![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ High: 59°F ~ Low: 41°F |
|
Cops and DUI blood tests: Yes or no?
Posted Monday, September 14, 2009, at 2:42 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
Almost every weekday I read police reports in which officers have put suspected drunken drivers through a series of tests such as standing on one leg and reciting the alphabet, then often giving them a breathalyer test.
But some officers in Idaho and Texas are testing a program in which they do blood tests on the spot, the Associated Press reports. In contrast, officers in Shelbyville and Bedford County have to take individuals to Heritage Medical Center. Seems that officers can't demand breath tests but can forcibly take blood -- and that's been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Idaho officers are trained to take blood only from an elbow crease, forearm or back of the hand, AP reports. So...do you think officers should be jabbing suspects? I'd say yes, for some officers, but imagine someone struggling to get away as the needle goes down. And I can see all kinds of possibilities for lawsuits. Still, as someone who is adverse to needles (though I didn't even feel my flu shot last year), I don't think I'd want to be drawing blood. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics Picturing the Past 34: Simon Warner's cafe(63 ~ 12:55 AM, Nov 21)
Picturing the Past 35: Rebel Maid again
Oh deer, they're on the loose again
Picturing the Past 33: South side square
Picturing the Past 30: Old Wartrace gym
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Unless I'm mistaken police can only forcibly take blood if the suspect has been involved in a fatal accident. Otherwise, they can refuse a blood test just the same as a breathalyzer. Implied consent laws notwithstanding.
Officers can forcibly have blood drawn from a driver who was involved in a traffic accident where someone other than themselves are injured. This law was put into place July 1, 2009.
It takes a TRAINED professional 5 minutes to find a vein to draw blood from my arms,,,,I really don't want Barney trying to do it!
I don't think I want a policeman drawing my blood. A breath test should be sufficient (remember not to eat a mint or peppermint, or chewing gum.... it will show up as drinking) What happens when they take someone to the hospital and draw blood and it is negative. Is the county paying the bill?
I would risk being arrested if an officer attempted to draw my blood. There's absolutely no way that they can do this in a manner that I would consider sanitary on the side of the road. I don't drive after I've been drinking so I know they wouldn't find anything, but I sure wouldn't let them draw my blood.
I would submit to a urinalysis on the side of the road before I would submit to a blood test.
I've known lawyers who counselled people to refuse breathalyzers but *insist* on blood tests-IF they are innocent.
There are fewer false positives and the blood test may show if the driver had low blood sugar,heart disease or the like.
This should be done by a medical professional on site or at the emergency room.
(After an accident,everyone should get checked for injuries,anyway,right?)
Unfortunately,some people can remember to refuse the breathalyzer but are too shaken up/concussed/ disoriented to demand the more conclusive test.
It's better to risk the breath test if one has gotten voluntarily impaired.
(One can always blame that breath mint or anything other than one's own mistakes.)
The same vial that will exonerate the innocent person will reveal any drugs in a guilty person's system.
Alas,even walking the straight line,standing on one foot or the examination of body fluids won't do much if the driver messed up due to fatigue,texting,fiddling with the radio,folding a map,yelling at kids or any of the hundreds of other things that distract people while behind the wheel.
uh No Thanks it takes a trained professional several and I mean several tries to take blood from me and I would NEVER allow anyone but a professional to do this to me. Don't lab techs have to go to school for this? Of course they do so what makes anyone think a police officer should be allowed to pick up a needle and just start poking somebody.If Police Officers are going to be allowed to do a Lab Tech's job then Lab Tech's should be allowed to make arrest.
What other rights will we lose next? Are they going to start doing cavity checks on the side of the road to? The area for mistakes is rather large on the side of the road to try and stick a needle in someone who does not want it. I think the do gooders have gone to far this time.
I don't Drink. However= NO NO NO
I was just reading today about DWIs in MO, where a lot of police departments have a low rate of arrests. Usually, a cop will spend about half of his/her watch going through booking and doing all the paper work for one arrest. The bad part is if it is a 3rd time DWI, which a felony, it most times gets pled down. About the only time these characters go to jail is if they kill or seriously injure someone.
There really needs to be an application of common sense here-for everyone's sake.
I can just see the pro-fluoride lobby stepping into the debate over whether cops should do cavity searches.
But,then,we'd have arguments over whether hardened criminals deserve gold teeth,mercury amalgrams or composite fillings. ;)
Seems that officers can't demand breath tests but can forcibly take blood -- and that's been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
From David Melson
This ruling surprises me, as a court order is needed to collect blood samples and saliva swabs in criminal cases. When court approved - it is done in a sterile and clinical situation to avoid contamination.
A needle that is the proper size for a vein in the "crease of the eblow" it often too large for a vein in the back of a hand. How would or could the police determine this at the scene. It seems to me, this is a lawsuit or personal injury case waiting to happen.
I have had blood drawn by doctors and they missed the vein and hit an artery. The room looked like bad abstract art before they got it under control. I was lucky, as there were doctors everywhere - not the side of the road with someone who has no expertise in that field.
No I will not let the law draw my blood, we can go to the nearest ER and I will even pay for it, rather than risk my well being to an amateur.
Here is my problem with that:
1). How can I be sure they are using a "new" syringe (AIDS, HEP-C, etc.)?
2). If blood work should be drawn in a sterile environment for health and safety reasons, will the back seat of that little squad car be remodeled into a lab, or will they draw blood on the side of the highway where speeding cars blow dirt around?
3). How well are they going to be able to see on the side of the road to hit my vein, since most DUIs/DWIs occur at night after bar closing?
4). What happens if I turn out to be a "bleeder" (Haemophiliac) and my blood won't clot? Hey, I guess we could all claim haemophilia...
5). What if I faint at the sight of the needle/blood and hit my head on the pavement...do I sue the county or the cop or the ground (kidding)?
Seriously, I know a few cops who already have a "God complex." Just think how empowered they'll feel wielding a needle at you...I say NO THANKS!
GOTTA LOVE THAT GOOD OL' GOVERNMENT...LITTLE BY LITTLE THEY TAKE MORE AND MORE...
No, not unless it is a professional. There is too much risk for the officer to be hurt and the other indiviual. Drunks are not know for thier passive nature. And what if homeboy has aids??
Personally, I never drink, do drugs or drive under either of such influence BUT, I DISAGREE with the inappropriate measures of officers drawing blood. I am in the medical field and know how easily someone can get infected by needles, even if they are new...without proper infection control how are these officers going to do this? In fact, training one to do this is not adequate enough when out on the streets in line to do something else. What happened to the breath tests? What happened to plain common sense and proper discretion used by the officer? Drawing blood can be done in the wrong place, can cause possible infection,(especially out on the road) pour visibility at night or lack of concentration by the officer. They are not medically trained nor does that happen over night. This is totally absurd. WE have too many diseases such as AIDS and too many infections such as MRSA and Hepatitis going around and they are actually having officers doing this? NO WAY!!!! I think this is absolutely WRONG!!
I have a great deal of respect for and fully support our Law Enforcement People. But, drawing Blood should be done in a Clinical Setting by Health Care Professionals. And even then with un cooperative persons it is dangerous.
One other thought I forgot to mention was, the officers have no knowledge of ones medical record and what might happen during the process of 'drawing blood.' They are unaware of allergies, sizes of ones vein or if they have a hard time finding it, the person will walk away with a bruise, blood clot or other problem. The circumstances are not reason enough for officers to be drawing blood. If the person is on coumadin, what will happen if they begin bleeding rapidly? Will the officer be prepared to stop that too? Basically the officer needs a good deal of sterile equipment carried with them and the knowledge to know how to use them. I do not trust my veins in the way of an officer who has no clue to professional ethics and discretion of the medical field. I am against this!
I am all for using ANY appropriate means of getting drunk drivers off the road, but the allowing of a police officer, who also happens to be an UNTRAINED medical professional to draw blood is stepping WAY over the line. After all, we do still live in a place called America...Don't we?
I think this could be dangerous for both parties. I say no way.
Naaa, I agree with the others. Only Certified, Registered, or Licensed Techs. "FULLY TRAINED" and TESTED, and done in an appropriate "approved" areas should perform that.
I wondered if they would ever come up with a tangible manner in which to begin building a national dna database ......i hear voices sometimes too
Heh, Heh...Good point big daddy rabbit. I hear the voices sometimes too, but I only listen to the ones in my wife's head.
Try this: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
(You can add some of the pretty foils from florist and craft shops to add variety.)
Remember: The jury may be out on the accuracy of the MIT tinfoil hat study but one could become more vulnerable to the wrong sort of electronic emissions if one's protective headgear was made incorrectly.
One doesn't want to risk dementia from aluminum foil or cooking pans so try to keep metals such as mercury and aluninium out of direct contact with the skin.
Silver might prevent yet another source of inappropriate blood-taking and cold iron will ward off faerie should that be warranted.
If it were ever considered necessary to purge America of dangerous folk,the easiest method to acquire DNA might be to invite the worst elements onto a tabloid talk show and get blood samples to check how many of their underage children were fathered by Elvis,Bigfoot,little gray aliens or similar "friends with benefits".
There'd be enough volunteered corpuscles on file to quench the thirst of every vamp in Sunnydale,Forks,Bon Temps,Salem's Lot or Collinsport.