DUI suspects face forced blood draws in some Ga. counties (crime, dangerous)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

If any of my children ever did (and I hope they wouldn't), I'd be the first one to help hold their sorry ass down while the nurse inserts the needle.

In what part of the body are they sticking people?

[Huckleberry3911948]

i dont think that most people grasp the seriousness of the DUI laws created by the MADD movement.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by arjay57

In what part of the body are they sticking people?

The arm. They're restraining them for obvious reasons. You can't have someone injuring themselves when drunk or spattering blood all over the deputies. Yes, it's a little bit harsh, but you can always take the breathalyzer first. These are people who refuse to take a breath test.

[arjay57]

It does sound a little Stalinesque.

Some people are truly needlephobic. And some of these deputies may not know how to stick somebody to draw blood. Say you've got bad veins or hemophilia. They could do some real harm.

Maybe they should just make it the rule that if you turn down a test there is a presumption that you would fail it.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by arjay57

It does sound a little Stalinesque.

Some people are truly needlephobic. And some of these deputies may not know how to stick somebody to draw blood. Say you've got bad veins or hemophilia. They could do some real harm.

Maybe they should just make it the rule that if you turn down a test there is a presumption that you would fail it.

The point is that when you sign your driver's license, you give implied consent to the state to test you for DUI using breath, blood, or urine tests. If you decline, then your license is automatically suspended.

What used to happen, and what happens in some states, is that you refuse to take the test and then if the state can't prove DUI, then you take the administrative suspension. The problem with that is that you are not officially convicted of DUI, so you are not subject to the penalties for DUI. If you can keep driving drunk and just refuse to take a test, then you can habitually violate the law and potentially just take the administrative penalty without jail time or other penalties.

At first when I saw the video on TV, I was a little shocked, but when I thought about it, I really have no problem for the following reasons:

1. You can take the breath test first. You have an option to comply without this happening.
2. The county is getting a search warrant and there is oversight. This is not "Stalin-esque" in reality.
3. The restraint is to protect both the deputies and the accused. Needles and blood, combined with drunk and possibly violent people is a volatile combination.

Of course the ultimate way to not have to deal with this at all is just to not drive drunk. The individual is in control here. Don't drive drunk, or if you do and you get caught, take the breath test and follow the law. If you don't, then I feel ZERO sympathy for you. You made your own bed.

[ToucheGA]

Originally Posted by neil0311

The point is that when you sign your driver's license, you give implied consent to the state to test you for DUI using breath, blood, or urine tests. If you decline, then your license is automatically suspended.

What used to happen, and what happens in some states, is that you refuse to take the test and then if the state can't prove DUI, then you take the administrative suspension. The problem with that is that you are not officially convicted of DUI, so you are not subject to the penalties for DUI. If you can keep driving drunk and just refuse to take a test, then you can habitually violate the law and potentially just take the administrative penalty without jail time or other penalties.

At first when I saw the video on TV, I was a little shocked, but when I thought about it, I really have no problem for the following reasons:

1. You can take the breath test first. You have an option to comply without this happening.
2. The county is getting a search warrant and there is oversight. This is not "Stalin-esque" in reality.
3. The restraint is to protect both the deputies and the accused. Needles and blood, combined with drunk and possibly violent people is a volatile combination.

Of course the ultimate way to not have to deal with this at all is just to not drive drunk. The individual is in control here. Don't drive drunk, or if you do and you get caught, take the breath test and follow the law. If you don't, then I feel ZERO sympathy for you. You made your own bed.

Despite me generally liberal outlook, I have to agree. I was shocked at first, but then I started to think about what might happen if a suspect freaked out with a needle in his arm, or what might happen if he/she manged to get the needle in his/her hand (the needle becomes a weapon at that point.) When someone is intoxicated, all bets are off when it comes to predicting behavior. I have first hand knowledge of very kind, gentle people doing outrageous and violent things when they are intoxicated. It's even harder to predict behavior when someone is under the stress of an arrest. Even if they are completely compliant at first, there is no way to determine what will happen in the minute or so that it takes to put the needle in the arm, draw the blood, and withdraw the needle. If you don't want to be strapped down and stuck with a needle, consent to the breath test. It's that simple. If you don't want to be subjected to any type of DUI test, at any time, then don't exercise your privilege to drive.

Prohibiting the practice of forced blood draws simply makes it easier for people to get away with drinking and driving. I worked as a probation officer in the past, and I can say that the penalties that one faces for even a 1st DUI offense are much, much worse then the 1 year license suspension you get for refusing the tests (assuming, of course, that you can beat the DUI change in Court without the evidence of a test.) Many DUI offenders cannot get their license back for well over one year, given the things they have to do to get the license reinstated (e.g. payment of reinstatement fees, a Risk Reduction Program, other Court-mandated steps, etc.) Even if a convict can get their license back, many cannot get insurance at an affordable rate, and thus cannot drive anyway. Furthermore, many people could be fired from their job and/or unable to get a job later on, especially with employers that require that the person drive a vehicle. IT's easy to see why a smart defendant will refuse the tests and take the 1 year suspension, in an effort to make it a lot more difficult for the State to convict them for DUI at trial.

I think the Magistrate Judges that sign the search warrants are the key to this process. I hope the Judges are seriously considering these cases, and are holding the cops accountable by demanding a high level of probable cause. If the cops report that the suspect smells strongly of alcohol, and the Judge sees a video of him crossing a center line 5-6 times, then the warrant is probably a good idea. On the other hand, I was once pulled over for a suspected DUI, after I crossed a center line once time, and did not come to a 100% complete stop at a stop sign. I consented to the breathalyzer (which was 0.02,) and a field sobriety (which I easily passed). However, if I had refused the tests, I should hope that a Judge would not have issued a warrant for a forced blood test based on a single crossing of the center line, and a nearly complete stop at a stop sign.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

The point is that when you sign your driver's license, you give implied consent to the state to test you for DUI using breath, blood, or urine tests. If you decline, then your license is automatically suspended.

That's good law and I don't have any problem with it.

However, forcefully sticking people is taking things to another level.

If they refuse a blood alcohol test, they've already forfeited their license. So what's the point in forcefully holding them down and drawing blood?

Suppose you've got somebody with weak veins? Even experienced phlebotomists in hospital settings often have trouble obtaining a viable puncture.

Or suppose you have inept or poorly trained deputies? Or contaminated needles and equipment?

[brownhornet]

Saying don't drive drunk isn't enough. You seem to forget that they only have to SUSPECT you of being drunk.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by brownhornet

Saying don't drive drunk isn't enough. You seem to forget that they only have to SUSPECT you of being drunk.

You have to wonder if the corporate bigwigs who are thinking about moving their companies down here realize they could be strapped down and have their blood drawn for suspicion of driving DUI.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by arjay57

That's good law and I don't have any problem with it.

However, forcefully sticking people is taking things to another level.

If they refuse a blood alcohol test, they've already forfeited their license. So what's the point in forcefully holding them down and drawing blood?

Suppose you've got somebody with weak veins? Even experienced phlebotomists in hospital settings often have trouble obtaining a viable puncture.

Or suppose you have inept or poorly trained deputies? Or contaminated needles and equipment?

This. Two wrongs don't make a right.