DUI suspects face forced blood draws in some Ga. counties (drivers license, vehicle)

[scorpioqueen]

Originally Posted by PKCorey

Looks like the jail nurses does it as shown in the video.

I was unable to view the video and thank you for clarifying.

[neil0311]

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.

Right, but if you're not, take the breath test. Volunteer to take a blood test. You have the right to request a blood test.

What we're discussing here are people who REFUSE to take a test to determine their BAL. At that point the county gets a search warrant to draw their blood. We do it with DNA samples all the time. The only difference here is that they're dealing with a drunk and possibly violent person, and blood can be dangerous if the person is HIV positive.

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?

The state has an interest in getting drunk drivers off the road, and as long as they get a valid search warrant, then I have no issues. The individual is given ways to comply that do not require them to be restrained. The blood is drawn by nurses and done in a medical facility within the jail.

[erick295]

Considering someone can be jailed for merely being suspected of a crime, I hardly think a little shot performed by a professional is a shocking violation.

What do you mean, suppose they have contaminated needles??? Why not just go ahead and suppose they feed prisoners rats and slice off their genitalia for fun, then? Here's a hint: If you have to make s**t up to make something sound horrifying, then it probably isn't.

It's illegal to refuse a DUI test. If you don't like that, don't drive.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by erick295

It's illegal to refuse a DUI test. If you don't like that, don't drive.

Yep. That having been said, I would much prefer there to be a presumption of guilt if someone chooses not to take the breathalyzer test. Seems better to me than forceably poking them with a needle.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by erick295

It's illegal to refuse a DUI test. If you don't like that, don't drive.

I don't understand your argument. The law says:

"Georgia law requires you to submit to state administered chemical tests of your blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substances for the purpose of determining if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If you refuse this testing, your Georgia driver's license or privilege to drive on the highways of this state will be suspended for a minimum period of one year. Your refusal to submit to the required testing may be offered into evidence against you at trial."

Since you've already forfeited your license by refusing the test, why is it important to insist on going further and sticking somebody against their will?

Suppose the individual has a medical condition (such as hemophilia) that makes sticking their veins extremely dangerous, and even life threatening? What if they are on a blood thinner such as Coumadin? What if they are elderly, diabetic or have fragile veins? What if they have a phobia about needles? What if they have a religious objection? What if you have a medical condition that makes you appear impaired when in fact you are not?

Seems to me the law is fine as it is: You refuse the test, you lose your license.

In addition, your refusal to take the test is admissible in any subsequent court case.

Trust me, you won't find a more passionate opponent of drunk driving than me. However, being opposed to drunk driving doesn't equal trashing the civil liberties of law abiding citizens.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Suppose the individual has a medical condition (such as hemophilia) that makes sticking their veins extremely dangerous, and even life threatening? What if they are on a blood thinner such as Coumadin? What if they are elderly, diabetic or have fragile veins? What if they have a phobia about needles? What if they have a religious objection? What if you have a medical condition that makes you appear impaired when in fact you are not?

Then they can take the breathalyzer test.

On a side note, I think I have a phobia and/or religious objection to being fined for speeding, and I have a psychological condition which causes me to have panic attacks when I'm pulled over.

Damn, it didn't work.

[neil0311]

Yes, you can refuse to take a test for which you've already given your consent, and if the state does nothing else, they can administratively suspend your license. What Gwinnett is doing is asking the court for a warrant to collect blood. Many times after an accident where injury or death occurs this is standard procedure.

The key is that probable cause exists and a warrant is obtained.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

What Gwinnett is doing is asking the court for a warrant to collect blood. Many times after an accident where injury or death occurs this is standard procedure.

The article says they are forcibly drawing blood even when there is no injury or death.

The key is that probable cause exists and a warrant is obtained.

What is the probable cause? The mere fact that you've declined to take the test?

If I arrest you for theft and ask to search your home, is the fact that you decline probable cause for me to get a warrant to search your home?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by erick295

On a side note, I think I have a phobia and/or religious objection to being fined for speeding, and I have a psychological condition which causes me to have panic attacks when I'm pulled over.

What if your objection is based on a medical condition (such as hemophilia) that makes sticking your veins extremely dangerous, and even life threatening? What if you are on a blood thinner such as Coumadin? What if you are elderly, diabetic or have fragile veins? What if your are phobic about needles because the last time your blood was drawn you were infected with hepatitis B? Would it matter to you if the police refuse to tell you the identity or qualifications of the person drawing the blood or how the needles are sterilized?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The article says they are forcibly drawing blood even when there is no injury or death.

"Forcibly" with a warrant. The NTSB and police do this with people who have commercial licenses and pilots licenses. They obviously ask you first, but if you refuse, they will get a warrant.

Originally Posted by arjay57

What is the probable cause? The mere fact that you've declined to take the test?

Um..no. The same probable cause for the arrest and suspicion of DUI. Whatever that evidence happens to be...your driving, alcohol on your breath, open container in your vehicle, etc.

Again...you give your consent when you sign your driver's license. The state doesn't have to enforce that consent, but they can, and getting warrant makes it that much more reasonable to me and avoids the 4th amendment arguments. The SCOTUS agrees and has ruled such.

Originally Posted by arjay57

If I arrest you for theft and ask to search your home, is the fact that you decline probable cause for me to get a warrant to search your home?

Huh? Your question makes no sense to me. Again...you give consent when you accept and sign your drivers license.

If the cops come to your home because the neighbor called them and heard someone screaming, or they hear someone screaming in your home and you refuse to let them in, they don't need a warrant to enter your home. They have probable cause that a crime may have been committed. You cannot "decline probable cause" as its something the police or a witness provides. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, they cannot go on a fishing expedition during such a search. So if the cops come to your home for domestic violence, and they open drawers in your bedroom and find you pot stash, my understanding is the pot is not admissible as evidence because it was not related to the probable cause and reason for the search.

If you are driving drunk and the police pull you over and they have probable cause to test you, then because of implied consent, you have already consented to that test. If you decline, they can then get a warrant based on the probable cause to draw your blood. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this and upheld such searches WITH a warrant.