD Discipline Determination Dedication
        DDD Display Decoder Drive
        DDD Distributed Deadlock Detection
        DDD Distributed Dynamic Decisionmaking
        DDD Domain Driven Design
        DDD Don't Do Drugs
        DDD Don't Drink and Drive
        DDD Dono Dedit Dedicavit (Latin: Gave and Dedicated as a Gift)
        DDD Dooms Day Device (comics)
        DDD Double Diffused Drain
        DDD Dream it, Dare it, Do it
        DDD Drop Dead Date
        DDD Drug Discovery and Development
        DDD Drug Distribution Data
        DDD DSN Data Delivery
        DDD Dudley Death Drop (pro wrestling)
        DDD Dynamic Data Debugger
        DDD Dynamic Digital Depth
        DDD Dynamic Dummy Director
        DDD Mayday Relay (logging abbreviation)
        DDD Dimension Driven Design
        DDD Displays and Distributed Databases
        DDD Double Density Disk
        DDD Dual Dynamic Drive

        The Internet, it's your friend.
      • Dubbsacc, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1If I had to guess though, I think the OP is referring to DDD Dooms Day Device (comics).
      • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5designated drunk driver?
  • guillebravo6, on 05/29/2008, -13/+50Wow, cops are just pushing their authority! Pretty soon we aren't going to have right? Wait, do we even have rights now?
    • john2kx, on 05/29/2008, -1/+10Yes, but depending on where you live, the police might not agree.
    • MikeSD34, on 05/29/2008, -2/+6Well that depends, are you an American citizen? Let me see your papers.
    • ralphthemagi, on 05/30/2008, -5/+10Driving isn't a right.
      • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -5/+5naive and simplistic statement
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3Why? It's true. People often mistake rights for privileges.
        • popfrogs, on 05/30/2008, -3/+7What, yours? Driving is a privilege and it always has been. The state giveth, and when you ***** up royally, the state taketh away.
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -3/+6No.
          The roads are public roads. You pay taxes and help pay for those roads and unless you commit a crime, you have the right to use them.

          Stop thinking that everything your parents tell you is the law. Saying stupid things like "driving is a privilege not a right" implies that there is some entity who can just take away your privilege because they want to.

          Technically all rights are privileges anyway so this whole entire thread is ***** retarded.
        • Amablue, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6Your taxes pay for a lot of things, but you don't get unrestricted usage of them. The laws you voted on decide what you can do with them.

          Besides, the roads are there for more than just cars. You can bike on them just fine without a license.
    • outkaster, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
      Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.
      You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
      If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
      If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
      Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
      • DigitusAnonymus, on 05/30/2008, -4/+2Why the ***** are you telling me this!? What have I done!? I just posted a lolcat earlier is that againt's the law now? ******* THING SUCKS
      • MiamiRox, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5If there's anything 48 Hours on A&E has taught me, its to shut your mouth once your in the lion's den (being asked questions by the police). The minute you say something to them with out talking to your attorney first, you've automatically ***** yourself.
    • 99er, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3It's not the cops pushing their authority- it's the authority of the judge. He's the one that issues the warrant.
    • elnerdo, on 05/30/2008, -7/+4Total overreaction. This isn't really that big of a deal. The only real affect it will have is that the police will be slightly more effective at catching drunk drivers. (This is a good result. Drunk drivers are dangerous morons who often end up killing innocents because of their carelessness and stupidity.) It seems like the policy involves a properly obtained warrant, so it's not like your constitutional rights are being stretched or taken away.
      PLUS, this would only be used on people who have only already refused a breathalyzer test. I think that's fair.
      Summary: Stop overreacting.
      • sodade, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4If you need to do a blood test to determine that someone is "drunk" - they aren't drunk. The legal BAC is ridiculously low these days - all part of the coming police state.
    • mike17032, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6Hate to burst your bubble, but the police dont make the laws. I know that facts like these get in the way of your mindless childlike libtard ranting, but ignoring them doesnt make them go away.

      Blaming the cops for not liking the law is like blaming the cashier at Walmart because a product you bought was broken.
    • triad203, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Police cannot take away your rights, which are not granted by them (or anyone else). Police CAN infringe on your freedom to enjoy those rights. To be fair, they can also help protect your expression of rights by preventing others from infringing on them.

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. . ."
      • korvan504521, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1How's that worth if you're an atheist?
        • sienar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2hey dumbass, still applies. that's why they specifically chose the word Creator. Nature can be your Creator, evolution can be your Creator, a flying spaghetti monster can be your Creator. It basically means these rights are inalienable if you exist.
  • wynja, on 05/29/2008, -37/+42***** you *****. No GD pig is sticking a ***** needle in me on the side of the GD road. I'll wipe the ***** with his pistol and go to jail for a real reason instead.
    • crowbar77, on 05/29/2008, -8/+49Yeah them damn *****. They aint taking this ***** alive, I shoot it em with my ***** shot gun i bought from the ***** store. They'll be like freeze *****, ill be like ***** you ***** and take that ***** down.
    • wendelgee2, on 05/29/2008, -3/+25Wow...are you one of those rednecks on COPS?
      • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -10/+5or one of those crackhead *****?
        • Jowe, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3that wasn't racist at all.
        • KLowD9x, on 05/30/2008, -3/+5Ahh, so calling a white person a derogatory name isn't racist?

          You're all racist. Stop saying hateful ***** about other people!
        • 1timeuser, on 05/30/2008, -4/+1There is nothing racist about calling a redneck a redneck.
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6how is calling a crackhead ***** a crackhead ***** more racist?
    • aelias, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5ITG Alert!
    • gquaglia, on 05/29/2008, -1/+8Let us know how that goes for you.
    • frieddonuts, on 05/29/2008, -3/+16Typical internet tough guy. Nothin to see here, folks.
    • Typhoon2009, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6I'm sure you will. Get back to the basement, jackass.
    • orxor, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3I wonder if someone can refuse on the basis of their religion, I remember hearing about a case like that a while ago had something to do with a DNA sample they wanted blood the suspect refused, it went to court, eventually they all settled on a cheek swab.
      • bxblox, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4I refuse the mugshot because I believe it will steal my soul...
        • AzureRise, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1It can't, you sold it to me a while back when you really wanted that burger, remember?
      • Mark2600, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Yeah, that was Law & Order, dude...
      • LenBaird, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Any US citizen can refuse based on the US constitution. Now, that's not to say that they will honor the constitution , but just be clear they are the lawbreakers at that point, not you (unless you really are drunk lol)
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Dear digger, reason with me now. Look if you don't let the cop stick the needle in your vein at the side of the road and you go to jail for shooting at the cop with your shotgun, then at jail your cellmate will stick his needle up your digestive tube. A needle which is much larger than the one the cop would have used and much painful.

      Which leads me to believe that you are not accepting the needle from the cop because you are a "don't ***** with me alphamale" type of male. You are not accepting the needle from the cop because you WANT to be in jail and get the larger needle instead.
      • wynja, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Actually, people crazy enough to shoot cops are the ones that are usually raping others in jail.
    • 99er, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Yikes- what a moron!
    • mike17032, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Nerd raging internet tough guys are the best. Dont worry kid, we all know you would be a meek little mouse if you ever got pulled over. One day when you are old enough to drive, maybe you will find out.

      Until then keep fighting the internet wars, you big man you.
      • wynja, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3God, you dumbasses are to easy.
      • wynja, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2i love pissing off retards on digg. It makes my pecker stick up.
    • bigchiefmunkey, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3My favorite part is the self-censoring "GD" while leaving in all the *****. heh.
    • wynja, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Holy Hell, sarcasm is apparently lost on the retards on digg. You do realize that you can avoid the needle by doing the field sobriety test or even the breathalyzer. In the state I'm from, refusal to take a sobriety test is admission of guilt. Only in Texas would you be allowed to refuse a sobriety test in the first place. This is a retarded fix to the retarded law allowing you to refuse a sobriety test. Of course, this comes to us from the only state that allows gun racks in the window and open containers in the car.

      L2sarcasm, get a grip. No one is shooting any cops today.
  • buba1243, on 05/29/2008, -21/+12Its a very close call but I think that since driving is a privileged not a right, if we drive a cop should be able to give a breath/blood test. I also think that the whole test should be required to be on camera. Hopefully this will keep the cop honest while getting drunk drivers off the road. I know from personal experience having done stupid human tricks for a cop, they are easily passed even if you are slightly intoxicated.
    • Snarfy, on 05/29/2008, -3/+16There is nothing close about it. Driving may be a privilege but privacy is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Without probable cause they have no right to search you. Why are people so quick to throw away liberty in the name of security?
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/30/2008, -6/+4When you are swerving all over the road, that's probable cause.
      • roosterjm2k2, on 05/30/2008, -4/+5Acting/Driving like you're drunk -is- probable cause.
      • elnerdo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2It's not throwing away liberty if they already have a properly obtained warrant, and if you've already refused a breathalyzer test and if you were already pulled over because you were suspected of drunk driving. Guess what? Realistically, this doesn't happen to sober people.
        • knowitman, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1And you just supported the blood test in your statement. It specifically states that the officer must have probable cause to take the blood test. This involves looking/acting drunk or smelling of alcohol. You will generally get pulled over for the driving like you are drunk. That could be probable cause in of itself. Also, the blood test is used as a last resort after the more basic tests are refused.
    • FeloniusMonkey, on 05/30/2008, -3/+16So driving is a privilege, and not a right? You say it so matter-of-factly. I think one of the reasons this is actually able to happen is because many people are just so damn grateful that they've been endowed with this privilege-- ***** THAT. I'm a responsible person, and I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't do just because there's people out there who tend to be less responsible than me.

      Anyone got a link to a survey that says how many people feel more oppressed than protected by the police? I'm just curious.

      Republicans need to get their heads on straight. Republicans are supposed to be for LESS government intervention, yet it was a Republican that pushed this abomination through Texas legislature.
      • kayala, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9Don't confuse Republicans with conservatives.
      • galrok, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4FROM TFA: "...if an officer obtains a search warrant for ones’ blood, the warrant trumps the wishes of the Texas Legislature and we no longer have the right to refuse. I can’t help but think this is another example of the will of the people being overridden by an activist judiciary. By the way, this opinion was written by Judge Micheal Keasler, a Republican on an ALL Republican high court."
      • mike17032, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Hate to bring you back to planet earth, but it is indeed a privilege and not a right.

        Show me exactly what amendment grants the right to drive, and I will change my mind.
        • kayala, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Rights are not granted to begin with. You start out with every single right in the world, and then the government begins taking away certain rights, like the right to kill someone or the right to embezzle funds. We have a Constitution to declare which rights absolutely cannot be taken away under any circumstances (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to bear arms, etc). So amendments to the Constitution protect certain rights from being taken away; all others are fair game. The issue comes when we start figuring out which rights are protected under, say, the fourth amendment or the fourteenth, and that's why we have constitutional fights over things like gay marriage.
          /US gov lesson of the day
      • knowitman, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2While many Republicans are for less government intervention in the everyday lives of people, they do support the idea of a government that PROTECTS the people. Doing what is possible to get drunk people off the road is protecting the people.

        Also, driving is right, but using the public road system owned and regulated by the government is a privilege. You can drive anywhere on your own property all day long, but to drive on the government's roads, you have to obey their rules.
        • kayala, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Honest question. If a business is basically under the control of its shareholders because they give the company money... then shouldn't the government be under the control of its "shareholders," the citizens, that fund government projects? Am I right, or is the analogy a bad one?
        • knowitman, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Kayala, you are right, but there is a line that must be drawn between public wants and public needs. What some of the public wants may not be the best for the public. If it came to a popular vote, there is a good chance that the speed limits could be removed and that starting tomorrow you could drive as fast as you wanted, but the interstate system was not designed for people to drive at whatever speed they desired. This would results in a higher death rate.
    • chrisduser, on 05/29/2008, -6/+9Driving is much as a right as walking. It is driving on public roads which is a privilege, as is walking on public streets.
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Have fun driving back and forth on your lawn
    • rblancarte, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5Buba, Snarfy - true, HOWEVER one thing to realize that with your license comes a thing called implied consent. To have a license, you are already giving the right to give up these things, breath, blood, etc. If you refuse, then you forfeit your right to a license. If you don't want to give up that right - then don't get a driver's license. We have public transportation.

      (let me point out this is in Texas at least)
      • elnerdo, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Correct mostly. You never waived your right to keep your blood.
    • Cerebron, on 05/30/2008, -6/+5Driving is not a privilege, what makes you think it is? Is walking a privilege too?
      • docbob84, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Driving is a privilege, not a right. Thus you must get a license to drive, on public roads at least.
      • elnerdo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4What a dumb argument. It's a privilege in that you need a license to do it. You do not need a license to walk.
    • fmucklo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+9Living is a privilege in a society of slaves.
    • kcpepper111, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2So long as the vast majority of Americans depend on driving to get to work and to survive then it should not be considered a mere privilege.
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Why? Just because you feel you need it does not make it anything more than a privilege.
      • elnerdo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5You obviously don't know what a "right" means. If driving were a right, then ANYONE anywhere, any age could get behind the wheel of a car and drive [on public roads]. Nobody wants that. Requiring a license is a good idea. That's why it's a privilege.
  • scamerica, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3
  • pentupentropy, on 05/29/2008, -12/+4you should have to submit. the problem comes in that cops will use this ass a harassment tactic.
  • wazzu07, on 05/29/2008, -1/+10reverse broken windows theory? thats a new one...
    im not sure that makes any sense.
  • MarcusGarvey, on 05/29/2008, -34/+2
    • HastyBoom, on 05/29/2008, -2/+7Hey moron. You don't need to be drunk to be suspected of drunk driving.
      I would love to kick your ass. I bet you drive an SUV.
    • MacintoshSauce, on 05/29/2008, -1/+5Why don't you crawl back under the rock from where you came from? You are a bloody idiot and a low-life loser.
      • MarcusGarvey, on 05/29/2008, -6/+1
        • PopcornDave, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5Why the ***** would you bother with the freeway? If you want to kill children with your Hummer while drunk, neighborhoods are a much better place.
          /sarcasm
    • TopherT, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1You may be pleased then to find that I hate both you AND onetimer.
  • davidjunit, on 05/29/2008, -3/+38I'll breathe into a tube all day but I'll be damned if I have to let some cop put a needle in me. I at least better see the damn thing come out of a sealed package before I allow it.
    • AlphAssassin, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5A cop wouldn't put a needle into you.

      You would be takeen to a hospital where they would draw blood.
    • mabhatter, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2personally it will backfire in a spectacular way in about 2 years. Drawn blood BAC is absolutely legally binding, if you're legal they'll have to let you go. I'd like to see in 2 years how many of these warrants are backed up by evidence that matches the charges. The cops are setting themselves up for trouble.

      Frankly I'm surprised they can do that in the field, i thought they had to take you to the hospital for that but it seems they're trying to change that too in this article.
  • leerayIG88, on 05/29/2008, -7/+1moar!1!!
  • anarchyinthekr, on 05/29/2008, -12/+8this makes me angry and there is a lot of potential for cops overstepping their bounds, but driving is not a right and drunk driving is usually not a good idea anyways. stay safe, drive high!
    • ahalbert, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Um didn't you watch the video, they made multiple drug related arrests as well.
    • 99er, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1They can only do this with a warrant. The judge issues the warrant, not the cops.
      • thall, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4I wonder how often a judge actually refuses the warrant. "on-call magistrates"?? Reminds me of a car dealer going to "talk" to his "manager" to see he can get you a better deal. Both are smoke screens.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/29/2008, -1/+72You want my blood, fine. You can just take me to a hospital and have a medical professional take it.
    • anarchyinthekr, on 05/29/2008, -1/+18good point, cops with needles scare me!
    • ZaZ2137, on 05/29/2008, -1/+6Agreed
    • gquaglia, on 05/29/2008, -1/+18That's how it is in NJ. You can't refuse blood, and it has to be taken by a health care professional.
    • Stevanoski, on 05/29/2008, -3/+12In Translvania, part of the local populace has been doing this for centuries.
    • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4will you also have to pay for the blood test, even if you are innocent?
      • clo575, on 05/30/2008, -5/+2Good question. Heres my answer...buuuuurp!
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Of course you have to pay for it.

        The guy that got an anal scope jammed up his ass had to pay for that too.
    • bwdd, on 05/30/2008, -2/+4Yeah. What if they accidentally use an unsanitary needle and you end up with aids.
      Where would you go? Other than court, of course.
    • MatthewDuke, on 05/30/2008, -1/+8Don't they swab your arm with alcohol before they stick you? How does that affect the results? Do they factor this in somehow?
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6Holy *****! You just dropped the biggest hole in their masterful ploy to find out if people are drunk or not! THE RUBBING ALCOHOL CLAUSE!!
      • Lith25, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3I can't tell if this was a joke or not...
      • ITFeed, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Why would they have to stick a needle in, they are just going to prick your finger at most so they don't need to do alcohol swab. A small sample of blood is enough for alcohol analysis, this ain't blood donation.
    • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Isn't taking blood from someone practicing medicine? And isn't it illegal to practice medicine without a license?
    • mike17032, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Cops should not be sticking people with needles.

      I dont think any state has the police drawing the blood, I think the article just glossed over that by taking blood they mean going to a hospital to do it.
    • shadowspawn, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Yep, same deal here, I agree. I was in a motorcycle accident and the lady who t-boned me was the wife of Progressive Insurance's local division's VP. Her first words to the EMT's and Cop was "I smelled alcohol on his breath" as I was lying down in the road wondering what the ***** hit me. I was able to get up and walk, but the cop wanted to do a field sobriety test. I refused; my helmet had cracked when her mercedes hit me, and I was really in shock (thats what the EMT's kept on telling me anyway). The pig said fine, wanted me to blow his tube like they expect every normal citizen to do, again I refused. He pumped up his dickless little body and said they'll do it, take blood at the hospital. I said fine right back, blood pouring down my arm from fractured bones sticking out of my hand.

      They did the blood test, I had absolutely nothing inside of me except 5 gallons of adrenaline coursing through my now-pig-hating veins. Even the nurse was looking at the pig like he was an evil spoiled child of satan, which he was.

      At court their defense lawyer even brought up the fact I refused over and over and in different words about 15 times, but my lawyer calmly reminded the jury that I had absolutely no alcohol in my bloodstream and it was my *right* to refuse. My insurance company even sued someone, I forget who, for the costs of the blood test. I think it was the local precinct.
    • DarkSpoon, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1ok morons, the cop doesn't take you blood. he takes you to the hospital to have it done.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Ah, because that was so clearly stated in the article....oh, wait...that's right, the article says:

        "In fact, even if the warrant was improperly obtained, the cop is taking that blood and you can argue about whether the warrant was properly obtained in a suppression hearing or on appeal after your conviction."
        • DarkSpoon, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1well i'm sorry if you couldn't figure out that cops aren't trained medical professionals. so i guess you also thought that during a car wreck the police bandaged people up. you fail.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1What part of the phrase "the cop is taking that blood" do you not understand. Clearly the article makes it appear as if the cops were going to be the ones drawing blood.

          Fail? Did I?

          Speaking of fail, hopefully that happens to your smoke detector while you and your family are sleeping.
  • HastyBoom, on 05/29/2008, -2/+21I will refuse.
    • rblancarte, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4That is fine - just realize in some states (Texas is one) this costs you your license.
      • HastyBoom, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6YOU CAN'T TAKE MY BLOOD.
        Breathalyzer, fine.
        DUI walk-the-line test, fine.
        Sorry but my bodily fluids are MINE. Especially the red stuff.
        • docbob84, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1I think that's the point of the article. There HAS to be some way to see if a driver is drunk and to punish them if they are; to not do so would be horribly dangerous (think if you KNEW there were no legal consequences to driving drunk? Way more people would do it). Assuming this isn't a roadside sobriety check, which I think should be illegal anyway, the cop has probable cause. He gives you the least invasive option first, a field test or breathalyzer. You refuse. It would be irresponsible for the public to leave the cop with no options at this point; he pulled you over because you were doing something that made him think you were drunk. If the only option is to get a court order, that's what happens.
          I don't see why people are getting so upset about this; the cop in the article is following procedure for fourth amendment search warrants: ask to search without a warrant, if you refuse he can either give up (irresponsible in this case) or get a warrant assuming a judge grants one. The only difference is in this case waiting until the next morning to get a judge is too late, so he gets a warrant over the phone.
        • EllimistX, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1And then how the ***** do I know that he called the judge and not someone else? ***** that. I live in Texas and will gladly go to jail rather than submit to an invasion like that. If I wouldn't submit to a search, what in the world would make them think I'd let them stick something in me?
  • usaf2008, on 05/29/2008, -18/+31don't drive drunk. problem solved.
    • BeIIe, on 05/29/2008, -9/+11Agreed.

      I'm tired of people bitching about that sort of thing impeding on their "rights." I don't want their drunk asses colliding into my car and wrapping it around a tree.

      What about my rights?
    • UberNick, on 05/30/2008, -0/+20What if we don't drink and they still ask us for blood samples?
      • adam07, on 05/30/2008, -0/+7That's only if you refuse to consent to a breath analyzer test.
      • usaf2008, on 05/30/2008, -3/+6ya, if you aren't drunk just take the breathalyzer test. you'll pass and still not get poked. This thing isn't some conspiracy so that all cops can start sticking everyone they pull over with needles.
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3If I get pulled over for a traffic violation, I should be able to say "No I dont want to take a field sobriety check" and unless he can find some reason HE CAN ARTICULATE why he specifically thinks I am drunk then I should be given a ticket and let go.

          Often some cops go on power trips making people whom they KNOW aren't drunk "step out of the vehicle" and perform asinine tests simply to waste their time.

          Searches and tests are things cops are allowed to perform after there is reason to do so, not simply because they decide they dont like the way you looked at them.
        • usaf2008, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1"Often some cops go on power trips making people whom they KNOW aren't drunk "step out of the vehicle" and perform asinine tests simply to waste their time."

          You sure like to pull stuff out of your ass, but hey if you want to prove me wrong and have any bit of credibility to all the crap you are saying how bout you back that up from the study you got that from. Cause you sure wouldnt make that up right?
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2usaf2008 what are you talking about? I need to have a study to say that cops abuse power? You really believe that cops never waste people's time with needless searches and sobriety tests?

          Where's YOUR study proving that, because IMO thats a far more radical claim.

          The bottom line is that people smarter than yourself figured out that if you give police full power to carry out invasive measures (searches and blood tests) they will be abused -- This is common sense right here buddy -- and to combat that they invented Probable Cause as a layer of protection. An officer has to be able to have a good reason for initiating any invasive procedure. They can't do it cuz the person is black, hispanic, or drives a beat up car. They can't do it just because they have a gut feeling, and they can't do it just to be sure.

          Do you realize that if the cops didn't have this barrier, they would be perfectly happy randomly pulling over cars and searching them for drugs, maybe catch an offender for every 20 cars searched. Might even significantly reduce crime. Would that be OK with you?

          Now lets just say I didn't personally know people who have been abused by police officers. Lets say I was pulling ***** out of my ass and I didn't actually witness my sober friend get field tested simply because the cop thought he wasn't respectful enough. Even if that was true - and it isnt - are you telling me you dont think we should worry about losing our rights until somebody does a STUDY concluding that abuse is occurring?

          As if the police would ever allow a study like that to be performed / released. Maybe numbers regarding how many people they catch vs how many people they stop? 20 bucks says the efficiency would be abysmal.

          Here are numbers from one checkpoint:
          http://www.yourwestvalley.com/articles/checkpoint_ ...
          1,116 stops 6 arrests. Thats 0.5% efficiency right there! Great work!

          Anyway, I think you should really learn more about your rights and how you got them and how they are protected.
      • 1timeuser, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Then you suck at driving.
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -3/+14What a ***** retarded comment.

      The purpose of the blood test is to establish if you are drunk.

      Thats the same as hearing about warrant-less searches and saying "well dont break the law, problem solved"

      Why even have a bill of rights? Idiocy.
      • nycmac247, on 05/30/2008, -0/+7wish I could triple digg...
      • Mark2600, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3Hey, simpleton. Let me break this down for you:

        1. Get pulled over for driving like an idiot
        2. Refuse breathalyzer
        3. Refuse Field Sobriety Test
        AND THEN 4. Warrant-enabled blood test


        It's not like they're Count Dracula asking for blood right off the bat. If you're not drunk, don't refuse. If you are drunk, stay off the road.


        Drunk driving is real cool until you kill an innocent busload of Nuns, *****.
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3READ. Pay attention to what I'm trying to say:

          There must be probable cause BEFORE forcing the blood test. Refusing the tests can't count as probable cause.

          Open bottle in the car, booze breath, slurred speech... all these things count as probable cause. As soon as there is honest-to-god probable cause, I have NO problem with a forced blood test carried out by a trained nurse.
    • BeIIe, on 05/30/2008, -3/+2Yes, the purpose of a blood test is to establish sobriety because one has REFUSED the painless, needless, not as invasive, breathalyzer test. The article even starts with the statement "Wow, you've had too much to drink, here's how you get around the law."

      You give the cop probable cause by refusing.

      Leading me back to agreement with the first comment: why try to dodge a sobriety test? They (the cops) have obviously seen you speeding, swerving, etc. Don't drive drunk.

      P.S. - And I hate cops just as much as the next person, but I have the right to live, if you want to trash your's by driving drunk, fine.

      You are an idiot for not seeing through the article as "The Fratboy's Guide of not Getting Caught Drunk."
      • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3"You give the cop probable cause by refusing."
        Wrong. Fail.

        Again, more idiocy.

        Why do we have rights when simply exercising them causes you to lose them? Hmm? Do you think the whole "Bill of Rights" and "personal liberty" thing is just some big joke? That nobody thought this ***** through and just decided it sounded nice?

        Use your ***** brain; thats not the way it works, nor SHOULD it be the way it works.
      • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2BTW, thats doesn't mean that I think you have a right to refuse ALL testing, but that probable cause must be something OTHER than simply your refusal.
      • BeIIe, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0Wow, how about you call me an idiot one more time?

        Do you think I cannot read? Because it seems to me like you can't read. Probable cause= "a reasonable belief that someone has committed a crime." If you PAIR driving all over the road, speeding, etc, (like I've said before) with the fact that you have refused a sobriety test/breathalyzer test, I would say that you've given a decent amount of probable cause.

        Why don't you go back to reading the ACLU website, or reading infowars.com, and protesting having your receipt checked at Wal-Mart.

        As I said once, maybe twice, I have the right to drive my car without some drunk ***** hitting me. You don't have the right to do that. Not for sake of liberty, or philosophically speaking.


        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2"As I said once, maybe twice, I have the right to drive my car without some drunk ***** hitting me."
          Thats great, but please stop saying it because it is irrelevant and annoying. Nobody is arguing with that. And I will ignore your other attacks and instead focus on the actual statements you are wrong about.

          The refusal to submit to any test/search/interrogation may not be used as probable cause in any circumstance or in conjunction with anything else. You would need something in addition to that. If the motorist was driving erratically AND smelled of booze, that would be easy probable cause.

          This is to prevent cops from having the unabridged power to force anyone/everyone to take a field test/blood test simply because they were pulled over for a traffic violation. (Or even no reason at all as is the case with DUI check points)

          Make sense?

        • usaf2008, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0OK, so you proved yourself wrong, talk about being a dumbass. Yes probable cause can not be obtained be refusal but apparently you didn't read the article you are arguing on. Here's the excerpt:

          "The law in Texas regarding DWI’s(Driving While Intoxicated) requires that if a peace officer has “probable cause”(i.e.,he smells alcohol) to believe the driver of a motor vehicle may be intoxicated, the officer can demand the suspect give a specimen of his breath or blood to determine the level of the intoxicant, whether it be alcohol or drugs."

          Since you agree probable cause is needed, and it is, you apparently have no way to back up all the dumb stuff you've said.
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1eh?

          "Since you agree probable cause is needed, and it is, you apparently have no way to back up all the dumb stuff you've said."

          1. Yes, I agree probable cause is needed
          2. And you have verified that it is... good job. But I knew that already (obviously)
          3. I missed the part where I proved myself wrong?

          It was YOUR silly comment made me decide to post here. By saying "don't drive drunk. problem solved." you are dismissing the entire issue with a total fallacy.
    • JimmyJoseph, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Very stupid, over simplified statement. You don't need to be drunk for a cop to infringe on your rights. I'm as adamant as the next person about getting drunk drivers off the road, but the issue here isnt drunk driving, it's lack of police accountability and infringement on our rights. What if you were driving to work @ 8am and out of nowhere you're pulled over and someone who is NOT a medical professional wants your blood on the side of the road. How would you respond to that?
  • IAmLegend24, on 05/29/2008, -0/+21No I dont want a cop that probably took a 2 hour course on taking blood poking my 50 times trying to find a vein.
  • DJWingMan, on 05/29/2008, -11/+6When did diggers become such "gangstas"

    uhhhh
    • gquaglia, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Easy to talk tough hiding behind a keyboard.
    • 1timeuser, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1You better shut up or I'll pop a cap.
  • aelias, on 05/29/2008, -1/+41Something tells me they aren't going to have nurses riding shotgun to administer these tests. "I'll submit to a blood test when you show me your state board issued phlebotomy certificate, officer."
    • CaptainCool53, on 05/29/2008, -1/+12Try saying that while drunk!
      • TekTrixter, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Saying that clearly is a DUI test in and of it's self!
    • 99er, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6The cops don't draw the blood- a doctor/nurse/medic/etc has to do it.
  • spyd3rweb, on 05/29/2008, -3/+11Well yes you do normally have that right, but unfortunately you signed your rights away when you put your name on the dotted line of your drivers license papers and agreed to their terms. Welcome to the Corporate Government, where you have no rights.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/30/2008, -4/+2All this talk about rights and none about responsibilities...

      they go hand in hand...but everyone seems to forget the latter...
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1This is America, dude. All rights are assumed, and all personal responsibility forfeited to the state
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4This has nothing to do with corporations.
    • maanwi, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4The only rights you don't have are the ones you give away.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2You can't sign away a right. Rights are inalienable.
      • docbob84, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Driving is not one of them though. You have a right to refuse to submit to a warrantLESS search (breathalyzer). You do not have the right to refuse to submit to a warrantED search, with a warrant from a judge, which is what the article describes. What do you think would happen if there were no legal way for you to be charged with a DUI? There would be a lot more people driving over the limit.
        • Sidzilla, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Everyone says that driving is a privilege, not a right. When I can refuse to pay taxes because I'm not planning on driving to work, then I will say it's a privilege. They changed the status to a right when they charged me for the roads. Taxation without representation is what started this frigging country.
        • Amablue, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Stop being ridiculous. You pay taxes to fund schools even if you're not attending them. You pay taxes to fix up parks even if you don't go to them. How your taxes are spent are (ideally) decided by how you vote. If you don't like it try and rally more people to your cause, but you don't get to just stop paying taxes. Taxes are not the same as tolls, you don't only have to pay for the stuff you're using.

          The roads aren't just for cars in any case. They're used for bikes too, and in some cases even horses. If you don't want to subject yourself to the rules that go along with driving, save some money and bike to work or school or where ever it is you're going.
  • transfan76, on 05/29/2008, -2/+9 I doubt the cop draws the blood. Usually they will call a paramedic to the scene and have them take the blood. Or just bring you to the hospital. If they have the PC to get the warrant, then they already have PC to arrest you. So a quick trip to the hospital won't be a big deal.

    Also in the article it talks about "activist judicial" stuff. Stating you need a search warrant isn't being an activist, it's protecting the constitution. Just be cause they can get one real easily doesn't mean your rights are being infringed upon.
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Yes it does.
      Getting a warrant is supposed to mean that you have presented substantial information to a judge who evaluated the credibility of evidence and agreed that it has met the proper threshold.

      Issuing warrants over the phone effectively destroys the integrity of warrants themselves *by definition*. Is there even a possible circumstance where the judge can say no? A cop calls saying he smells alcohol and receives a warrant immediately over the phone... why even have warrants in the first place?

      The judiciary is turning over its power directly to law enforcement. How could anybody think thats a good thing?
      • docbob84, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0You realize this isn't the only situation you can get a search warrant over the phone, right? You don't really think the ONLY time you can get a warrant is 9-5 on business days when the courthouse is open do you? A judge is presented with the information and based on his legal experience makes a decision on whether to issue the warrant or not. Doesn't matter if it's a warrant to check your BAC, search the trunk of your car, or search your house for a murder weapon. A warrant is a warrant.
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Based on the attorneys I've spoken with it generally takes AT LEAST 3-6 hours to get a search warrant signed if the police are in a rush. (depending on a host a factors)

          Now I'm not familiar with other warrants, but I do know that the only thing preventing all our rights from being trampled by law enforcement is the warrant approval process. If the judiciary begins issuing easy, blank warrants on-demand over the phone, consider our personal liberty gone.

          And there should be accountability for a judge who screws up and issues a bad warrant.. If you aren't doing your job, you deserve to be fired. This goes for any job in the country.
        • docbob84, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I agree that there should be accountability. The thing I *don't* agree with is that it should be possible to legally avoid every DUI. Think about it: if every motorist knew that all they had to do was keep refusing to avoid a DUI (because BAC levels drop over hours), there would be more. Consider a parallel: they make it so that cops can no longer search your home for a murder weapon without your consent, i.e. no warrants, either you consent or they can never search. I know the murder rate in my town at least is going up because there are plenty of people I'd get rid of if there were no legal repercussions. The fact is, the roads wouldn't be safe if there weren't some way to determine a driver's BAC, PROVIDED YOU HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. Since BAC must be determined quickly, the warrant must be obtained quickly, the process must be performed quickly, and that means doing it over the phone.
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I agree that it should not be legally possible to avoid a DUI. In fact, I think the only point where we may differ in opinion is the definition of probable cause.

          If there is some sort of evidence that can be articulated first. 2 officers vouching for booze breath, video of erratic driving, or anything else that legitimately raises red flags (besides the refusal of the test itself) should be more than enough to force a blood test - provided they have somebody qualified do it.

          I have no problem with this. I just am worried about the scenario when warrant approval process becomes eroded and officers will blood test first and ask questions later.
    • Pyehole, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Guess what, it is already happening and people are getting hurt.

      http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/motorists-for ...
  • beatleman, on 05/29/2008, -8/+7Just being logical, I would assume the only people that would fight something like this think we should have the right to drink and drive without being bothered by the cops. Well, them and the ACLU.
    • UberNick, on 05/30/2008, -2/+7Again, what about those of us who don't drink but still get pulled over at checkpoints?
      • ddawggin, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3What's the big deal then? Blow and move on. The few minutes are worth it if it saves a single life.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Arizona law requires that drunken driving suspects submit to a test or lose their license for a year and it’s the officer’s choice, not the driver’s, whether to use a breath or a blood test.

          Ouch, *****, ouch. Usually it's tough for a nurse or doctor to draw blood the first try. There is absolutely no way I am going to let a police officer draw my blood by the side of the road.
        • UberNick, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Hey, why not just rig up some cameras in my TV that watch me work out every morning (under the threat of losing my home)? It'll probably save a lot of lives and improve the quality of life along with our healthcare system. What an amazing idea since it's all for my own good!

          Sorry, but too many lives have been sacrificed to protect our constitution and personal liberties for me to give them up so easily. I don't care how convenient or easy or helpful it is.
      • beatleman, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Then just use the breathalyzer and be on your way. Should you have the right to refuse to go through the security checkpoint at the airport because it's "within your rights" to not have to?
    • BigFuzzyArchon, on 05/30/2008, -5/+4I believe all humans should have the right to do what they want, why shouldn't you?
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3Sweet. Can I hold you to that when I steal your identity and charge a bunch of German *****-eating porn in your name? Because... you know.. it's what I want to do...and that's my right, right?
        • BigFuzzyArchon, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1You are 100% correct even in your attempt to be sarcastic.
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0Awesome. So you promise not to bitch about it, then? Now, all I need is your SSN plz kthx
        • BigFuzzyArchon, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I don't promise to do anything. And I don't want to give you my SSN. Now what are you gonna do?
        • kayala, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1You forget the implicit provision that halts you from infringing on the rights of others, douchebag. Do you honestly think that nobody's thought of that?
    • kayala, on 05/30/2008, -2/+5And the people who don't want a power-tripping, untrained cop sticking needles into their arms.
      • beatleman, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Just blow in the breathalyzer and you won't have to worry about it. Isn't it better for 200 sober people to have to go through the "agony" of blowing in a breathalyzer at a DUI checkpoint to catch the 5 that are drunk and might otherwise have crashed head-on into someone?
    • Damvan, on 05/30/2008, -3/+4Ahh, the old "If you don't have anything to hide, why worry?" argument.

      Get a clue.
      • beatleman, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Read the opening paragraph of the article. He talks about a guy that's trashed, throwing up before he gets in the car, and driving home when he gets pulled over, then talks about how he's not allowed to refuse breathalyzers and what a travesty it is. Who are you trying to defend?
    • glbowens, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2In Texas you can refuse a breath analyzer but you can't refuse a blood test. So basically a cop can get a warrant to take your blood without even knowing for sure that you are drunk. What sense does that make? What about the cops who lie, or pull people over out of boredom and make things up? Surely you realize there are cops out there like that, cops who have to meet certain "quotas" for the month even if it means doing something bad to an innocent person. It happens often here in Texas. Everybody you talk to here has either had a cop do that to them or knows somebody who has had it happen to them. And then people like me who have known some cops and heard stories from them, or known an attorney who practiced for 40 years and used to hire sheriff's deputies to do dirty work for him to scare certain individuals... And you speak of the ACLU as though they are the awful ones, but obviously you haven't thought about what reason the ACLU would have for stepping in and doing something in a case like this. It certainly wouldn't be because a drunk driver got caught being drunk... I'm 35 years old, never even had a speeding ticket, and drink maybe once a year (never while driving), but I can tell you I would fight something like this to the death, ESPECIALLY if a Dallas cop pulled me over and tried to do it.
    • PunkRockGeoff, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3This is an ignorant line of reasoning. The country as a whole goes against reason when it comes to drunk driving. Most areas have the legal limit lowered to the point of ohhhh yo smelled beer, get a DUI. The police get more search power over our rights. BS, the penalties for drinking and driving should be MUCH larger than they are now and the cops should have the bar raised on how little they need to prove it. It shouldn't be worrying about: I got 6 months probation for having a glass of wine at "Olive Garden," over dinner. It should be: "Damn he got a year in jail for chugging that sixer then driving home." I suspect few if any who had a glass of wine over dinner ran over a crosswalk full of kids or any other horror story, while mister sixer gets the same slap on the wrist for getting caught.
      They've set the bar so low (no pun intended,) for catching people, people don't care. It's no longer about drunk driving, it's "oh you had drink today" driving to drunk driving, now get arrested. Courts don't have the time, Jails don't have the space. The guy that had a drink over dinner is less of a threat than ***** on a cellphone driving. The guy that had 6 drinks in last hour is a threat that has a serious potential to hurt someone. Stop setting the bar so low and giving away civil liberties, set it high and seriously punish real offenders.
      • korvan504521, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Amen.
        It's a M.A.D.D. world these days.
  • D14BL0, on 05/29/2008, -1/+17I hope you have a portable sterile environment somewhere, officer, because I'm not about to let somebody with a room temperature IQ stick a needle into my arm. I don't suppose you also have a sink to wash your hands, do you? No, I didn't think so. Have a nice day, dick.
    • OSuX, on 05/29/2008, -1/+5I was going to say something like that, but you said it better. This will last until the first highly publicized case of someone getting HIV or hepatitis from a dirty needle because a backwater police department lacked the funding for a fresh supply of "DWI kits".
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3I dont think any officer will ever draw blood. but they will escort you to a hospital who will draw blood and run the analysis.
  • HastyBoom, on 05/29/2008, -7/+2Nice comeback! Gutless like a true neo-con.
    • HastyBoom, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2whoa this ended up in the wrong spot.
  • adenansu, on 05/29/2008, -4/+26wait, when the hell did cops start drawing blood samples? when the hell did we get to this????
    • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2We haven't. Read the 3rd or 4th comment in every one of these threads. A doctor/nurse/paramedic will do it.
  • airchomper, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10You know, the blood test seems a bit harsh. I'm all for stoping Drinking and Driving, but I think this isn't a way to do it. Blood testing is too easy to abuse, and I have a bit of an issue of the easily obtained warrant. Rather, why can we legalize riding a bike while drunk? Or perhaps the police should be a bit of a cab service, obviosiosly they should charge money. But we could use the money we use to set up drunk driving taps and such (not to mention money used in prosecution) to subsidize it.
    • kayala, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2There's already a cab service, at least where I live, that takes drunk people home as well as their cars, so nobody has to know that Fred went and got smashed last night. Two people arrive at the bar in a cab; one person takes the drunk guy home and the other follows in the drunk guy's car. It's a fairly nice service and is often paid for by the bar.
    • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1It's amazing the accommodations we make for alcohol abuse in our society, and yet we can't smoke a doobie.
  • frieddonuts, on 05/29/2008, -3/+13I am a major proponent of civil liberties without compromise, but this has me conflicted. If you drive drunk, you are endangering everyone around you. It seems that if a cop has probable cause to check you (a warrant), you shouldn't have the right to just avoid punishment.
    A kid I knew lost his mom to a hit-and-run drunk driver. It's not a harmless mistake, it kills people.
    • Damvan, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3That isn't the point. The point is that the officer has a ready and waiting judge who will issue the warrant instantly based on a verbal conversation with the officer. Don't you people see the slippery slope this creates? If officers have the ability to get warrants issued instantly, then we as a people have no rights whatsoever. Want to search anyone's car, get a instant warrant. Want to search anyone's house, get an instant warrant. Want to strip search that gorgeous blond, get an instant warrant.
      • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I mean it's not even the instant thing that's the problem. It's that the judge is clearly not considering any evidence beyond the cop's assertion that he needs a warrant. How often is the judge going to deny the cop a warrant when he probably says the exact same thing every single time he stops someone? "He was swerving. His eyes appeared glazed over. His speech was slurred." I seem to recall another story about a cop who did just that, giving the same script, for every single report he wrote up when he arrested someone for drunk driving.

        Drunk driving is bad, but I don't want a cop drawing blood from me. If they're gonna draw blood it should have to be in a hospital, by a doctor. But I should have the choice of allowing my license to be revoked if I don't wish to submit to that either.
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4People can be convicted of a DUI/DWI without failing blood or Breathalyzer test.
      People can also be convicted of a DUI even if they PASS a blood or Breathalyzer test.

      The idea that a BAC is the most important measurement of drunkenness is a faulty concept that is key in this argument.

      If anything, the (videotaped) sobriety field test should be the most important indicator because it most accurately measures the persons motor skills and coordination as those are the abilities needed to drive.
      • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1How can they be convicted? What jury would convict someone with no evidence that they had any alcohol in their system? If I was a juror I would be highly suspect of a police officer that said someone was driving under the influcence, but who had no evidence to prove such a serious accusation.
        • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1It's not as hard as you think.
          Simply asking them exactly what they were doing that night (in court), having witness testimony related to their driving or speech. Even hard evidence like open alcoholic beverages, beer stained shirt, etc help convict many drunk drivers.

          And most importantly... VIDEO showing drunk-like behavior from the traffic stop = easy conviction.

          And furthermore, breathalyser results often prove unreliable as evidence because they are not always accurate.
    • maanwi, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4There are ways to handle drunk drivers without resorting to blood draws. Even if you don't comply with any tests, you can be legally held for a certain number of hours—I think it's 24, but not sure on that. The forced blood sample issue is nothing less than a government entity saying that they own your bodily fluids.
    • MAGZine, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Breath
      A
      Lyzer
  • floridiot2, on 05/29/2008, -11/+10"There is part of me that says so what. If you don’t want to have your blood drawn, don’t drink and drive."
    Yeah, and if you don't want to choke to death, don't eat food.
    • Cyrus042, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Terrible argument. If you don't want to die! Don't live!
      • floridiot2, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1wow, yeah that is pretty terrible.
  • b1narymess1ah, on 05/29/2008, -8/+16why is the world full of fascists?
    • gquaglia, on 05/29/2008, -6/+7I don't know, why is Digg full of douchebags.
      • b1narymess1ah, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1hahaha. nice response. so good that i wasn't even offended. lol
    • unmarked, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4because the world allows it.
    • brokencrystal, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Because most people, while in their comfort zone, call us kool-aid drinkers and tin foil hat wearers... If I get to keep my civil liberties, then pass me a tin foil hat and some kool-aid! (although I think most foil is made of aluminum today, not tin) It's better than pretending the problems don't exist. The real kool-aid is in that TV you keep staring at like a zombie for hours on end, the government's bias education system, and their channel one that is pushed in schools. You never had a chance, you were brainwashed from birth.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2The funny thing is how quick those fascists convert to being liberal when a cop sticks them with an aides infected needle from the DUI kit that has been reused a half dozen times a night for the past two weeks because the department doesn't have enough money to buy new kits and the deputy "improvised."
        • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Did you really just spell it "aides"?
        • DarkSpoon, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1lol marx i thought the same thing.

          buck, once again the cop doesnt take your blood. a paramedic is called or you are taken to the hospital.
        • b1narymess1ah, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1lol jared has aides
    • 1timeuser, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1Was it fascist before or after you didn't read/understand the article.
      The only way this could possibly effect you is if either
      1) You drink and drive (in which case I hope you die a violent death)
      2) You drive poorly and for some retarded reason refuse to submit to the usual alcohol breath test (in which case I hope you die a violent death).

      I know it seems super cool to pull out the word "fascist" at every turn.... but really it's not.
      • brokencrystal, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1IT'S A CHECKPOINT!!! Yes my caps lock was on.
      • b1narymess1ah, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1i agree that drunk drivers are douchebags and hope they get what they deserve. i don't condone the behavior in any way. just to get that out there. the reason i find this fascist is cause it's yet another control put on the people of a "free" country. i just think that it's incredibly invasive and the fact that all it takes nowadays is a phonecall to a justice of the peace (that's the canadian term, i believe the american is a magistrate or something of the sort) and they can throw just about every right you have out the window. that sounds fascist to me.
  • bigp3rm, on 05/29/2008, -8/+15This happened to me when I got my DUI. I refused all tests and was taken to jail. When they asked for blood I refused again. They put me in a cell and a few hours later 4 officers came in and forcefully put me on the ground. Showed me a piece of paper that was signed buy a judge (warrant to remove blood from MY body). Yes he signed off at 3AM. And even tho I had caused them no problems through the whole thing other that exercising my rights, they were now using force. One officer had so much weight on his knee he cracked my sternum.

    So yeah what a bunch of ***** BS that was. BTW I had never been arrested in my life. Just went out and had to much fun and tried to make it home.

    ***** you guy if you happen to read this.
    • IAmLegend24, on 05/30/2008, -12/+4STFU criminal POS
      • Damvan, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1Ahh, so you have never, ever broken a law?
        • Tainek, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2i have broken plenty of laws in my time, but i have never driven a half ton weapon while intoxicated. the OP is scum simple as, i'd love to hear his opinion if somebody *having too much fun* hit and killed somebody close to him. there is *No* excuse for drunk driving- ever. if i had my way, it would be an instant 24 month ban.

          there are plenty of reasons to hate cops believe me, but this is a prime example of cops doing the job correctly

          spoken as a driver, and a believer in human rights
        • ddawggin, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1That isn't the issue, just don't bitch about it when you get caught. 2 points for the cops.
    • dave122, on 05/30/2008, -0/+7sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me, get your free money and move along.
    • Crucible1001, on 05/30/2008, -3/+6So you were in fact driving drunk? If that was the case, then why didn't you just take the first test? Sounds to me like you just trying to get off on a DUI.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/30/2008, -4/+8You're driving drunk.

      You're puting your selfish ***** ignorance in front of everyone else's right to get home safely. If it wasn't affecting your driving, you wouldn't have been noticed and even stopped, so don't pull that *****.

      I lost 2 of my best friends at once because a low life piece of ignorant chicken ***** like yourself thought that he could make it home too. He did, he walked away, and put 2 teenage kids in the ground.

      ***** you.
      • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3I drove drunk once. I didn't know I I'd had too much to drink too quickly until I was already on the highway, a couple miles from the bar. I didn't have more than three or four drinks, and I didn't have a lot of experience drinking.

        And because of the way drunk driving laws are written, even though I knew I was too drunk to drive, and had another 20 miles to go, I was forced to continue driving. Because if I had stopped, and decided to sleep it off or call a cab, while I was parked there there was a good chance a cop would happen by, and even though I was not actually driving the car, and even if I'd thrown the keys under it, I could still have been arrested for DUI and had my car impounded.

        Thankfully it was 12am so there were no other cars on the highway and I made it home safely in one peice and without getting caught. But it is ***** retarded that even though I wanted to do the right thing I was unable to because of the way the stupid ***** laws are written.

        I won't drive in that condition again, and I wouldn't have driven if I'd known I was in no condition to drive when I set out, but as you can see, simply taking the hard line on drunk driving is not the way to make the roads safer. The laws need to be thought out, or you end up with situations like the one I was in, where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Its hard to argue that forcefully taking your blood was wrong in your circumstance.

      If it was obvious you were drunk and they had plenty of evidence to suggest this then they were justified in seeking a warrant to obtain proper measurements.

      The real problem arises when it becomes *too easy* (getting a warrant by phone). This allows the cops to blood test first and ask questions later.
      • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1It's easy you argue that forcefully taking his blood is wrong. That's an invasion of your body. It's in violation of some people's religions even. And there is nothing preventing the legislators from simply saying that if you refuse you get the same punishment as if you were found to be drunk. That should satisfy everyone. You don't have to give blood, and they can still convict you. In fact, that's how it is now as fasr as I know, except you get a lesser offense or something if you refuse the test.
  • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 05/29/2008, -5/+12How about not driving drunk?
    • brokencrystal, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2What about freedom and civil liberties... you don't have to be drunk to be accused of being drunk and stuck by a needle. I never drive drunk, but this upsets me as it should you... if you value freedom at all.
    • JimmyJoseph, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1How about thinking a little more?
  • elister, on 05/30/2008, -1/+13you should be able to refuse the blood test based on the fact that the officer is not a medical technician. plasma and blood donation centers dont just hire kids out of high school. you need to be certified to draw blood, typically a 6-12 month course.
    • brokencrystal, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2You should be able to refuse the blood test if you don't want to be stuck by a needle for no reason... since you are not doing anything wrong to begin with.
    • Pyehole, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3One would hope so. One could also be very disappointed.

      http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/motorists-for ...
    • diggydougie, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2You know that cops are already proficient in drawing blood. - Just not with a needle.
    • DarkSpoon, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1the cops aren't supposed to take blood. they are supposed to call a paramedic or take you to a hospital.
  • Cate320, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6I was just recently studying to take the written exam for my learner's permit (In New Zealand) and was amazed to find out that you can go to jail and/or be fined if you refuse to take a blood test. I think that is incredibly excessive. I have no problem with the breath tests etc but blood tests just seem a bit too invasive to be able to be forced on you.
  • bcarl314, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9Quite an interesting story. Go ahead, get your warrant, but you better damned well be a licensed and accredited medical professional certified to draw blood and trained in biohazard techniques. Otherwise, it's going to be fun to blow you away in court for "practicing" without a license.

    Bottom line, if they want to draw blood, they better be at least and LPN or RN.
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1I'm sure they would have a nurse at the department.

      I highly doubt the traffic officer will be drawing blood himself.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Evidently cops actually are drawing your blood on the roadside.
        • Guams, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0Show this "evidence" you speak of.

          No cop will draw your blood him/herself. The warrant will be served and you'll be taken to a hospital for the draw, which will be done by a person with the proper licensing and training.
  • rblancarte, on 05/30/2008, -8/+4To everyone saying that this is some level of fascism, etc.
    Just realize this - in just about EVERY case this is done, a law is being broken. Just realize you are defending criminals.
    (you may now digg me down).
    • Damvan, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2So, anyone who gets arrested is guilty? Wow, why the hell are we wasting so much money on those stupid courts, judges, lawyers, jails, prisons, etc. The police only arrest guilty people, lets just let the police be the judge, jury and executioner from now on. One bullet, and those evil criminals are off the street for good.

      Because, of course, why would you care if you aren't doing anything wrong?
      • rblancarte, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1if I was doing anything wrong, what would i have to hide. Want my breath, blood, FST? Sure, Gonna pass all, what do I care?
    • maanwi, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2The Legislature already ruled that it couldn't be done. The law being broken here is by the Magistrate.
    • thescimitar, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1You clearly do not understand our judiciary. A law is ALLEGEDLY being broken. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty at trial. Haven't you ever heard of Miranda?

      God almighty, with people as ill-informed as you, why even HAVE rights? We aren't defending criminals, we're defending RIGHTS.

      Argh!!!
    • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1What, you mean the cops practicing medicine without a license, possibly leading to death due to infection or air being injected into someone's artery?
    • mabhatter, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1you are defending ONE citizen at a time from agents of the state that go out every night and don't always follow the rules.

      I used to work 2nd shift 30 miles away and got pulled over a few times for the typical police DUI trolling of "swerving". I was coming straight from work with 0 alcohol and usually had a rider so I was always cool, but stuff like this makes you scared you'll get the cop with a chip on his shoulder pulling all this crap.

      That's the point, when you're questioned doing something LEGAL then there's big problems with the system.
  • ImperialSoren, on 05/30/2008, -2/+14I got pulled over and harasses this weekend at a checkpoint at 2pm by a ***** lake. You drive through at 2 mph and 12 officers stand watching to see if you look "drunk" (or more likely nervous). Officer asked how much I had to drink I say 0, tells me to take off sunglasses and asks again. same answer, then he says will I take a roadside. I say no but I'll take a breathalyzer which confirms my answer. Then they are real apologetic. Welcome to the people's republic of colorado, this is becoming a police state.

    Ever since they realize what a fund raiser and crowd pleaser dwai/dui is they've been grabbing everyone they can. Yes people who drive dangerously and/or have a high ba -.12 or better should get the hammer, but extending it to .05 and you go to jail is not right. among the vehicles at the checkpoint that had to be left because the owner was arrested are minivans and family cars. how would you like to get arrested in front of your family for blowing a .05 (2 ***** drinks).

    considering an estimated 30% of drivers are dui after 10pm (i've heard a range of similar numbers) it is overkill to throw every person in jail that has had a couple drinks, I would almost bet the number of drunks at 2pm on that road that have caused an accident is in the single figures-ever. and here they are putting EVERYONE through a crackdown.
    • OffPiste, on 05/30/2008, -4/+4What do you expect from Boulder, frickin libtard central.
    • ddawggin, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2I agree with you on your points. But dude, if you don't day-drink you haven't lived.
    • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Did that lake have a badge, and if so did you get the number?
    • mabhatter, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1in the 80's BAC was .12 since then most states have made .08 illegal.. now you're saying .05... it's because the rate drops for a few years, then cops are all proud. Then it stops dropping when people follow the laws... so they change the laws to make crime look worse.. rinse... repeat.
  • Typhoon2009, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9Breathalyzer, sure. Drawing blood... I'd rather get taken to the police station and have a doctor do it. The cop could be nervous, considering the dangers of traffic stops. There are doctors who aren't nervous that suck at drawing blood... I'd hate to have a nervous cop who as someone said got a 2 hour training course draw my blood.
  • borrowedladder, on 05/30/2008, -6/+6What kind of Nazi crap is that, your body is your body, not theirs, they have no constitutional foothold to stand on. There's no way a total stranger is forcing me to get a needle, i don't give a ***** who he works for, or how many badges he has. .....another right goes down the drain.....btw,,,if people are getting forced to give blood because of a dwi that may hurt or kill somebody,,, what does the american government get for killing hundreds of thousands of people?
    • WTFppl, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1@borrowedladder- "i don't give a ***** who he works for"
      They work for you!
  • ClemsonPoker, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4This makes me wish I had access to an alternate reality, where the story was about an easily obtained warrant for searching the car for drugs if there is the "probable cause" that you were "nervous".

    I'd like to read these same people's comments to THAT story.
    • Damvan, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2That is the point of this story that people seem to be missing. Not the fact that they can force you to give blood, but that the officers are capable of getting instant warrants. Instant warrants = no rights. Any right you may have can be instantly waived by the officer with their instant warrants.

      Would you want your car searched because you looked nervous?
      • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0If that's the point of the story, the headline (or at least the Digg title) probably should be changed
      • ITFeed, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0If you have nothing to hide, why not?
  • XMike14x, on 05/30/2008, -1/+7What if you have a needle phobia?
    • mattgilberg, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5That's a good point. You could argue that by them drawing blood without a medical professional present or administering the test, your psyche was permanently damaged. While those cops will be smelling alcohol on your breath, you'll be smelling an impending lawsuit.
    • brokencrystal, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2"What if you have a needle phobia?"
      Have fun walking everywhere for one year!
      • Elliuotatar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Why walk when you can bike? Or hire a homeless man to cheaufeur you everywhere.
    • MiamiRox, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Dude, I actually do have a needle phobia.
      I hyperventilate and pass out, its okay though, I'm a girl (therefore I'm not a fag)
    • XMike14x, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Having a panic attack on the side of a road with a cop next to you and a needle in your arm doesn't look good in my mind - for some reason...
    • 1timeuser, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1get over it.
  • username484767, on 05/30/2008, -2/+5I'll tell them I have AIDS :-)
    • OffPiste, on 05/30/2008, -3/+8AIDS is not transmitted through the blood. Or at least that's what my Haitian homosexual hemophiliac heroin using hooker told me.
  • borrowedladder, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9The police should have to take that blood test everyday before they strap on their guns to go on duty............
  • Todamont, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11Police vampires, insane. Just another reason I need a helicopter.
  • tpawloski, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2Cuban needs to use spell check.
  • uberlit, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4And if i'm a hemophiliac you can kill me quite easily?
  • akohut, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6Texas is the worst state ... and I'm from there.
    • marx2k, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0Then you've obviously not been to FLorida
  • warbird, on 05/30/2008, -5/+4If you drive while drunk, I hope you go to jail for years! Its a ***** stupid thing to do, which puts you and innocents around you in danger.
    • Laughsatyou, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3something about punishment fitting the crime. if you kill or hurt someone the crime changes with the punishment.
    • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2thank you for your irrelevant comment.
  • cards, on 05/30/2008, -0/+9FTA: "There is part of me that says so what. If you don’t want to have your blood drawn, don’t drink and drive."
    What if I've just dropped off all of my drunk friends I was a sober cab for, my car smells like booze, then I get pulled over and am forced to have my blood drawn because of the cop's suspicions? Maybe I'm just being a prick, but I see plenty of room for abuse on this. As the author mentions, it seems like the first step on a very slippery slope.
  • KLowD9x, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6"Some were even arrested when they tested positive for drugs."

    I will put money on those drugs being Marijuana.

    This is a BIG issue with me. Not only will that test be positive LONG after consumption but there are numerous studies showing that Marijuana does not affect driving like alcohol.

    But, driving drunk? Enjoy your time in jail.
  • shinkickedjim, on 05/30/2008, -3/+8welcome to the police state
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.