Police ordered DUI blood tests in Texas

[gabosaurus]

I was sent this link a short while ago and believe it would be a great deterrent to drunk driving.
Of course, the bleeding heart liberals who still believe drunk drivers that cause accidents have the same rights as the rest of us will complain about it. But that is what liberals do, they moan and groan about everything that the rest of us want.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6548493.html

[Silver]

Well Honey, I'm no liberal but if they are against this new police 'right' then I'm with them 100%.....
This kind of crap opens the door to abuse by the cops..and they certainly have enough power as it is.....
If a driver refuses to take a Breathalyzer test, or refuses a blood test or any other test to determine DUI it should be deemed a guilty plea....
The driver was given a chance to prove innocence and didn't take it...he/she is automatically guilty...

[Trigg]

I was sent this link a short while ago and believe it would be a great deterrent to drunk driving.
Of course, the bleeding heart liberals who still believe drunk drivers that cause accidents have the same rights as the rest of us will complain about it. But that is what liberals do, they moan and groan about everything that the rest of us want.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6548493.html

Here I was, under the impression you were a bleeding heart liberal.



Here in Indiana if you refuse a blood test it is seen as admission and they can take your license for 6 months to a year.

[hjmick]

Bad idea. Too many rights violated.

[5stringJeff]

Whatever happened to no searches without a warrant? There's no reason a judge shouldn't be involved in the process.

[theHawk]

The law says it can only be used in certain cases:


Police will be allowed to order blood drawn from a person suspected of driving while intoxicated without judicial review under certain circumstances, including instances in which the suspect is a repeat offender, a passenger died or in which a child under 15 was a passenger in the vehicle.

I have to say I have no problem with this. If someone dies as a result of an accident I think the police should be able to test the drivers.

[Sitarro]

Houston's crime lab was closed down because of what a dump it became, this will make them a lot more busy, mistakes will be made. Then again, they had the opportunity to take a breathalyzer test.
On one hand, I'm not interested in giving the police any more rights but, I get a bit tired of reading about repeat offenders being involved in accidents that wipe out whole families and they don't get a scratch. The irony here ill be that they will catch a shitload of illegals this way and yet will not do a damn thing about it, Houston is a sanctuary city.

[Mr. P]

It'll never fly, it's clearly unconstitutional.

Wait, the way things are going these days...?? Errrrrrrr I'll hope for change I can believe in like constitutional rights, thank you. Ahhhh the good ole days.

[5stringJeff]

The law says it can only be used in certain cases:



I have to say I have no problem with this. If someone dies as a result of an accident I think the police should be able to test the drivers.

If someone dies, and it's a vehicular manslaughter case, that's one thing. The driver would likely be under arrest for such, and a blood test would be warranted. But to give the police the ability to demand blood testing upon mere suspicion of DUI violates the 4th amendment.

[Missileman]

If someone dies, and it's a vehicular manslaughter case, that's one thing. The driver would likely be under arrest for such, and a blood test would be warranted. But to give the police the ability to demand blood testing upon mere suspicion of DUI violates the 4th amendment.

I would think more than just suspicion would be required...some form of probable cause like failing a field sobriety or eye response test. They could also make a procedure where the blood is drawn, but not tested until a judge determines the cops' probable cause is sufficient.

DUI is a situation VERY easy to avoid. The potential damage of a drunk driver warrants strong enforcement and tough sentencing.

[5stringJeff]

I would think more than just suspicion would be required...some form of probable cause like failing a field sobriety or eye response test. They could also make a procedure where the blood is drawn, but not tested until a judge determines the cops' probable cause is sufficient.

DUI is a situation VERY easy to avoid. The potential damage of a drunk driver warrants strong enforcement and tough sentencing.

I have no issue with drawing blood IF a judge consents and signs off on a warrant. I have a major problem with drawing blood without a judge's warrant. Even if they don't test the blood, that's still a search of your person.

[Missileman]

Even if they don't test the blood, that's still a search of your person.

I disagree...the test would equal a search, not the collection. Think of it like the impoundment of a vehicle.

[Mr. P]

I disagree...the test would equal a search, not the collection. Think of it like the impoundment of a vehicle.

Think of it as an illegal search then. Even on the side of the road they ask if they can look in the car sometimes..say yes, and they don't need a warrant, say no and they do. This taking of blood without a warrant is totally unconstitutional, IMO. I talked with a Judge that agreed with me BTW.

[Missileman]

Think of it as an illegal search then. Even on the side of the road they ask if they can look in the car sometimes..say yes, and they don't need a warrant, say no and they do. This taking of blood without a warrant is totally unconstitutional, IMO. I talked with a Judge that agreed with me BTW.

The cops can impound a car without a warrant(collect the blood)...they need a warrant to open the trunk without consent(run the test).

[Mr. P]

The cops can impound a car without a warrant(collect the blood)...they need a warrant to open the trunk without consent(run the test).

Not really, vehicles are impounded for many reasons. Safety is one, you just can't leave that vehicle on the road. They can body search a person without a warrant for safety reasons. They can impound (arrest people) for probable cause and safety reasons. There must be cause and then a warrant to search the impounded car or the person (taking blood) signed by a Judge before the search not after the fact.

This car/person analogy is weak, cars have no rights.

[Missileman]

This car/person analogy is weak, cars have no rights.

The owner of the car does.

I just don't see this as a problem to close a loophole that allows some DUI offenders to get away with their crime.

[Nukeman]

The owner of the car does.

I just don't see this as a problem to close a loophole that allows some DUI offenders to get away with their crime.
The simple answer to all this is to asign guilt to a uncooperative person. If they refuse to have the test it is the same as an admission of guilt. Or you could even list it as a "no contest" plea. Not necessarily an admission of guilt but your not going to fight it either...

Then you Have none of this "illegal search and seizure". You just have a remeber to tell the person.

[Mr. P]

The owner of the car does.

I just don't see this as a problem to close a loophole that allows some DUI offenders to get away with their crime.

Loophole? What loophole?

[Missileman]

Loophole? What loophole?

The delay in collecting the blood sample getting a judge to sign off allows for the body to metabolize the alcohol. The longer the delay, the lower the eventual results.

[Missileman]

The simple answer to all this is to asign guilt to a uncooperative person.

I agree totally that a refusal to supply blood, breath, or urine should constitute an IRREVERSIBLE guilty plea. The problem comes in our premise "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

[5stringJeff]

The simple answer to all this is to asign guilt to a uncooperative person. If they refuse to have the test it is the same as an admission of guilt. Or you could even list it as a "no contest" plea. Not necessarily an admission of guilt but your not going to fight it either...

Then you Have none of this "illegal search and seizure". You just have a remeber to tell the person.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" I understand taking away a driver's license if you refuse a breath/blood test, but throwing someone in jail for refusing? That seems to violate the 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate.

[Mr. P]

The delay in collecting the blood sample getting a judge to sign off allows for the body to metabolize the alcohol. The longer the delay, the lower the eventual results.

Well, I donno about where you live but we have a Judge available 24/7 here.

[Missileman]

Well, I donno about where you live but we have a Judge available 24/7 here.

Sure, but on a busy night, it can take a while to get to see one.

[Mr. P]

Sure, but on a busy night, it can take a while to get to see one.

All it takes is a drive to their home..happens every night.

[Missileman]

All it takes is a drive to their home..happens every night.

I was thinking more of municipalities that run a night court.

[Nukeman]

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" I understand taking away a driver's license if you refuse a breath/blood test, but throwing someone in jail for refusing? That seems to violate the 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate.You know your right they are innocent until proven guilty. when they refuse the test it is a plea of "no contest" they are not admitting guilt but they won't fight it either.

If they TRULEY are innocent they would have no objection to the breath test or blood test now would they....


We are not talking about individuals that are just driving down the street these are people that were either in an accident or are a known violator and I am assuming have FAILED a field sobriety test..

How about we use the same logic an employer uses. If your injured at work the FIRST thing most businesses do is perform a drug screen to see if it was your fault...

[Mr. P]

I was thinking more of municipalities that run a night court.

Too much night court on TV bud, municipalities have more than one Judge.

[Mr. P]

You know your right they are innocent until proven guilty. when they refuse the test it is a plea of "no contest" they are not admitting guilt but they won't fight it either.

If they TRULEY are innocent they would have no objection to the breath test or blood test now would they....


We are not talking about individuals that are just driving down the street these are people that were either in an accident or are a known violator and I am assuming have FAILED a field sobriety test..

How about we use the same logic an employer uses. If your injured at work the FIRST thing most businesses do is perform a drug screen to see if it was your fault...

Most always the wrong thing to do.

[5stringJeff]

You know your right they are innocent until proven guilty. when they refuse the test it is a plea of "no contest" they are not admitting guilt but they won't fight it either.

If they TRULEY are innocent they would have no objection to the breath test or blood test now would they....

Only the guilty need be afraid of the All-Powerful Government? That's the first step down the Totalitarian Tollway.


We are not talking about individuals that are just driving down the street these are people that were either in an accident or are a known violator and I am assuming have FAILED a field sobriety test..

I'm not saying I'm opposed to them being tested, period. I'm saying I'm opposed to drawing blood without a search warrant. If the cops have probable cause, they should be able to get a judge's OK. If not, they shouldn't be allowed to search (i.e. draw blood).


How about we use the same logic an employer uses. If your injured at work the FIRST thing most businesses do is perform a drug screen to see if it was your fault...

The employer-employee relationship is a bad analogy. That relationship is a contract, where an employee serves voluntarily, and where the employer has rules regarding employment. The government serves at OUR discretion, and is bound by the Constitution not to violate OUR rights.