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.

 

Colorado Police Plan to Take Blood from “Uncooperative Suspects”

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

One Colorado police chief is preparing to launch a controversial practice in the fight against drunken driving by seeking search warrants that would give his officers the power to have blood drawn from uncooperative suspects.
source
source


Even in the name of preventing DUI, this is going too far. It sounds to me more like a scheme to get more DNA into the police database. This measure is obviously unnecessary because breathalyzer data is admissible in court So, there is with little doubt an ulterior motive here.


TA





[edit on 25-5-2009 by TheAssociate]




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Apparently, Illinois is in on this scam too and they've even dropped the pretenses (article). Won't be long until we see door-to-door DNA sample collectors.


TA



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I know in this day and age anything is possible, but I doubt that anything search warrant issued for people to give blood will fly in court.

Of course though they already have what they want, the DNA for the database they are building. They will order it destroyed, and when they do it the news will be on the 11th page of main section of the paper and be all of two lines long and they will only destroy a few samples but most of the samples they will transfer to another facility.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I just can't understand how this goes under the classification as a search warrant?

Anyway, can I just confirm one thing. So you re saying, A police officer arrests you or at least takes you into custody for suspected drunk driving. Whilst detained, if you deny to give and evidential blood test, they will . to the courts to get a "Search Warrant" to force you to give blood?

It does seem rather suspicious to me that they "FORCE" you to give blood. Where is the democracy in that?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 



I live in Colorado, and cops are brutal out here.

A large majority of people I've met here in CO have gotten DUI.'s

Including myself.

They will actually sit in the parking lot of a bar and follow people when they leave. Awesome.


He was trying to force me to a blood test. I harshly resisted with a few nice words of my own.
I did take the road breathalizor, and another at the station.
Otherwise it's a year automatic on your license.

But this unbelievable.

I just don't see the grounds for this. It's not like there's a "drunk driving" epidemic in Colorado.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I live in Idaho and they can do that here. A friend of mine recently got a DUI after a false stop by a policeman

He passed the field sobriety test, even according to the officer that was with him. They took him to jail anyway and told him he could volunteer for the blood draw or they would take it from him.

He refused , and ...well they took it from him without consent

The officer went on to lie in court about the reason he pulled him over and the circumstances, THEY DIDNT EVEN RELEASE THE IN CAR VIDEO OF THE PULLOVER AND ARREST!

In my opinion anytime you sacrifice human rights for the sake of the law you are over stepping your bounds..

Long story short, he spent 3 months in jail and none of the bogus stuff including the blood draw and fudged documents were even questioned.

Apparently its legal here in idaho for them to take your blood without consent



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Piranha
 



So you re saying, A police officer arrests you or at least takes you into custody for suspected drunk driving. Whilst detained, if you deny to give and evidential blood test, they will . to the courts to get a "Search Warrant" to force you to give blood?


That's how it looks:


"This is actually a search warrant to search a person for evidence of a crime," Kozak said of the plan he intends to implement this summer. "We believe the blood, of course, of a suspected drunken driver is very important evidence."

But many repeat drunken drivers already have suspended licenses, Kozak argued, and therefore there's little incentive for them to submit to a breath or blood test.

it was accepted protocol to seek search warrants in cases where suspected drunken drivers refused to submit to a blood or breath test.





reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya
 



I just don't see the grounds for this...


I don't think this has much to do with drunk driving at all. I think it's a cover to begin DNA collections from suspected drunk drivers.


"We're hoping by doing this we can obtain some favorable case law so that the program can expand throughout the state," Kozak said.



TA



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 





Apparently its legal here in idaho for them to take your blood without consent


I wouldn't doubt it, but it sounds more like your friend ran afoul of some corrupt cops. It's a damn shame that stuff like that happens in, of all places, The United States. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


TA



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
well that too, but he did learn that it indeed IS legal for them to do that, its a new law they past a lil less than a year ago.

It use to be they could only draw blood from you involuntarily if you were in an accident and they suspected alcohol.

Now they can take it from you whether you have or not.

I spent a weekend in jail here for unpaid parking tickets

while i was there, they were re using old razors, and we also had a MRSA outbreak where they were putting in people in general population who had it, eventually infecting numerous people and even spreading it to the prison.

Its bad here and there are corrupt people........but it doesnt change the fact that the have indeed past a law where they can take your blood without consent and as of yet, theres nothing we can do about it. Even his attorney was shocked.

We have talked at length about this and wonder if there is a way to change it, however im afraid im at a loss



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Any cops that obey these kind of directives should know what it means for their own children and loved ones and what they will in turn one day be exposed too...

What goes around comes around guys

Allow this in your precinct it will be your own kids one day too...

Many good cops out there, many have voiced disapproval vocally about allot of what is going on

What we need to do here is win the hearts and minds of the cops not alienate them further, in the end there are other Americans behind those badges and all it would take is a bit of activism within the force to keep things cool with everything



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
This is nothing new,back in 1976 I was arrested for a DUI,they said I had to give blood,I was freaked out with needles,so it took 5 cops to hold me down and was forced to give blood,I informed my attorney,he said they'll just say you were drunk and gave permission,I had to do a weekend and years probation,needless to say I gave up drinking as a result of this



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
There is a reason they are doing this. Blood tests are more accurate than Breathalyzers, which are easier to have thrown out of court. Do you really expect someone who is dishonest and selfish enough to drive drunk to admit it in court? Sorry, I have NO problem with this, you get what you deserve for getting arrested for driving under the influence. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and you forfeit that right by placing others in danger.
Somehow I doubt there is a giant underground force of cops (who mostly are underpaid to begin with) conspiring with the PTB to take your DNA, I doubt they even want to draw blood to start with. All it is doind is exposing them to your germs.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by secretagent woooman
 


being drunk or not is NOT the issue here........the issue here is the bigger picture of them being able to pass laws to take your own bodily fluid from you without consent.......its the slippery slope you . down when you allow this thats the scary part.......people need to have a little foresight in what normal people would find "no big deal"



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I'm surprised that they haven't already started taking blood from newborns to put onto the database BEFORE they can become criminals ( just for future referrence of course).
Give it time though before some bright spark realises it.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


They actually do take blood from newborns, there was even a thread on here i think? or maybe there wasnt i dunno.....but i do know about a week ago there was some stuff on the news about some people finding out about this and getting upset, apparently this has been going on for years



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I know that the hospital staff staff take a small sample to verify the bloodtype but other than that I haven't heard they take a sample for DNA databasing ( yet)..



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


What was happening was they were taking the blood samples for the various legitimate reasons blood is taken from a newborn, but they weren't destroying them like they were supposed to. I don't remember exactly where this happened but it was pretty recent. What information they gathered from the samples and where the info ended up is anybody's guess.


TA



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
There is a reason they are doing this. Blood tests are more accurate than Breathalyzers, which are easier to have thrown out of court. Do you really expect someone who is dishonest and selfish enough to drive drunk to admit it in court? Sorry, I have NO problem with this, you get what you deserve for getting arrested for driving under the influence. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and you forfeit that right by placing others in danger.
Somehow I doubt there is a giant underground force of cops (who mostly are underpaid to begin with) conspiring with the PTB to take your DNA, I doubt they even want to draw blood to start with. All it is doind is exposing them to your germs.




I usually find myself on the your side of the argument, as I have conservative thoughts against criminals (in general) as well.
But how can you not have a problem with this?
You said: ""Blood tests are more accurate than Breathalyzers, which are easier to have thrown out of court.""



That's true, they are accurate, and can detect ANYTHING (of influence) you are under....... Yeah, IN A LAB!!
when are breathalyzer tests ever considered not worthy of evidence, and "get thrown out of court?"
Do you care to provide us with some cases as example?
Becasue as far as I know, they are the nail in the coffin in a case, and determine precisely how drunk you are, by "blood" alcohol content, or BAC.

They work very successful in evidentiary use, and preliminary screening.
Always have. It's fair to say, if it hasn't worked they wouldn't have used it in court cases in the first place!



­Alcohol that a person drinks shows up in the breath because it gets absorbed from the mouth, throat, stomach and intestines into the bloodstream.

Alcohol­ is not digested upon absorption, nor chemically changed in the bloodstream

Capish?

Now, I'd like to show you something, madam.


­Alcohol intoxication is legally defined by the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level. However, taking a blood sample in the field for later analysis in the laboratory is not practical or efficient for detaining drivers suspected of driving while impaired (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI). Urine tests for alcohol proved to be just as impractical in the field as blood sampling. What was needed was a way to measure something related to BAC without invading a suspect's body.



Many offic­ers in the field rely on breath alcohol testing devices (Breathalyzer is one type) to determine the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in drunken-driving suspects. In this article, we will examine the scientific principles and technology behind these breath alcohol testing devices.



Do you care to comment on that.??



I agree with you. Driving IS a privilege, not a right. Technically, you lose that privilege by having to buckle-up, and that's fine.
Seatbelts save lives. I'm game.

Back @ 'la discussione.'
Taking BLOOD from your body however is fu**ing with your rights.
Whether you understand that or not.
Do you suggest roadside urine tests?
You're right, they wouldn't do that because "too many germs."

That's great.

And this has nothing do to with a cop's salary, madam. It if fair to say your are elaborating on this matter.


BTW, you trust a cop with taking blood from you, or others in general?
Since when are cops in the medical business.?
Would you let/trust cops take blood from your kids?

Just a thought.




(edit)SOURCE (how breathalyzers work): electronics.howstuffworks.com...




*anybody see my jacket?*





[edit on 28-5-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

As most regulars here know me by now, I am pretty pro-law enforcement and this is my major and career choice too. I am also very very firm on my belief that DUI drivers need HARSH punishments - since they are putting others' lives at risk.

I actually do have a problem with this.

1. I have had nurses unable to properly poke me to give shots or take blood. Having to train cops to take blood just seems like a nightmare for all parties involved.

2. The possibility of mishandling of the blood concerns me. Not necessarily intentional, but the accidents that could happen. That is why the have CSI teams to collect evidence, not street cops. CSI are trained for things street cops are not. It is also why there are EMTs that come to accident scenes instead of street cops handling everything on their own.

I think if a suspect is not cooperative then arrest him, take him to jail and let properly trained EMTs take blood tests. I am all for getting drunks off the road and them having harsh punishments - but I am not for cops having to play doctor along with all their other duties.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Thnx for your comments and input greeneyedleo.

If there is anyone here on ATS that I've (read through posts) on logical prespective of the law it's yourself, madam.

Excellent points. Clearly you brought out (with eloquence) of the major, major flaws that "blood tests" can have.

Clearly the breathalyzor is the best, and most proper/precise tool to determine BAC, especially right on the spot, when that alcohol is soaked in the person.

Another note on blood tests: by the time a person arrives at the hospital the alcohol level goes way down. Even if blood test were to be considered in a proper facilty, such as a hospital, (with nurse or whatever) it still wouldn't have the benefits of convicting an abusive offender by the breathalyzor.
If anything, I would picture more cases being thrown out of court because of the failure of a solid case against the offender, by the evident flaws of "blood tests."

(I love saying this) It's like drilling a hole in water.


Conclusion: breathalyzors work better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now. Let me clarify as well, a bit on my case, here in Colorado.
I don't want people to read my 1st post and get the wrong impression here. This was also the first time ever getting arrested.
Welcome to Denver.

I'd like to mention I lost 2 friends in my lifetime because people weren't responsible about their actions, and decide to drive drunk.
So I'd like to consider myself someone who believes in harsh penalties as well. Truly.
Okay. I was on a date. We went to the movies, then a nightcap at a local bar. Blah blah.....
I had two cocktails, and actually cut myself off knowing I was driving, as I always do, seriously. I can't imagine how much $$$ I've spent in taxi fares in bacause I respect the welfare of others, and I DO NOT drive drunk. I miss NYC subway for that matter.

Upon leaving the parking lot, I noticed I was followed by marked cruiser.
We made a stop @ a Del Taco. Still following me. (4 miles later)
You would figure @ this point, I would've been pulled over if I was atleast danger to anyone. Swirving, crossing lanes, ANYTHING!
Follows me for another 4-6 miles. At a red light, he pulls me over for "EXPIRED TEMPORARY TAGS."
I hadn't received my title for my car yet (being a new CO resident) so I wasn't able to register until I had that title. I told him that, he understood.
He asked me if I had anything to drink.
Rule # 1. Never lie to a cop. I was honest, I told him I had precisely 2 glasses of wine.

He makes me step out of the car and do sobriety tests.
This went on for atleast 20 minutes.
(It was a freeeezing November night, btw.)
I passed them all, with flying colors. By this time, my hands were numb, I was shivering, I kindly asked if I could get my jacket. He was very rude.
Meanwhile he has big jacket, cushy gloves, and winter hat on.
At this point, I started to get ticked. I know my rights.
I'm also a veteran, and don't deserve to be treated like this.
I'm a law abiding citizen.
He was convinced on taking me in for something. Probably my thick East Coast accent, and the fact I was freezing, started getting really frustrated and a bit hostile didn't help.
I know that.
He sked me to take a breathalyzor. I did.
He claimed I blew .075. He wouldn't let me see the breathalyzor.

Well, heck let me see it!

I know I wasn't drunk. He did too, seriously.
I was below the limit ANYWAY! Even @ .075!
He was trying to force a bloodtest. At this point, my voice could be heard louder as this was clearly violating my rights.
I did everything he asked. Cooperated 100%.
Now I'm just being made the fool.
No way. I stand my ground.
I asked that I immedietaly wanted to call my lawyer at this point because I felt he was acting in violation, and my rights are being abused.
He instantly said: "Oh yeah?!"

This is when he handcuffed me.
I kept repeating: "Why am I being arrested, sir!
Why am I being arrested."
His response: "Because you're a prick."

Now, on the paperwork, he wrote I failed my sobriety tests. And (get this)
that he pulled me over for swirving. That's BS.

I told the DA everything. (pre-trial).
I requested the cop be present on a trial for his testimony.
He never showed, btw.
She actually apologized at my next hearing, (after reviewing my case).
Now, my exact words infront of the judge were:
"I believe I wasn''t drunk. Truly. I passed my sobriety tests, in contradiction of what the officer claimed, fully coopertated. And
was honest about having two cocktails, which I believe (ultimately) gave the officer grounds to sobriety test, etc."
Understandable. But he abused this ground once I was eleviated as "being drunk."
As I had a witness also, and more importantly madam (it was a she) I'm just glad no-one got hurt. Bottom line."
I told her I trusted her judgement for my punishment.
She appreciated my brutal honesty. (I think ??)
Dropped to a DWAI. Still harsh. Turned my life upside down. yeah.
If you live in this state, you'll know that not having a car sucks really bad.
You know what. I DID have two cocktails, and I thought I was being responsible by being honest about it.

I feel I was arrested for my mouth, not being drunk.

Anyway.....just wanted to share my story.

I should mention that was the last date with her too.


And that I learned my lesson 2. Even one drink is too much.




Again, drunk drivers (I agree) should be faced with harsh punishments.
There's been waaaay to many tragedies to prove it's evidently a risk to safety measure to other's welfare, and safety.
Believe me, I know. And the laws are getting harsher. GOOD.

source: dui.drivinglaws.org...


Back back on topic...yeah......bloodsamples is a PREPOSTEROUS idea, and serves a flawed purpose in detecting drunk drivers.

If you really cared about "determining" drunk drivers, an accurate account, and proper convictions in court, vote to keep the breathalyzor. It simply works, and CONVICTS better.


Peace.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join