Don't mess with Texas: Lone Star State expands forced blood draw program
Despite Texans' talk about individual rights, the Lone Star State isn't afraid to take them away when it wants to. Case in point: get pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence in certain Texas counties, and the police will take your blood whether you like it or not. It's called the "No Refusal" program, and it's designed to "streamline the blood drawing process" -- something it does quite well. If you're pulled over and accused of driving while intoxicated, the police take you downtown and ask you, on videotape, to take a breathalyzer test. They don't tell you that if you refuse, a nurse -- or sometimes, the police themselves -- will take your blood anyway, getting a warrant from a judge who is on call specifically for the purpose, and using whatever force is required.
Of course, we're all for getting drunk drivers off the roads, and the question of civil liberties vs. safe roads does not have an easy answer. The program will be in force again over New Year's, so everyone, everywhere -- not just in Texas -- have a safe holiday.
[Source: The Newspaper]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
SYN 9:28AM (12/28/2007)
That is going too far.
I would suggest refusal to do the breathalyser = instant guilty before i would suggest taking blood by force is reasonable.
Sober people don't refuse the breathalyser.
Reply
Peter L. 9:37AM (12/28/2007)
Some people would... depending on the circumstances, I would refuse a breathalyser if I feel the officer is just doing to it to cause a delay/hassle for me...
mikomi 9:40AM (12/28/2007)
I agree, refusing to take a breathalyser test is akin to admitting guilt. They should just pass a law that refusal is the equivalent to admitting being guilty of being intoxicated and throw a book at them.
Mike 9:50AM (12/28/2007)
"I would suggest refusal to do the breathalyser = instant guilty"
Guilty until proven innocent huh?
As for the forced blood draw, I have a hard time believing a simple refusal to participate in a breathalyser is enough to have a warrant issued to have blood forcibly drawn. If it is, society has a few liberties that need to be addressed. Now if you refuse and smell of alcohol or were pulled over for an offense indicating a possible DUI that is different.
Andrew 9:56AM (12/28/2007)
"And refusing to have a tracking device implanted in your skull = terrorist..."
We need to keep political topics off of autoblog because to responses are just scary.
jgp 10:29AM (12/28/2007)
The Fifth Amendment makes that quite illegal.
compy386 11:23AM (12/28/2007)
Refusing to take a breathalyser does not fall under 5th amendment protections. The police are allowed to get a warrant. Usually after the warrant they're allowed to draw blood as evidence. I'm think that's true in every state, but I'm not really sure. I think Texas just does it quicker. I don't know why they don't just force a breathalyser on you. If you refuse again, could just charge the person with obstructing justice. It's akin to destroying evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that's a hefty charge.
Louis Duran 1:33PM (12/28/2007)
"refusal to do the breathalyser = instant guilty"
Terribly stupid suggestion. In addition to being unconstitutional (innocence until PROVEN guilty) it would just clog up the legal system with people who may not actually be guilty.
Guenther 2:03PM (12/28/2007)
Funny- In Michigan, if you refuse the PBT, your license is automayically confiscated and you'll be processed as if you tested above the limit. You can then choose to take a certified breath test at the station or visit your local urgent care to have blood drawn. You cannot refuse, and no court order is needed, as a failed or refused PBT is sufficient cause to compel time-sensitive evidence.
Louis- you'll never have to worry about drunk arrests clogging the legal system, as the revenue vs. time-in-court from drunk drivers is unmatched. Follow the money. I'll keep my opinions to myself beyond that.
D-Bo 7:56PM (12/28/2007)
That is what they do here in Oregon, that way they don;t have to be criminally invasive but still get the desired effect, drunk drivers off the road. This is a horrible precedent.
calebe 9:44AM (12/28/2007)
I think in Illinois if you refuse they suspend your license for either six months or a year. I can't remember. Any Illini know?
Reply
bill 9:54AM (12/28/2007)
Go Texas! They also executed more bad guys last year than any other state. Here in Oregon we like to let people accrue multiple DUI's and mayabe several manslaughter convictions before thinking it is time to get serious about an individual who chooses to drink adult beverages and then drive their motor vehicle. I think it was Bulgaria that had a law that made execution the punishment for a DUI. It may be unfair, but it cuts down on repeat offenders.
Reply
Andrew 9:57AM (12/28/2007)
Actually capital punishment has no relation to the likelihood of individuals committing crimes, but to know that would require, you know, like reading books and stuff...
bill 10:17AM (12/28/2007)
Andrew, I am stunned by your remark. I don't spend a lot of time reading because I have informed people like yourself to fall back on when it is necessary to acquire a little knowledge about anything. That is why I listen to Al Gore about global warming. He is just so informed. Of course, I am just kidding....................
Louis Duran 1:37PM (12/28/2007)
Bill,
Perhaps you should move to Texas... I think you'd be much happier there.
bill 1:49PM (12/28/2007)
Louis, you may be on to something. Living in Oregon has become a bit of a bummer due to the liberal screwballs that dominate our local governments. I did spend about 4 to 6 weeks in Texas in the late summer of 1965 courtesy of the U.S. Air Force. I still recall the day I was ordered to stand alone while the rest of the flight continued to march around the concrete practice area. I was never ordered to rejoin the flight; so technically, I should still be standing there today!
D-Bo 8:02PM (12/28/2007)
Check the Oregon HBs going into effect on Jan 1st they've taken a few steps to toughen up penalties against drunk drivers. First time offenders will now be required to have a breathalyzer installed in the car for a year that must be used in order to start the car and during intermittent intervals while the car is on. Second offense requires use of the device for 2 years. All this at a cost of about $2 /day + install and admin fees.
Poopy Head 9:55AM (12/28/2007)
It's by far easier to just refuse. You don't have a DUI, you don't have to hire a pricey attorney, and you don't spend time in both court and/or the probation system.
It's almost dumb not to refuse if you truly are under the influence.
Life time of legal trouble or loosing your license for a year. Hmmmm.
I do think that this needs to be reviewed though.
Refusing to blow can be likened unto refusing to testify against yourself or providing evidence that can incriminate you. Hence your right.
Forced blood removal is like having your property seized. Hence the necessity of the judge to give a warrant. However, erratic driving could be construed as probable cause. The judge is more than likely just a fail safe.
But the constitutionality of this needs to be reviewed.
Reply
JUSBEEZ 9:55AM (12/28/2007)
I apologize in adavance but can someone PLEASE tell me how I create an account on autoblog so I don't have to confirm my post everytime?
Reply
Ryan Worrell 9:29PM (12/28/2007)
Look at the email you got asking you to confirm your comment. Your password should be near the bottom.