It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Forced blood tests in Jefferson Parish this weekend

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:02 PM
In Michigan you can kick, scream, fight, spit and absolutely refuse a blood test, but that will only get you in more trouble, they will restrain you and more than likely place you in a psych ward over night or til you calm down, along with a judge who is always on call to sign a warrant. The cops already know if your over the limit of .08 when they pull you over, every one of their flashlights has a conveniently built in alcohol meter on it.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by InvisibleObserver]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by Dock9

Thanks Dock9, for some reason I couldn't spit that out, probably because Im tired and ready to get some sleep.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by DrJay1975

Blood test is totally unnecessary. Refusal to take a breathalyzer should be considered admission of guilt. All they have to do is charge you with DUI and the Judge would find you guilty and charge you the standard fines.

Why go through all the expense to take blood when they don't have to. It should be automatic guilty for refusal.

But No - they want to suck your blood. Maybe that vampire crap is real after all. And... they get to rough you up for refusing to give it.

Someone call the ACLU.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:14 PM
Don't drink and drive and you won't have any such problems.

Just do the breathilizer test.
If you object, it sure looks like you are hiding something.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by OhZone
Don't drink and drive and you won't have any such problems.

Just do the breathilizer test.
If you object, it sure looks like you are hiding something.

I hope you don't think refusing a breathalyzer gives them the right to stick you with a sharp object.

Just charge the DUI and be done with it - why is that not enough?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:24 PM
I can understand it if there has been an accident and or injury.

But not for a random DUI stop.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:27 PM
Australian legislation re: driving under the influence:

Under the Road Traffic Act it is an offence to refuse to submit to an alcotest. If the result of the alcotest is positive, the police can then require the driver to undergo a breathalyser test. (A breathalyser analyses the breath and indicates the precise level of alcohol in the blood. It is used to obtain a more precise reading which can be used as legal evidence in court.)

If a breathalyser test is administered to a driver within 2 hours of driving, that reading will be accepted by a court as their BAC. Directly after the breathalyser test, police will issue the driver with a printed sheet advising them of the legal implications of the test result and their right to a blood test.

If a driver wants to challenge the accuracy of the breathalyser reading, they need to request a 'blood kit' at the time of testing, and promptly make their own way to a doctor to have their blood tested (at the driver's own expense).

Outside the metropolitan area, the blood tests can be done by a registered nurse or a doctor; if it is unlikely that the driver will get to either within 2 hours, they will need to ask the police to take them there.

Within 8 hours of an accident, anyone (who appears to be over the age of 14) who is treated at a prescribed hospital will be requested to supply a sample of their blood for analysis. It is an offence to refuse this blood test.

.. The police can demand evidentiary blood and breath tests in a broad range of circumstances. Failure to submit to such tests constitute an offence in all jurisdictions. In the event of a crash, most jurisdictions authorize the police to demand evidentiary blood and breath tests from the driver. The police merely require reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the person was the driver at the time of the crash '

---- ' Police and medical practitioners are also authorised to take blood samples in certain circumstances ....

' Under Section 15AA(1) a doctor or nurse treating a patient in a hospital, whom he or she reasonably believes was a driver involved in an accident, must take a sample of that person's blood within two hours of his or her arrival at the hospital. The police can then collect the sample ... '

' .... The police are also authorised to take blood or urine samples from a person arrested for impaired or careless driving ... '

etc. etc.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by DrJay1975
Scariest thing I've ever heard in my life. And my brother was killed by a drunk driver. But in Jefferson Parish, part of the New Orleans Metro area, if you refuse a breathalizer test this weekend you will be forced to take a blood test. Magistrates and EMT's will be on call all weekend. Scary.

I'm so sorry to hear this terrible news about your brother.
If that were me, I'd probably be ready for everyone in town to have a test. So sorry.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Dock9
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

So you're making the taking of blood from someone suspected of being under the influence to 'police battery', now ?

Anything rather than admit that if you drink and drive and are pulled over AND refuse to prove your innocence via the breathalizer -- then the police will ascertain your blood-alcohol level via a blood test ?

When did 'bodily manhandling' enter this equations/discussion ?

If you had READ the thread you would have seen that I was responding to post by InvisibleObserver where they say:

Originally posted by InvisibleObserver
Nothing new, Michigan has had something like this for awhile, if you get pulled over any time and smell of alcohol and you refuse a breath test, its a automatic $100-$200 fine and an automatic arrest. After you get to the station you have an option of breath test or go to the hospital for a blood test, if you still refuse they put you in restraints and draw a sample.

“If you still refuse they put you in restrains and draw a sample.” Sounds pretty much like, as you put it, “bodily manhandling” to me. READING is a useful skill.

You're a manipulative 'conversationalist' ---- aren't you ?

Why so abrasive? No, I don’t mean to be manipulative. If you READ the flow of the thread you would see where I was coming from, since you didn’t I can only assume that you are replying in a reactionary manner.

and you're skewing the facts to suit your agenda, imo

Not skewing the facts, you just missed the point I was responding to. Don’t blame me for your mistakes. Just what would my agenda be?

YOUR CHOICE is one of deciding to drive drunk -- or not -- in the FIRST place. Do you understand that ?

If you *DO* give your lack of intelligence -- lack of consideration for the law and others --- lack of judgement --- criminal leanings --- ignorance and ego to win the day and if you *DO* drive under the influence of alcohol

then you are breaking the law. And you are endangering others. Others -- you know --- ALL those other people who have the right to drive in safety of public roads

It makes you a potential MURDERER

I agree entirely and have said so in this thread. Please don’t insult my intelligence, you don’t know me nor have you tried to understand what I am trying to say here. You’re not understanding, I’m trying to explain but you’re reacting based on what you are assuming I’m saying, not what I AM saying. Re-READ the thread again.

and *IF* the police have reason to suspect you are driving under the influence then they will STOP you and they will provide you the OPTION to prove your innocence via the breathaliser

If you REFUSE to prove your innocence if you REFUSE to PROVE you are not under the legal limit then those police will put you in the Black Maria and will take you to the police station where you will be provided the OPTION of demonstrating your innocence via blood-test

If you REFUSE to prove your innocence you will be handcuffed and the law will deal with you as it sees fit

IT happens every hour of every day

Because *your* freedoms do not take precedence over mine or those of anyone else

you might as well get used to that

Hmm… I was under the impression that we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think so.

I agree that my freedoms don’t take precedence over others’ freedoms and have stated so previously in this thread.

You seem to have somehow gotten the impression that I don’t care about drunk driving. I DO care and think that it is WRONG and ILLEGAL to do so. I FULLY support DUI laws. I don’t drink alcohol at all but, if I did, I wouldn’t drive afterward because of the potential impact of my doing so on the lives of others, as well as my own.

My whole point here is that the police cannot legally force someone to either take a breathalizer test or submit to drawing blood without a court order.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Dock9
Don't come to Australia then

because that's the way it is here and no apologies

So those of you who don't want your alcohol level measured via blood-test better start blowing into the proferred breathaliser --- or reconcile yourselves to jail and blood test

OR --- don't drink and drive

After all, how much 'freedom' do you believe you're entitled to ?

---- the 'freedom' to drive under the influence and kill or maim others ?

But no doubt you draw the line at such 'freedoms' when it comes to some drunken fool endangering YOUR life or the lives of your loved-ones ?

Just for reference. I don't drink and drive. I've had maybe 2 or 3 drinks in the past couple months. If I haven't been drinking and I get pulled there are countless things that can trigger a breathalizer reading. If I just gargled with mouthwash I need to refuse it because I'll fail. Dieters and diabetics can have acetone levels 100s of times highers than normal people and would give false positives on a breathalizer. Handheld breathalizers aren't admissable in court in some states. If you have a lower hemocrit count than the standard 47% then you'll have a reading higher than you should. Did you know if your body temp is one degree above normal it changes your reading by 8%? And the machine itself can vary up to 15% from your actual BAC.

So we know the breathalizer has accuracy issues, why subject yourself to one? Blood tests are accurate. But to force the blood test is unconstitutional imo. Many states have a penalty for refusing a test. But forcibly drawing your blood in America is ridiculous./

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Oh my! If they tried that in Jersey....well, let's just say don't try it in Jersey. I had no idea stuff like this was going on.

In Jersey, if you get pulled over and refuse a breathalizer it's an automatic DWI. Sounds the better way to go to me.

That's the fairest way to do it. I grew up in Newark, and there's no way I'd let someone chase Me with a needle, hmph!

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:33 PM
They are checking to see who has been drinking the oil spill.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in