Drawing Blood Will Help Stop Drunk Driving, Police Say

reply to post by Ha`la`tha


Nevermind.

You are looking for an altercation.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by jd140]

Originally posted by stevegmu
I'm pretty sure the 'free' state of California already has a law stating the police can forcibly draw blood on any motorist suspected of being intoxicated. A nurse does it at the station, though.

If this is true, it's no wonder California is broke. Let's think about this.

You CANNOT refuse a breathalizer in the United States. It is cause for IMMEDIATE suspension of your license. You agree to that when you sign for your license.

SO, if they aren't drawing blood untill you get to the station, and you can't refuse a brethalizer(which are administered in the field), why do they need to waste money on drawing blood as well?

Also, as far as sobriety tests go, you can refuse anything except a breathalizer. Any other test is nothing but evidence gathering for an officer. Don't do it.

And, last but not least; Mouthwash will not get you passed a breathalizer. Ciggarrettes, if just smoked, will actually make you show "FAIL", even if you haven't been drinking. Sticking a quarter in your mouth CAN(not does, but can) alter the results, but there is no way to guarantee that you are going to pass a breathalizer if yo have been drinking.

reply to post by maldronath


Yes half an hour.

Accidents happen, you lived. If you think the lady taking your blood was incompetent you should have sued.

Unless you only like to be the tough outspoken type on the computer.

Either way I don't care. I have stated my opinion, if you don't like it to bad, I am done here.

reply to post by freeyourmind1111


Why are the not using breathalisers?

We have them here in the UK, and they work very well for alcohol.

They are electronic, they have a replaceable mouthpiece (one for each test), and require the suspect only to blow into the small plastic tube.

As has been said before, this is probably more to do with gathering everyones DNA for their commie type database than finding DUI's.

If they have a *valid* reason to suspect drugs, then that suspect should be arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs, taken to the local police station, where a qualified and certified *DOCTOR*, not the police can take a blood sample for testing for the presence of intoxicating drugs.

Never should a roadside or kerbside forced medical procedure be allowed.

There is simply too much that can go wrong, and it is wide open to corruption and abuse.

In the UK they swab the inside of your mouth and take a DNA sample for any offence that sees you taken to the station. So far the database has been fantastic at linking people to crimes, especially rapes so I am for it however I do not think taking blood is the answer, this is normally reserved if the person refuses a breathalizer. Why not just breathalize them

reply to post by Jakes51

Don't give them an inch because they will most surely take that mile.

We already gave up a mile with the DUI checkpoints. How much more control are people going to give up?

Originally posted by Jakes51
That plan by the police officer is Unconstitutional and downright an invasion of privacy. This story is outrageous!

Oh please. Blood is routinely drawn in many localities if there is probable cause. I was in a grand jury and heard cases. No bog deal. If you reek alcohol, and/or are involved in a deadly accident, there is a probable cause so your argument re: 4th amendment is quite void.

By the way, during my duty, one guy was saved from prosecution exactly because he voluntarily underwent blood test (and no alcohol was detected).

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by freeyourmind1111

 

A breathalyzer can be tricked by putting a fresh stick of gum in right when you are pulled over, taking a swig of mouth wash or by smoking a cigarette.

Myth, myth and... myth.

None of those things will fool an official breathalyzer. The reason is pretty simple, when you breathe out a significant portion of the air comes from your stomach. Chewing gum or smoking a cigarette might cover up the smell, but it won't hide the alcohol in your system. Mouthwash will only make the results worse, as most brands contain alcohol.

I find it so terribly ironic that the people who seem to be in favor of imposing this authoritarian rule are also the people who are always claiming to uphold and respect the Constitution.

I guess you guys have never heard of the fourth amendment? Or does the Constitution only matter when it pertains to your agenda?

Republican/democrat, liberal/conservative; All fine by me. But the minute you start to advocate authoritarian government you lose my respect. This government was founded upon libertarian principles: principles all level-headed Americans should hold dear.

Hmm, not quite true, in a way. My brother had a breathalyzer installed in his vehicle after a drunk driving incident. He deserved it if you ask me. But, if he smoked a cigarette and immediately used the breathalyzer it would give him a positive reading. So he would always have to wait a few minutes after smoking to use the breathalyzer. So, smoking confuses the system and gives a positive alcohol reading. I am not sure why this is.

So if you are smoking, and the police want you to take a breathalyzer, let them know you were smoking a cigarette, as it will give a positive reading. Waiting five minutes should avert the problem though.

No one, and I mean no one, under any circumstances, will be taking blood from me when we are not in a sterile environment by a trained nurse or physician. Even in a sterile environment, a person could get very sick from air born germs etc. Can you imagine being on the side of the road and the police trying to draw blood from you while cars zoom by? nuh uh don't think so.

On drunk driving? They should permanently loose their license.

Harm None
Peace

This is really frightening, however.. it would have actually saved me from my DUI.

reply to post by Rhaze

This is really frightening, however.. it would have actually saved me from my DUI.

How? The possibility of killing someone didn't detour you but a blood test would have?

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Rhaze

 

This is really frightening, however.. it would have actually saved me from my DUI.

How? The possibility of killing someone didn't detour you but a blood test would have?

It was the morning after, I was sober as far as I knew. My driving was fine, and I passed every test besides the breathalizer. I'm absolutely sure the blood test would have netted me an MIP instead.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by maldronath

 

"Yes half an hour."

And then be competent to perform this safely on all body types... puhleeze.

"Accidents happen, you lived. If you think the lady taking your blood was incompetent you should have sued."

No, she wasn't incompetent but in obviously a bad mood when the procedure was done. I did complain and was told she would be counseled.
I am not a litiginous type, nor did I want her to lose her job...just exert more care.


"Unless you only like to be the tough outspoken type on the computer."

WTF??? elicited this type of personal attack? Apparently you consider what you say to be above question.

Either way I don't care. I have stated my opinion, if you don't like it to bad, I am done here.

You have a right to your opinion as does everyone else on this forum.... without devolving into a personal attack.

reply to post by Rhaze

It was the morning after, I was sober as far as I knew. My driving was fine, and I passed every test besides the breathalizer. I'm absolutely sure the blood test would have netted me an MIP instead.

Oh I see. Did you ask for a blood test for conformation. What did the breathalyzer read?

Just think how much they are going to tack on the bill for phlebotomy supplies.......

If you are not drunk,do you still have to reimburse them for the supplies and testing?.

Interesting things to ponder,considering what hospitals take for a markup on supplies.

Just think how much more efficient it would be to really make a go of developing some kind of mass transportation system here in the US.

We always focus on the negative,never really trying to make corrections,never getting anything done at all.

Just more money for those who don't need it........

Just another money grab that won't help much at all,more people get killed just from driving around with their heads up their asses than anything else,just crunch the numbers.

Some mornings,I hear about 5 or 6 people dying on the way to work,I have seen 4 at a time myself,nobody was drunk,they were just dead.

From being fkg STOOOOOOPID!!!!.

Oh yeah,are they keeping a sample for the record,for their DNA database?.

And wasn't it just proven that DNA evidence CAN BE FAKED recently?.

There are always multiple reasons for most of these "precedents".

That is all this is about.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by chiponbothshoulders]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Jakes51
That plan by the police officer is Unconstitutional and downright an invasion of privacy. This story is outrageous!

Oh please. Blood is routinely drawn in many localities if there is probable cause. I was in a grand jury and heard cases. No bog deal. If you reek alcohol, and/or are involved in a deadly accident, there is a probable cause so your argument re: 4th amendment is quite void.

By the way, during my duty, one guy was saved from prosecution exactly because he voluntarily underwent blood test (and no alcohol was detected).

Thanks for your response, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. The 4th Amendment is quite appropriate. Drawing blood is an invasion of your person as it says in the Amendment is it not? Now you mentioned an extreme incident were blood may be drawn when a fatal accident occurs, and in that instance, it is appropriate. However, not for a routine stop; absolutely not! Personally, I think a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer is quite reasonable in determining if someone is indeed intoxicated. Why all the talk of blood drawing? It is unnecessary and going a little overboard.

I am not condoning drunk driving, as a matter of fact, a friend of my brother was killed along with his female companion on his way home from dinner with his family, by a drunk driver. So personally, I think they are a scourge. However, they are protected by the Constitution as much as a sober person. It can develop into a slippery slope fraught with abuses if we aren't careful. So why give the authorities the opportunity and the mandate in the first place?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Jakes51]

Why do you people actually believe the hype in regards to Dui's anyway?

The Demographics

in 1982 alcohol related fatalities were 26,173

Dui felonies were in affect by 2002 in all 50 states Alcohol fatalities in 2001 though were down to 17,400

So PRIOR to these harsh Dui laws and giving out all these felonies, simple public awareness had decreased Alchohol related Fatalities by almost 10,000 Deaths

2001-2002 Bac of .08 and felony goes into affect in all 50 states any drop in deaths?

No

17,400 nation wide Duis Deaths in 2001 17,524 Deaths in 2002

FATALITIES WENT BACK UP NATIONWIDE

2002 until Now

17524 - 16, 387

a decrease of aprox 2000 deaths Nation wide via check points, felonies and draconian measures costing tax payer Billions of Dollars

a LOWER statistical decrease since draconian measures were introduced, than the normal fall in duis in the previous 20 years INCLUDING years prior to the War on drugs and in which through most of the 80's there were hardly any serious DUI consequences at all

DUI DEATHS per FACT were falling FASTER Statistically BEFORE LEGISLATION based on simple public awareness!!!!!!!

FACT

Total Road Deaths in 1982 43, 945

Total Road Deaths in 2007 41,059

Statistically your risk of death while driving as at best been altered by a single % point, how much do duis factor in when... you add in Photo Enforcement, Cameras, speed traps, radar all of which were introduced in this time frame? less than .5%

Young legal drinkers, ages 21 to 34, are responsible for more alcohol-related fatal crashes than any other age group. The existing data confirms that drivers in this age group comprises more than half of all the impaired drivers involved in alcohol related fatal crashes. Another drunk driving statistic shows that this age group has the highest average blood alcohol concentration in fatal crashes. An even more stunning drunk driving statistic for younger drivers is that in spite of all of these statistics, this age group is the least likely to change their drinking and driving habits.

Here's a surprise...

The same Demographic responsible for the majority of ACCIDENTS period, is also responsible for the majority of drunk driving accidents, also the same demographic that PAYS double and Triple insurance rates nation wide through those very same years in order to compensate.

One must ASK seriously is it then Alcohol or YOUTH and reckless behavior that actually causes drunk driving accidents, it seems statistically that, grown men and women who are non alcoholics almost NEVER are involved in fatal dui accidents....

since the rate of fatal crashes falling is almost non existent and over 2/3rds of those crashes are caused by the Youth demographic period and number of road deaths is nearly unchanged is it not fair to say, that reckless youthful driving regardless of impairment level is the REAL cause of Most road fatalities PERIOD?

Another interesting fact

Accidents involving alcohol are more likely to occur at night… about five times more likely

So duhr... Accidents are 5x more prevalent between the hrs of 11 pm and 2:00 Am and on holidays when people are celebrating.

Wouldn't it then be appropriate to issue Family warnings on those nights, for the state to provide public transportation those nights? Thanksgiving being the no 1 dui day?

If the majority of the deaths are Fri and Sat Night and specific Holidays why on Earth can't we have rules that ALLOW us to have a good time? Or is this actually an attack on MORALITY and Social norms? PROHIBITION yet again?

In the last city I lived in... There are no buses, no trains NOTHING paid for by the city after Midnight yet a Dui is a Felony offense, so how do people get home?

Now be scared, for a 2000 person death decrease OVER 1.5 Million arrests are made each year, Americans who have harmed no one, who have had No accidents, who have damaged no property over 1.5 MILLION are given felonies... this is estimated to be only 1/20th of the people who actually hit the road intoxicated each year

So apparently there are 30 Million drunk drivers on the road... or a death rate of one in 17,000 drunk drivers

yet to save 2000 lives we arrest 1.5 Million people

these stats of course can never even factor in...the number of prescription drug users on our roads daily

you know what causes a higher statistical death rate

Bathing

Bicycling

Skateboarding

A host of diseases of lifestyle from smoking, to over eating

AND

statistically you can lower your chances and completely control your chance of death by simply knowing that Fri and Saturday night and Holiday Nights the roads are more dangerous by over 500%

This is a SCOURGE? a National Problem?

When even when broken down that far, the demographic responsible for 70% of fatal Auto Accidents PERIOD already pays 2-3x the going insurance rate premium anyway? And Hardly any public transportation is provided for simple weekend revelers and holiday celebrations?

This is the "enemy of the state?" People trying to get home on Thanksgiving being given absolutely NO options to do so safely when they are Tax Payers...

or is this blatant entrapment?

IF a second offense of dui can land you a year in jail and costs 40,000 to keep you there... wouldn't it then take only 365 people before you'd have 4 buses running from downtown after midnight ....

wouldn't law enforcement and prison and court costs for 1.5 Million convictions surely cost allot More than public transportation programs from red light districts? Is this financially sane?

Did anyone know that the bar and club industry as fallen during a recession to 1/3 it's viable economic rates since the inception of harsh dui laws? Wouldn't the TAXES from sin comfortably pay for increased public transportation capacity at night if the industry was thriving? OR is it the "sin" itself that some are really looking to eliminate?

Did you know That domestic violence and in home drug use, drug use like Meth have both sky rocketed since keeping people in on the weekend began?

Did you know that when you add up domestic violence increases from in home alcohol and drug use, increase in drug use created deaths, including pill popping to avoid detection while driving... that legal costs and cost in lives and hospital care have actually increased 5 fold since inception of harsh dui laws?

Combined with the fact that dui deaths rates the fall in numbers has actually SLOWED from prior to these laws

This makes these laws a farce that has led to the funding along with a moronic war on drugs of a Police State, put Billions in the hands of of Gangsters and increased hospital calls dramatically, lowered the overall health of the nation, given felonies over time to 10's of Millions of Americans and all but destroyed the night life industry in America, lowering profits and costing tax payers Billions of dollars, all that and total auto fatalities have barely declined

FARCE... holding up babies that should never have been out at 1:00 am to SCARE people into systems of control... Prohibition #2 and again FAILING WILDLY

If Dui's AND youth related ACCIDENTS are so dangerous than why not Mandate a 50% reduction in SPEED over posted signs on Friday and Saturday Night and Holidays and ELIMINATE the Deaths entirely?

Why because they want to give YOU a Felony, they ant to collect taxes to fund the cops deeper and deeper, they want you in the system, they take bribes from Narcotics dealers, they want you in your home and a portion of America backs this from a misguided Moral crusade.

It's Hogwash... they are arresting Millions when a dozen daily behaviors cause more death when personal behavior is factored in, when it's SAFER to be out at a nice safe bar in death totals by FAR, where there are police and bouncers than getting high in your living room on every level from accident to violence potential

We are all being screwed by those that hold up babies... Babies that should be home the hell in bed on Friday at Midnight

Statistically this HOGWASH

There are

6,171 deaths in the USA every DAY

1.5 MILLION felonies to save 2,000 lives...

You can hold up ANY single one of those and make a case for a LAW that could have prevented it... end smoking, eliminate fast food, disallow bathtubs, make it illegal to go out side in the rain or snow or when ice is on the road, ban all drugs, ban all alcohol...

and you know what... death rate will fall for a few years and then be at 6,171 a day again... You now why? Because we all die eventually it's how we LIVE that matters and that's what they are doing in a quest for immortality and utopia... Telling us we can't live in order to try and see no one dies...

But frankly

it's better to die having had a life and enjoyed a drink and a smoke and a cheeseburger, than it is to sit inside on a Miserable computer or parked in front of a TV night and day so there are never any "accidents"

They are making zombies of us, dull, witless, pathetic people, couch potatoes perched in front of the TV being FED whatever inane theories of how to live forever while killing people all over the world instead... they are sick, sick people on a guest for Utopia...


[edit on 15-9-2009 by mopusvindictus]

reply to post by mopusvindictus


Wow, that is a lot of excellent info you provided us there. Thanks for sharing it! I didn't realize all the statistics you provided either. Star for you my friend!

Originally posted by jd140
Why not look into the way other countries test for a DUI?

If it works, it works and it works in Europe.

Originally posted by jd140
Its not as if they are going to give them a blood sample kit and let them run wild without training...
Germany allows their police to do this and it works very well.

Originally posted by jd140
I was stationed in Germany a few years ago and I couldn't understand why we don't do this in the States.

Because Americans have this little thing called the US Constitution!

I'm sorry (no) but you seem to be either terribly young or very ignorant, so let me help you to better understand from the eyes of a German (now American), who lived through and was part of the SS (in what seems another life time ago) but now sadly sees happening here, all over again (& I shake inside for how it repeats)
Anyway, this is AMERICA, not Germany or Europe! By all means, if you like the tyrannical laws over there so much; go back.

Drawing American's blood, against their will is an atrocity that goes against everything America stands for.

Lets start with American's most important protections that apply when police seize blood against a persons will:
Constitution; Doctor (caretaker) bioethics Patient rights/trust:

This is an extremely dark road to follow, one that could destroy all trust & ethics between Doctors/Patient... but lets start with the ultimate law of the land, the US Constitution & Bill of Rights:

1st amendment: see Freedom of Religion & beliefs

4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

5th amendment: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be..."

9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

14th amendment: see Due Process Clause

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (en.wikipedia.org...)

International Code of Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association: "A doctor owes to his patient complete loyalty and all the resources of his science." (www.cirp.org...)

Great American Docs say no, never:
Hospitals are refusing police & Judges due to conflicts of the law & bioethics. (www.kxan.com...)
(www.rrstar.com...)
(www.slate.com...)

Originally posted by jd140
Its easy to pass a sobriety test and to trick a breathalyzer. Cant trick a blood sample.

Originally posted by jd140
I went next door to my leo friends house just now and he said the same thing about your cop buddy.

Originally posted by jd140
A breathalyzer can be tricked by putting a fresh stick of gum in right when you are pulled over, taking a swig of mouth wash or by smoking a cigarette.

Yes, I forgot, you got your facts from your mall secur... cop friend next door. Anyway, maybe you should show this to him before he drives off on his Segway:

Originally posted by jd140
Hmm I get my info from a law enforcement buddy and personal expireance. I could really care if you of all people believe me. I have long stop caring about your opinion of facts.

Seems I'm not alone when it comes to "believing" you or your mall ninja friend... and for someone proclaiming to have long stop caring about peoples opinion of facts; than why come here at all?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by kneverr]

Not sure if posted yet but here's an article of a brave nurse who refused to draw blood from a DUI suspect. Albeit her reasoning was that the suspect wasn't admitted to the hospital instead of protecting the rights of the suspect.

Article here

reply to post by PsykoOps


I hadn't seen this yet. Thanks for posting this.
That nurse did the right thing and I commend her for it.
Good find!