Forcible blood draws (I got to vent)

[Bill, KD0HG]

Apparently, a federal anti-DUI program is training police officers to draw blood from uncooperative drivers.
Yes, it's apparently perfectly legal, according to the Supremes. Cops are permitted to forcibly restrain suspected drivers and draw a blood sample.

I read about this growing practice today and I am absolutely outraged. Why isn't this practice a clear violation of the 5th Amendment?

-------------------------------

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/14/federal-dui-program-has-idaho-cops-drawing-blood/?print-friendly


BOISE – When police Officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’ ” Dowell said.

It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it’s still the main reason that drunken driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study.

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breathe into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood – a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunken driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest, and it was carried out in a medically approved manner.

The practice of cops drawing blood, implemented first in 1995 in Arizona, has also raised concerns about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

“I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle,” said Steve Oberman, chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ DUI Committee.

The officer phlebotomists are generally trained under the same program as their state’s hospital or clinical phlebotomists, but they do it under a highly compressed schedule, and some of the curriculum is cut.

That’s because officers don’t need to know how to draw blood from a foot or other difficult sites, or from an infant or medically fragile patient, said Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers.

Instead, they are trained on the elbow crease, the forearm and the back of the hand. If none of those sites is accessible, they’ll take the suspect to the hospital for testing.

In a nondescript Boise office building where the Nampa officers were trained, Dowell scanned his subject and prepared to draw blood. Chase Abston, an officer taking his turn playing a suspect, recoiled a bit, pressing his back deeper into the chair.

Dowell slid a fine-gauge needle into the back of Abston’s hand. Abston, who had been holding his breath, slowly exhaled as his blood began to flow.

All the officers seemed like they’d be more comfortable if their colleagues were wielding sidearms instead of syringes. But halfway through the second day of training, with about 10 venipunctures each under their belts, they relaxed enough to trade barbs alongside needle jabs.

They’re making quick progress, Watson said. Their training will be complete after they have logged 75 successful blood draws.

Once they’re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They’ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.

Though most legal experts agree blood tests measure blood alcohol more accurately than breath tests, Oberman said the tests can be fraught with problems, too.

Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off, or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and boosting the alcohol content.

Oberman said law enforcement agencies should also be concerned “about possible malpractice cases over somebody who was not properly trained.”

Alan Haywood, Arizona’s law enforcement phlebotomy coordinator who is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas, said officers are exposed to some extra on-the-job risk if they draw blood, but that any concern is mitigated by good training and safe practices.

[ka3zlr]

It's 2 O'clock in the morning, a suspect is losing operator control of his or her vehicle and upon inspection is noticeably/obviously intoxicated and is becoming combative over DUI questioning and procedures...Your by yourself awaiting on Backup...

What do you Do...Worry about Rights....Nup...

73
Jack.

[flintstone mop]

The cop gets the Taser out and immobilizes the uncooperating suspect who is allegedly out of control.
It's getting scary out there!

Fred

[KL7OF]

Nazis.......

[Bill, KD0HG]

Jack, every state has an implied consent law. Refuse to be tested and you lose your driving privileges, generally the same penalty as if you were actually found to be intoxicated.

I want to know why a person can invoke their Constitutional rights and refuse a breathalyser test (and pay a price for doing so), but they can be forcibly tied down, stabbed with a needle for a blood test, and any such evidence used against them.

This has nothing to do with the logistics of dealing with a combative drunk for which administering a blood test would be the last thing on an officer's mind. They got Tasers, billy clubs and cuffs. No syringe needed.

[ka3zlr]

First thing Bill is I wanted to take into account that Officer, there's Two sides to every story, walk in his or her shoes First Look at both sides to the issue.

Now Driving is a Privilege not a right an to many times the two are confused an there have been to many Alcohol Related Deaths an Accidents, it's gona get worse, but the one thing that is Best,, first,, is to Respect the officers requests then leave the fighting for the daytime at the hearing...

Getting Jabbed with a needle is no picnic I understand that an you feel personally obligated to refuse the actions you have to understand once you turn that key you are now responsible for all around you. and the 2500 pound machine you are operating, these scare tactics that some are employing come from a long line of peer pressure groups an statistics amounted over the years an right now the DUI system rules...you don't want to get jabbed don't drive call the wife like I did when I was allowed out..LOL...

Personal rights do not exceed the DOTS rules. simple...Keep on Venting, Hey I lived for 22 Years as a Driver an I have had Dogs in my truck, been Bodily searched, I don't know how many times get used to it there's more coming. Hell I got fined one time in CT for having Colored sheets in my Bunk bed...the reason...back then it was Class A drivers are required White sheets in order to lend medical Aid....the Fine was 35 dollars yes sir...



73
Jack.

[K6JEK]

In Idaho and Arizona of all places.  I might have expected this in California or New York.

This is just nuts.   Besides the invasion, imagine the technique.  I've had experienced lab nurses having trouble doing a neat job.  Can you imagine police officers doing this.

[KB2WIG]

 " I might have expected this in California or New York. "

And put lawyers out of work???


klc

[Bill, KD0HG]

Got to thinking they ought to do a forcible blood test on *everyone* arrested for any offense.

Someone sticks up a convenience store, the blood test shows drugs and alcohol, therefore by definition the perp is obviously not in their right mind, they were mentally impaired. They get a year of rehab and probation instead of hard time.

This could backfire.

[WD8BIL]

First thing Bill is I wanted to take into account that Officer, there's Two sides to every story, walk in his or her shoes First Look at both sides to the issue.

His shoes aren't "the issue". Bill is abasolutely right here. This IS a direct violation of the search and seisure protection of the 4th amendment.

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

Taking ones BLOOD is, by any measure, unreasonable. There are other, well defined, procedures for dealing with drunks!

Now the question becomes, How in the world did it get approval from the Federal Supreme Court?

I guess you get what you vote for!!

[N3DRB The Derb]

Buddly, how quaint of you to quote that obviously obsolete document. After all, this is the New World Order.

There has been a steady practical erosion of personal liberty ever since Eisenhower warned us about the MIC in 1961.

America is firmly in the grips of a nexus between government and corporate power, the classic definition of fascism. It is neither right or left wing, republican or democrat. All that stuff amounts to phoney distraction.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)

Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action. Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.

America has been drifting into this for many years, under Democratic and Republican rule alike. (9/11 greatly accelerated this process). The Bill of Rights has been effectively subverted and marginalized into nothingness, declared to be only a historic relic.

http://shii.org/knows/Fascism_comes_wrapped_in_the_flag


                                                             

[ka3zlr]

No, No it ain't upon entering any Highway or Roadway You have accepted and or been tested on the rules of motor vehicle operation and you have upon entering the roadway accepted the Operational Practices and Rules of the Governing body that governs that roadway, this is not operation on Private property. Boy this is a good one for ignorance of the Law Types...I hope it's well Broadcast out there.

Personal Rights do not supersede the operational authority of the state or federal governments where a Privilege is granted and operation is in question....sorry...

73
Jack.

[Mike/W8BAC]

This law has been on the books since 1966, or so the story goes. The Supreme's back in LBJ's time made it law. It's slightly off topic but in the construction industry if your hurt or god forbid killed in an accident one of the first actions taken is to test for drugs and alcohol with a blood test. Any trace amounts of illegal drugs found in a persons system shift the blame to the injured (or killed) no matter who is at fault. Insurance claim denied. Same with serious car crashes. In the case of forcing a blood test on a drunk driver, simple case opened and closed convictions. Lazy justice.

[k4kyv]

Just wait till some cop uses a dirty needle to draw blood because he ran out of unused ones, was just plain careless, or had an attitude problem, and gives somebody HIV or some other blood-borne disease.

While we are on the subject of venting, here is another outrage that is getting increasingly worse in to-day's society, and will inevitably get even more draconian following the Phillip Garrido case.

http://www.schr.org/node/145

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10685/section/6

[Opcom]

It is unconstitutional, regardless the twist and squirm of the ill-begotten law. It is fair to defend oneself against an attack like that. It is an outright attack, to bleed someone against their will. it could be deadly too, if something is not just right, and a person has the right to use deadly force to defend himself against deadly situations. And I can see the lawsuits coming. #1 a policeman is not a doctor. #2 it's going to cause pain and bruises because they are going to screw it up every time. If they gotta have blood, they best take the suspect to the local hospital and have an MD do it. so it pisses me off too. And do they think that certain people won't come hunting, maybe years later, for the cop that forcibly violated them like that? to draw a little blood of their own? The thing just isn't right and will only lead to further misery. Next they'll want to search body cavities and the like.

[W3LSN]

OK. So now if you refuse a blood draw you risk being tortured with "pain compliance" (a.k.a. taser) until you become more compliant, or dead. 

There used to be a thing called the 5th amendment which prevented the accused from being a witness against himself in a criminal trial. The men who wrote that amendment were thinking of the rack, the red hot poker, and the tender embrace of the iron maiden. The 4th amendment also guarantees that citizens may be "secure in their persons...against unreasonable search and siezure."  But then again rights really are considered a quaint anachronism today.

In less than 100 years we have lost much. Freedom of speech, basically gone. Free exercise clause (religion), ignored. Freedom of the press, compromised. Right to public and speedy trial by a jury of peers, gone. Right to keep and bear arms, gone. 9th and 10th amendments, ignored, Right to keep the fruits of one's labor, now a gift from government. Freedom of association, gone, Right to travel, now a revokable privilege. Right to ride on a public roadway in a conveyance, now regulated as a licensed commercial activity. Unreasonable search and siezure, now ignored as an inconvenience. Eminent domain, now excersized on behalf of private entities if there is a "public good". We don't need to go on. The Bill of Rights is now fish wrap.

Remember that we are only two states votes away from them being able to call a new constitutional convention.

Sleep well.

73, Jim
WA2AJM/3

[Opcom]

Those with a clear conscience always do.

[WD8BIL]

No, No it ain't upon entering any Highway or Roadway You have accepted and or been tested on the rules of motor vehicle operation and you have upon entering the roadway accepted the Operational Practices and Rules of the Governing body that governs that roadway, this is not operation on Private property.

That all may be true, Jack.
But if a law enforcer needs to gather evidence against you there is a procedure and it is spelled out in the 4th Amendment. By the 5th Amendment you are guarded against providing evidence against yourself. You need not answer any questions and you need not GIVE UP YOUR BLOOD AS TESTIMONY AGAINST YOURSELF.

This is so basic. But, given the state of our public schools over the last 40 years it's no wonder crap like this sees the light of day.

[W1UJR]

I had to go to "Snopes" to check this one out, it seems crazy to imagine that our government would allow such, it is clearly a violation of our rights. Snopes has nothing on it, the concept is so crazy that I was hoping it was a spoof.  

If law enforcement needs a body search warrant to obtain DNA samples, logic follows that they would need the same with blood.
Don brings up a good point about chance for disease, sampling body fluids will lying on the street, hooked up to a TASER is not the ideal sterile environment.

The story is confirmed at several sources, I found this enlightening article -->> http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5359-federal-program-to-draw-blood-from-dui-suspects

The next step is going to be blood and DNA screening for drug use, genetic defects, and other tidbits which can be used by the government insurance mafia on newborns or the elderly as a basis of approving or denying treatment.
Of course we can count on the banking industry getting into the act as well, and loans will be approved or denied based upon your "genetic markers".
Such testing will also be used in employment screening, it may be illegal now, but just watch, its a brave new world. (read loss of Bill of Rights)

Is there nothing sacred?

[WA1GFZ]

You have to ask yourself.
How long has it been since you drove in a condition that someone would even want to take a sample?
If you are a drunk and driving around I have no mercey for your rights. Since a drunk  doesn't give a crap about the other people on the road.

[WQ9E]

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers either but there is a big difference between suspicion/accusation and proven fact.  One would hope the uproar from this will pretty quickly result in an appeal and a new Supreme Court review of this issue.

Do we expect the average officer under less than perfect conditions will be more successful than the Ohio executioner?  http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/15/ohio.execution.problems/index.html?iref=newssearch

[ka3zlr]

When you turn that key an enter a roadway you have accepted responsibility for others safety and the rules of operation on the roadway, The basic pretense here is the confusion on personal rights upon incident, if the Law states that at such an event you will be Blood Tested, you have mistreated your privilege then there is no argument, you accepted that when you pulled out an DUI is upon incident it's not personal.

Those State Troopers that are being Prepared for this an are responsible for these actions aren't gona be using dirty needles an nails...LOL...No...You Scare me my rights are falling off my shirt sleeve cuffs..LOLOLOL....

73
Jack.

[WD8BIL]

Do we expect the average officer under less than perfect conditions will be more successful than the Ohio executioner? 

There wouldn't be a problem ifn they used clip leads!

[WBear2GCR]

Jack,

In a society defined by the Constitution (where's Irb?), things will be imperfect. So, the protection of the 4th and 5th amendment is for the greater good of the society at large. It is not proper or appropriate to expect or think that the enforcement of laws, the failure to enforce laws (in various ways) as the result of the Constitutional protections, is somehow a problem or issue. Quite the contrary, this is necessary for a free people to live in freedom and liberty.

What you said about the police officer's shoes? Sure, tough job. Don't want to do that job, get another. The goal of our society is not to make the police have an "easier time" of it. No one wants a police officer to be hurt, but that unfortunately is an inevitable aspect of the job. As are highway deaths and accidents part of driving.

The idea that driving is a privilege is extremely problematic, and likely completely false and unconstitutional. Here's the problem with it. Let's say that the government declares that driving privileges are revoked for everyone - how does anyone get anywhere? You can not enter upon private property, right? Let's say that the government says that you can no longer enter upon any federal, state, county or local road? Now, are you not a prisoner against your will?

The fact is that the "Government" does not actually own anything the government is present only to act on behalf of the citizens - who in fact own everything (on paper anyhow)! Ask Irb??  

This thing is constantly being shaved by those who prefer a form of fascism or dictatorship over a democratic republic of free citizens.

Things like this are SERIOUS ABRIDGEMENTS of citizen's rights - the so called "sovereignty" granted to all via the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution by the founders.

Think about it.

              _-_-WBear2GCR

[Bill, KD0HG]

Why is it that this program is being instituted in Texas, Idaho and Arizona, three states where citizens generally seem to be more anti big brother government than elsewhere?

And why hasn't the manure hit the rotary ventilation apparatus in those places?

The local newspaper story that I read said that Phoenix police are drawing 400 blood samples a month. This is not an aberration.

Here in CO, citizens are given the opportunity of driving around the occasional DUI checkpoints by means of warning signs that such are ahead. Also photo radar speed traps. (State constitution and court rulings)

Doing so hasn't made a bit of difference in our state DUI statistics. A cop once told me that highly intoxicated drivers will usually not try to avoid being tested, anyway.