It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cops forcefully drawing blood-drunk driving

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 

It's not about defending drunk drivers , it;s about the rights we are losing more and more of everyday.
Maybe a person is not drunk but needs medical attention, problems with sugar, the cops just beat the # out of this one guy they thought was drunk, but was really some old citizen that was having a diabetic problem. Now he has permanent Brain Damage.
They should just waterboard the person to get to truth, then they would not need blood test.




posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This is fantastic! Hopefully this goes nationwide. A lawyer is less likely to try to fight an on-scene blood sample versus a breathalyzer result. And on-scene blood samples don't allow those who are over the limit time to sober up on the trip to the station before giving a sample. Now we have to get rid of judges that have soft spots for drunk drivers, and promote their activities.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pop_science
 


Take a look at our constitution.



I have the right to not incriminate myself.

A breathalyzer and mandatory blood test is just that . . . self incriminating.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
DUI's have become all about generating money for the State/City/County, and not about the law in todays world. I had someone close to me get one, and what happened through that experience radically changed my view on the legal system, and how “just” it really is. The incident happened about a month prior to, at the same location, and by the same officer as this more famous case: Internal Affairs investigating arrest of Fox 13 anchor

Generally, I am the person who gets the call when there is something legal to discuss, mainly because I am close friends with numerous police officers, keep up on the currant state statutes, and have had some experience in law. So its not uncommon for me to get the initial, “what should I do, who should I call, should I get an Attorney”, type calls. In this case, the person was close enough of a friend that I know the details from the Videos taken at the scene, and at Booking, and was able to speak with their attorney. I know this to be true, not from the persons askew viewpoint, but from the actual facts of the case. Additionally, most of you know I ALWAYS stick up for the police, unless they have done something blatantly wrong.

I also want to state for the record, that Drinking and Driving is certainly wrong, it's illegal for a reason, and advise that no one ever do such a thing. As you will see its certainly not worth the trouble. I almost lost one of my parents to a drunk driver many years ago...

Anyway...
This officer hangs out at the Channel Side Parking Garage, a popular club area in downtown Tampa Bay. He operates what is known as a “6 Unit”, which is strictly DUI enforcement, and everything is covered via dash-cam video units and hand-held video recorders. His stick is that he has another officer, most likely an off-duty officer working the garage or in the club, call him on his cellphone, and tell him who to pull over. This in itself is Illegal under our state laws, as an officer has to witness the events himself to make a traffic stop for a citation.

So on this night he pulls over this friend of mine within a few blocks of the Garage, and intentionally parks his car far enough away that the audio is not picked up by the video recorders, and at an angle so its not pointing at the vehicle. He approaches the window and tells the occupants that he has pulled them over because he received a call from his friend that they were driving recklessly INSIDE the Parking Garage, (WTF???). He has the driver leave the vehicle and walk back in front of the dash-cam, where he preforms the field sobriety test. The driver passes the field sobriety test, which was recorded on video, yet the officer arrests them anyway. The other occupant, a young, attractive female was left to be watched by a second male officer called to the scene for this purpose(my educated guess tells me that its the same officer who initially called the arresting officer), until she can arrange to have someone pick her up. So this person is taken to booking, and asked if they want a attorney present before they do a Breathalyzer test on them. The driver, of course is scared, has no retained attorney, and its like 11pm, so they are unsure of what to do. The Booking officer starts coaxing them with things such as, “go ahead and take the test, it wont be used against you in court anyway”, “Things will be worse if you don't take the test”, yelling that they have to hurry and make up their mind, etc. All of which was recorded, and was grounds to have the case dismissed. It was about 5 hours later (4am) when I got my first call from my friend, AFTER they had been bullied into taking the tests. After bailing this person out, we find that the deputies have removed $80 from the persons wallet to pay for their wonderful stay with them at their spectacular facility, and that they have removed the persons drivers license.

Now comes the fun stuff.
They have their first discovery hearing on the case, view the footage, and get testimony from the arresting officer. The officer cannot recall why he parked so far away during the initial stop, but denies that he pulled them over due to a call from a friend. He also states that he followed the car for miles, and that he decided to pull them over because the person was recklessly driving to such a point that he thought they might be having a medical issue. None of this of course is attested to in the video footage, where there is not only no evident reckless driving, but also it can be seen that he only followed the car a few blocks. The tape of him being coerced into taking the test is also brought into question, and the Attorney, a former state prosecutor, moves to suppress most of the data collected as it was collected improperly. Apparently though its up to the Prosecutors officer, which they of course want to win the case, to decide if it can be suppressed or not (WTF?, how is this legal or fair?). They naturally refuse, as if they lose the case, they themselves can be prosecuted for wrongful arrest, which COSTS them money rather then GENERATING money. Now, knowing that their case sucks, they start with the crappy plea-deals, figuring that they can use the average persons lack of both understanding and money to sway them into incriminating themselves. The plea-deal is refused, as they have no case at this point.

So the next trick is to start hitting the defendant in the pocketbook, and take away their means to put up a defense that involves a lot of Legal Hours. The Secretary of State Office, apparently runs their own Kangaroo Court, outside the rest of the legal system, and the person has to jump through about 2 weeks to a month worth of hoops with them to get a temporary restricted license to drive to work and school. Despite the fact that the person has yet to be charged with any crime, citation, or even refusal to take their tests. The excuse for this is that if the person were to get into an accident after being arrested for a DUI, then the state could be sued for allowing them to continue driving until their court date. The truth is that they want you to lose your job so they can get a plea-deal out of you, an easy win for them, which maximizes the amount of money they can get from the defendant. If the plea-deal is still not accepted then they suspend your temporary license for an additional 1 to 6 months, just before your case goes to real court. This is your punishment from the Secretary of State Office, dispute not having been legally charged with anything yet, and is intended to be a 1-2 punch to your finances so you will bend to their plea-deal and accept their verdict without a fight.

Meanwhile, in the REAL court system...
The case comes up to court. The state, deciding that it really does not have a case, offers a deal of “reckless driving” only, knowing full well that the person has already been punished by the DMV for drunk driving anyway without even being charged with such. The attorney, in a later much argued decision, talks my friend into accepting this deal
. The best I can figure out is that its either because she was an ex-Prosecutor, and still in tight with the folks in the Prosecutors Office, or she really did not want to be bothered fighting this. So now this person has a Felony on their record, when DUI is nothing more then a traffic citation, WTF? The reason they went with the “reckless driving” is because the officer has more leeway in deciding to pull someone over for this, since the initial pull-over was illegal to begin with. So the final score ends up being: Felony Reckless Driving, Time Served, 12 months Probation, Counseling for Alcohol Abuse (which I cannot figure out since he was not charged with drunk driving), A class on Drunk Driving (Again why?), community service, Court Costs, and defense lawyer fees.

Then he still had to jump through hoops to get his license back from the DMV, even though he was never charged with DUI??? WTF????

Total Profit made by the state and its buddies:

$500 Bail, part of which goes to court costs.
$850 Court Costs.
$80 To pay for your stay in Jail???
$2000 Defense Lawyer, who basically sold him out in the end.
$160 DMV Temporary Restricted License, which they revoke a week later anyway.
$250 State run DUI School.
$35 Per week for state chosen DUI Counseling, probably a relative of someone in the local Gov.
$500 to pay off community service.
$???? Cost of getting to work/school.
$???? Increase in insurance.

At the DUI counter attack school, he was told that some of the folks in the class were out as much as $15,000 on their first offense.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
No way. No way. Most lab technicians can't properly draw blood (mom is an CNM, RN, LNC, she knows half of them do it wrong.)

So they're going to let police officers do it?

HIV is an issue, hitting an artery is an issue, hepatitis, WHAT IF YOU'RE HEMOPHILIAC?

No way. No way it could ever pass. If anything they should arrest you and take you somewhere where you can safely have your blood drawn after they can access your medical record.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Well, I can tell you that here in Florida, its done by what they call BAT units. Its a mobile trailer they set up at a road-block, and they have the proper personnel in that trailer to draw blood. The officers handle the road-block and the holding area where you wait to be tested. They have medical personnel who do the actual testing. I have watched them set up one of these units in a parking lot near where I work, and looked into because I was wondering what they were doing there.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
This is a totally misleading title and story. The police do not stop you and draw your blood on the spot. READ the article.....If the officer suspects the driver is drunk, if the driver refuses breathalizer test, the driver is arrested taken to jail whete the officer calls a JUDGE who is standing by for a Search Warrant for the blood of the driver. Once the warrant is verified, a Certified Emergency Medical Technician, who is standing by at the jail also, withdraws two vials of blood from the driver using a butterfly set. As you can see, this is a much different tale than advertised. Don't allow people like this to form your opinions for you.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

1. They often stop intoxicated drivers for straddling lane markers, weaving between lanes, driving at excessive or very slow speeds, braking erratically and coming in close contact with objects or other vehicles.
2. police may observe the driver for objective signs of intoxication.
3. Field sobriety tests
4. A driver's BAC is tested by breath, blood, or urine



Those are all "hunches" except for 4. They don't prove the legal limit.



All are much safer then stabbing someone with a needle.


Drawing blood is very safe - in fact, it is STERILE.




Personally, I wouldn't mind a breathalizer after a field test. Breathalizers are non-invasive and results are determined immediately.


Personally, I drive very well, am polite to cops, and have never had a problem with being falsely accused of drunk driving when pulled over; however, I can tell you have more weight in this discussion since you seem to have a lot of experience with drunk driving and what is more convenient for you, personally, after a field test.

I agree that Breathalizers are non-invasive. I hope that all drunk drivers see blood draws as being VERY invasive. As a matter of fact, the point of this move is thatDRAWING BLOOD IS VERY INVASIVE. Perhaps the next time you get behind the wheel after you've had a case of beers, you'll be thinking about a cop stabbing you with a needle instead of just taking a Breathalyzer - of course, as you say, you'd just wrestle with the cops I guess.



How many people would have to hold you down to keep you perfectly still so they can stick you with a needle without you moving. If you move, a needle can rupture a vein, tear skin, etc.. In other words, do a lot of damage.


They won't have to hold down the great majority of people. Most people will realize that they #ed up by drunk driving in the first place. Likely, the ones who do drive, they'll be compliant with the cops so that they don't get other charges, such as resisting arrest, resisting a sobriety test, puncturing the officer, etc... etc...

Then again, you seem to have more experience with wrestling groups of cops than I do, so again you have more weight here.



And if you don't submit, you'll suffer automatic consequences anyway so it's not like you're going to get off if you don't submit.


Ok, so the drunk drivers suffer consequences. Oh well. You seem to be confused and think that everyone is going to get their blood drawn.



No. Read above for a bit more details.


I have, but all I'm reading are detailed excuses for drunks.



We're also talking about the safety of everyone involved including the officers.


I'm drinking a 12 pack right now. I'm not going to drive anymore tonight.

At all.

Hows that for safety?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by debris765nju
This is a totally misleading title and story. The police do not stop you and draw your blood on the spot. READ the article.....If the officer suspects the driver is drunk, if the driver refuses breathalizer test, the driver is arrested taken to jail whete the officer calls a JUDGE who is standing by for a Search Warrant for the blood of the driver. Once the warrant is verified, a Certified Emergency Medical Technician, who is standing by at the jail also, withdraws two vials of blood from the driver using a butterfly set. As you can see, this is a much different tale than advertised. Don't allow people like this to form your opinions for you.


Actually if you read through the thread you'll find that some do it at the jail but some also do it on the spot.

I haven't mislead anyone. I suggest you read the thread and links more thoroughly.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illuminatus I

All are much safer then stabbing someone with a needle.



Drawing blood is very safe - in fact, it is STERILE.

The needle itself may be sterile but you're assuming that qualified personnel are performing the draw in a safe and sterile manner.




Personally, I wouldn't mind a breathalizer after a field test. Breathalizers are non-invasive and results are determined immediately.



however, I can tell you have more weight in this discussion since you seem to have a lot of experience with drunk driving and what is more convenient for you, personally, after a field test.

I find your accusations very insulting.
I've been driving for 25 years and have been pulled over 2 times for speeding and once for not wearing a seat belt. Both of the speeding tickets were for 10 over and I was actually going 10 over the speed limit....this is when I was in high school. The seat belt ticket came with the second speeding ticket. I fought both and won as the judge didn't believe the officer.

I've never drove while intoxicated nor have I been pulled over.

That being said, the only reason I mentioned I wouldn't mind a breathalizer is that it is not invasive. I would NOT allow them to draw blood.

As mentioned above, I was pulled over and given 2 tickets, one was for speeding and one was for not wearing a seat belt. I wasn't speeding and I was wearing a seat belt. My point is that you could be pulled over and accused of whatever the cop wants including drunk driving. Hopefully you get my point now???


I agree that Breathalizers are non-invasive. I hope that all drunk drivers see blood draws as being VERY invasive. As a matter of fact, the point of this move is thatDRAWING BLOOD IS VERY INVASIVE. Perhaps the next time you get behind the wheel after you've had a case of beers, you'll be thinking about a cop stabbing you with a needle instead of just taking a Breathalyzer - of course, as you say, you'd just wrestle with the cops I guess.

Here you've obviously decided I drive drunk even though I've given no indication I have nor ever would. In fact, I've gone out of my way to mention I never have nor will I ever. You either haven't read the thread or just like to insult people with lies.
I also never said I would wrestle with the cop.



How many people would have to hold you down to keep you perfectly still so they can stick you with a needle without you moving. If you move, a needle can rupture a vein, tear skin, etc.. In other words, do a lot of damage.



They won't have to hold down the great majority of people. Most people will realize that they #ed up by drunk driving in the first place.

Yes drunk people use those reasoning skills all the time....wait they drove drunk which indicates a lack of reasoning skills.

Also, swearing is a no-no. You might want to learn new words to avoid getting warned/banned.


Likely, the ones who do drive, they'll be compliant with the cops so that they don't get other charges, such as resisting arrest, resisting a sobriety test, puncturing the officer, etc... etc...

Of course because drunk people are just so reasonable all the time



Then again, you seem to have more experience with wrestling groups of cops than I do, so again you have more weight here.

Please point out EXACTLY where I've said that or stop posting slanderous material.



And if you don't submit, you'll suffer automatic consequences anyway so it's not like you're going to get off if you don't submit.



Ok, so the drunk drivers suffer consequences. Oh well. You seem to be confused and think that everyone is going to get their blood drawn.

uh....yeah... that's what the thread is about. Didn't you read it??? It's not that long. Let me know if you don't understand something.



No. Read above for a bit more details.



I have, but all I'm reading are detailed excuses for drunks.

What are you talking about? Please show me EXACTLY where these "excuses" are located. Seems like you're completely missing the entire point of the thread.



We're also talking about the safety of everyone involved including the officers.



I'm drinking a 12 pack right now. I'm not going to drive anymore tonight.

At all.

Hows that for safety?

I'm not surprised at all based on your responses.

Don't drink and drive
Don't drink and post

Both will make you look stupid and possibly get you into trouble.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by jfj123]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Here in Oz blood tests have been standard since the introduction of breathalyser checkpoints. The samples were (and still are) taken by suitably qualified people who used to be stationed in a van near to the checkpoint (the infamous 'booze bus').

Surely unqualifed people won't be taking these samples as that would open the police up to all sorts of litigation possibilities but one point worth mentioning is that breathalysers are notoriously inaccurate in terms of blood alcohol content and they generally read higher than true BAC so it's in your best interests to have a blood test if the breath test is only a point or 2 above the legal limit. The reason for this is the presence of alcohol in the mouth and throat.

One other thing here - refusal to submit to testing constitutes an admission of guilt and incurs the same penalty as failing the test. Cops here do not get you to walk on one leg while reciting the alphabet backwards, they first ask if you've been drinking then, based on observing your behaviour and/or smell of booze on your breath, give you a breathalyser to blow into. Failing that test takes you to the next step - the blood test to establish an accurate figure for legal purposes.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
checking for swine flu and taking a dna sample to add to their database, most likely



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
This became a law in Delaware in the mid 1990's...

If you refuse an Intoxilyzer Test, you can be taken into any medical center/hospital and have blood drawn and tested...

With or without your permission.

The key is that operating a motor vehicle on a "state owned" highway is not a "right", it is a privilege granted by the state. When you accept that privilege, you agree to be tested for alcohol at the request of an officer.

Same in Maryland and South Carolina as well and I am fairly sure in most states.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
 


I agree that it is a privilege however, performing a forced blood draw simply isn't right. There are other non-invasive ways of determining blood alcohol levels. The part I have the most problem with is that you can't refuse and take a defacto punishment.
This opens up safety and legal issues if someone is injured in the course of taking a blood sample and since you can't follow the chain of evidence yourself (ie a breathalizer), you have no idea whether or not the blood is even yours when they come back with the result, OR if they decide to check for other drugs and they come up positive. Ever take a drug test after eating a poppy seed bagel?



..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 25-5-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Funny that I came across this thread, I when I got caught I was not given a Breathalyzer and when at the station they wanted to give me a blood test which I refused. Next thing I heard was 6 cops marching military style and restrained me and took my blood. Although I refused I had no choice.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You are not forced to get a drivers license or drive on the state owned roadway..

If you don't want to give blood, don't drive...

Or even easier.. Don't drink and drive...

Semper



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by jfj123
 


You are not forced to get a drivers license or drive on the state owned roadway..

Of course not but the reality is that in order to travel freely within our borders, which we do have the right to do, most of us must drive. That's the reality.


If you don't want to give blood, don't drive...

And I guess if you don't want to be accused of a crime, never leave your house. You seem to be saying that we should never do anything that might put us into a situation that may come out bad.
If you leave your house, someone might mis-identify you as a criminal so never leave you house....got it.


Or even easier.. Don't drink and drive... Semper

I'm not condoning drinking and driving in any way however, they still have rights and should be treated reasonably. I don't believe forcefully taking blood from someone is reasonable. Especially when there are less invasive options and in addition, failure to comply with any of those options results in a defacto punishment so it's not like anyone will get away with it if they don't do blood tests.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
I can't believe this! I'm a registered nurse and there are many places that don't allow licensed practical NURSES to draw blood. LPN's have to have specialized training on top of their nurses training to be certified for drawing blood and starting IV's. But we're going to let cops do it?!

It is possible to cause enough damage to someone by poking holes in the veins (or arteries-how would cops know the difference?) to cause someone to have to have their arm amputated.

Someone will just have to come get me out of jail. I'm not submitting to this at all. Ever!


I hear you loud and clear, nurse! And let me say, I have a lot of respect for you and all of the nurses that do the dirty work in hospitals and take care of people like their own kids. I have spent a lot of time in hospitals, and nurses are big on my list of good people. That being said, this blood draw is basically un-Constitutional, and very dangerous for the reasons mentioned earlier. Blood bearing illness is a real danger here, and cops are not qualified to do this, or any other medical procedure. Just like they (cops) are not qualified to install or operate radar speed machines either. And further more, check points are not legal either, a policeman has to have probably cause to stop a vehicle. Further, a policeman had to have a surety bond to even carry a gun on duty, and most cops do not have a bond. Try asking a cop for the name and number of his/her bonding agent sometime, and look and the face they make. If they want my blood, they will have to kill me.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Since I am not a drinker I have nothing to worry about. For those who do drink and drive, hopefully this will be enough for these stupid people to stop driving while drinking.

This just made the news here in Colorado. If you refuse a road side test, they can take you to a hospital and have blood drawn. Only problem with that is that the test would be a different time period from when the traffic stop was made.

A new law would make it easier for police at a traffic stop to take a blood sample which would provide an instant result.

What's the point? Don't Drink and Drive



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by starwatcher1
Since I am not a drinker I have nothing to worry about.

Because bad things ONLY happen to bad people right? Nobody has ever been wrongfully arrested while doing absolutely nothing wrong?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join