http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa050927_am_bloodtest.9b46987c.html

I heard about this last night at work. The town of Dal Worthington Gardens (which is right next to me, my city surrounds their ****ty little town) now has trained the officers to be phlebotomists and can draw blood sampling for anyone who fails a sobriety test. That is of course if you also refuse a breathilizer. They have a judge on call 24 hours a day to allow it, and if you refuse, they will arrest you, take you to the jail, restrain you and remove the blood from you.

What you also gotta realize is that these cops use gustappo tactics, some blantly illegal such as pulling you over outside there town and writing tickets for breaking the law outside their town. They have stopped me once in the parking lot of my own job, which was outside their jurisdiction. The officer would not tell me his name or even what police department he was from, and had about 6 lights (head lights, brights, search lights and flash light all beamed directly into my eyes and face) so I couldn't figure out who he was. Suffice to say once I figured it out, the officer almost got terminated because I spoke to a lawyer about what they had done.

*insert obligatory Brian vs Police post here*

.. then don't refuse the breathalizer...

well i dont know if its a state or local law, but where im from you have the right to refuse a breathalizer, you just lose your license for a year.

but a blood test is just pushing it

Its not just refusing to give one, but the principal that they are willing to haul you to jail and make you give the blood. Personally if it happened to me, I'd let them take me to jail, draw the blood and go "Oh yeah I forgot, I tested positive for AIDS" just to **** with them (no I dont have HIV or AIDS). I hate this town more than I hate a certain family member of mine.

They also give the residents a sticker to put on the back of their vehicles that says "Town of DWG." Guess what? They never get pulled over.

Speed limit is 40 and you actidentally go 41, but your speedometer reads 38? Guess what, 2 tickets. 1.) For speeding and 2.) For having a speedometer that doesn't work.

A lawyer could not get you out of a ticket in the town. The judge will make you pay no matter what. They will do anything for $.

What's wrong with them drawing blood?


Also, that town is a speed trap. If you complain to the proper authorities, they can be restricted from giving any tickets for a year.

That's not illegal. Any sworn officer can make a stop anywhere they want if they wintness something illegal. They usually don't, however, because it requires a lot more paperwork and cross-dpeartmental stuff. Cops hate the red tape stuff like that. So, unless it's something really heinous, they aren't going to bother. Now as to the cop not giving you his reason for stopping you or his name and so on, that's another matter for which you have ample reason to be annoyed.

Regarding drawing blood, I think it's a good idea if there's an easy to use kit that can draw the blood and tell you what kind of drugs are in someone's system. There are cases where drunk drivers get off scott free because their BAC has dropped below the legal limit by the time they get a blood test back at the station. Having the awbility to test at the stop, more drunk drivers will be punished for driving drunk.

I agree with Avenger.

I'd be concerned about dirty utensils.

Moral of the story: It's not the cops' fault when you break the law. Don't.

I'm with setiments of Freelancer and Avenger. To me, if you refuse breathalizer, you're just giving more cause of suspicion. I'm all for more methods of apprehending drunk drivers.

Edit: "Gestappo"

..."gustappo tactics"? Oh come on.

Um, you guys are forgetting that you are innocent until proven guilty. The fact that a cop PULLED YOU OVER is not a conviction of a crime. At that point, you are a SUSPECT. They have to prove in court that you actually did something wrong.

I read an article recently about how the federal government wants forced DNA sampling and recording of all people who are arrested. That's ARRESTED, not CONVICTED. So if you are wrongfully arrested (which happens more often than you think), the feds have your DNA forever, listed along with murderers, child rapists, etc.

Regarding these tests in the first place... well they say driving is a privilege, not a right. Assuming you buy that (which I'm not saying I do), then at least in my state, you agree to give breathalizer tests if requested by an officer when you get your license.

The problem they face is this: they see someone swerving (or make it up that they are swerving), and pull them over. At this point, you are suspected of driving under the influence. Now, if they arrest you, or even give you a ticket, they have to PROVE that you were driving under the influence. The problem is that they're charging you with being in a certain state of mind as opposed to breaking some traffic law (IE: no swerving into other lanes of traffic).

They could write a sworn statement saying, "this guy was swerving" and that's not really a subjective call not enough to bring in doubt in the judge's eyes).

However, when they accuse you of driving drunk, their sworn statement, "yes, this guy was drunk" isn't enough proof. Because some people swerve when they're not legally drunk. So they need a way to prove it.

The breathalizer test is that way. So they try to force you to take it, otherwise they have NO EVIDENCE that you are drunk, they simply have evidence that you were swerving (much less $ for the state if you are convicted of swerving vs. convicted of being drunk).

I am getting to the point, bear with me

So, refusing to take a breathalizer was frowned upon but legal. So they could haul you in to jail and arrest you and force you to take a blood test. The problem was, between the time you were pulled over and the blood test taken, your Blood Alcohol Level could have dropped. Esp. in places like where I live where the nearest jail is literally an hour away. Then take into consideration all that paperwork at midnight or whatever, and you will see how it's in your best interest to avoid a breathalizer.

Now, if you WEREN'T drinking (or aren't drunk), taking a breath test is actually in your favor (they can still write you a ticket for driving drunk, but you can say, "they gave me a breath test and I passed" and the judge will consider that more highly than some cops opinion of your mental state).

I have a serious problem with drunken drivers. The problem is that they are very dangerous to others, so they need to be stopped. However, are forced blood tests the only answer? THe problem with accusing someone of driving under the influence is that it's really hard to prove, so many of them get off scott free. This needs to stop, so in this case, I would have to say that I have very little problem with them.

However, the fact that you will soon be added to that crime database EVEN IF YOU COME BACK CLEAN is extremely disturbing.

In a practical sense, for me at least, this isn't an issue. Since I was in the military, the feds already have my dna and every possible thing about me. But for others, this is not desirable.

Uh... why is it bad that they have your DNA?

I suppose they could clone you or something.

Like Avenger said, cops can pull you over outside of their own town. They do it around where I live all the time.

As far as drawing blood, I can't see where it would be a bad thing. Even if they do have your blood on file after that, I don't see what they can do with it that they couldn't already do with your fingerprints that the government has on file already.

It's not bad that they have your DNA per se, but it's just not a sign of a great trend. It's just another tiny step towards you losing some of your perhaps valued anonymity and privacy .'/.

IMO.

[QUOTE=Janitor Bob]Uh... why is it bad that they have your DNA?

I suppose they could clone you or something.[/QUOTE]

Only people who have or are planning to commit crime in the future think it's bad for the government to have your DNA. There is no logically defensible reason against the government having your DNA other than past or future criminal activity.

Easy for you to say! You were raised with proper morals in a safe home with loving parents who instilled in you the adequate amount of knowledge and respect for what's right and what's wrong!!!

[QUOTE=Janitor Bob]Uh... why is it bad that they have your DNA?

I suppose they could clone you or something.[/QUOTE]
Watch GATTACCA, it deals with this

....what? Everything you just said is incorrect.

are they only testing for alchol?
I wonder how this will effect people using drugs that stay in your blood long after they're effects are gone, police pull some of over they refuse to take the breathilizer, so they take the blood test, find other drugs that wern't in effect for any time near when they were driving..

[paranoia]
I think alot of people that don't see a problem with this are not thinking in the long term,

True drawing blood isn't too bad in its self, But even simple things like this can lead to a dangerous place, the more you move closer to the line of what exactable the more that line gits blured.

the next thing you know every one dna and finger prints are in the system if they arrested even if your inncent, But hey only criminals would need to worrie about that right?

so why not, every one that in the country git finger printed/dna put in file when they're born/git an sort of ID, But hey it will only effect criminals right?

Hey for extra Safty, if you want to buy any thing it gits scaned into your ID card to the gov can check if your preparing to a terrorist bombing/attack or any other illegal activty.. But hey only criminals neeed to worrie right?

But then But about terrorist with out ID buying stuff from black martkets, simple any one with out an ID is thrown in Jail till they can be verified..But hey it will only effect criminals right?

of course then, the gov decided that saying any thing against it threatens security for the people so you'll be thrown in Jail.. But hey it will only effect criminals right?
[/paranoia]

I was keeding :/. Double smilies was supposed to indicate that, sorry for any confusion.

Usually it needs to be the smiley smiley or the winking smiley or the tongue-sticking-out smiley or the em321 smiley to indicate you're kidding.

[QUOTE=Grim Zombie]"slippery slope" argument[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase my good friend Scott Adams:
"So NASA's bringing back rocks from the moon, are they? It's all well and good now, but let them keep at it and they'll go and steal the whole thing! I don't know about you, but I don't find the idea of a moonless sky very appealing!"

OR, alternatively, stop taking everything so seriously. Lighten up.

Thrawn--the difference is, this is one step removed from SERIOUS invasion of privacy, and stealing rocks is...many...billion steps removed. Also, politics are a lot harder to negotiate than "Stop taking the moonrocks."

Not to mention I wouldn't trust a cop to safely draw blood from me, even if they have been trained.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Not to mention I wouldn't trust a cop to safely draw blood from me, even if they have been trained.[/QUOTE]

Oh god, I just have images of people contracting AIDS and other STDs ever so 'randomly' from blood tests. Bad news.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]OR, alternatively, stop taking everything so seriously. Lighten up.
[/QUOTE]

Why don't you lighten up? You really need to stop quoting every godamn thing I say and completely disagreeing with it. It's annoying as ****ing hell.

Come one now. It's going to be some disposible kit that gets used one time. The cop puts the thing on your finger, you get a little prick and that's it. It's not like they'd sit you down at a table and draw blood likea nurse does at the hospital.

Still.

Free--I said chill out. You need to stop jumping on me for every freaking comment I make. Hell, two out of the three last ones I made weren't even negative. Calm down.

Quick note

Majority of the time they stop you out of their jurisdiction they will not even contact the authorities. An Arlington cop is supposed to pull up and witness any ticket written in their city if a DWG cop enters. Basically, guy breaks law in DWG and enters Arlington, DWG pulls him over, he has to wait for an Arlington cop to arrive to issue the ticket. They never even call them the majority of the time. On top of that, they will stop you flat out even if you aren't no where near the jurisdiction to write you a ticket. I've been stopped twice by them, once in their jurisdiction the other not. When I was stopped in their jurisdiction, an Arlington cop just happened onto the scene and walked up and asked where I allegedly broke the law. I told him and he said ok and left because I was on the very ege of Arlington and DWG.

The law in my county DOES give the right to anyone IN the county to stop you in the county, such as if they see someone breaking into a car or whatever. However, when I was stopped in the parking lot of my own job in Arlington, the cop continued to interogate me even when I was doing nothing illegal. Again, he never said who he was, so it made it very difficult to track the guy down after speaking with a lawyer.

Keep in mind also, you have the legal right to NOT SPEAK. Your 5th ammendment right and the miranda right is YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT and a right to an attorney. These people will haul you away and FORCE the blood from you if you want to stay silent. They might as well put you in chains and torture you.

Years ago, there was a huge case where this man had his stomach pumped by the cops against his will. They had a warrant to search his apartment for suspected drug dealing and when entering, witnessed him consuming what they suspected to be drugs. They arrested him, ran him to the hospital and pumped his stomach and tried using it as evidence. Court said that they took the evidence illegally, even though having a warrant to do it. How is this that much different than being forced to give blood?

And one more thing:

A cop walks up to me and says "I have a court order to be able to stab you." If I go up with a needle and stab someone, I get in trouble. They now basically have the legal right to stab you with deadly weapons if they SUSPECT you of breaking the law, even if you are restrained. How is it different then they just getting a court order to kick your *** with a club?

By law, if you are stopped for suspected drunk driving, you have to submit to and breath, blood or urine test, so your point is moot. The cops doing it at the scene rahter than back at the station, where cops administer the test, is going to be better suited to telling what the level of the person's intoxication was at the time of the stop rather than an hour or so later.

Fine he wants to test me, I'll pee on him and say "There you go"

And what if the person is a hemophiliac and can't stop bleeding?

Lemme illustrate a point here about how much I (and others in Arlington) hate these cops. If I had the chance to save my mom's life, or save a DWG cop's life, I would ask that they record the cold blooded murder of a DWG cop so I can watch it over and over. They are, hands down, some of the worst people to walk this planet with some of the stuff they do. I could write a book about how horrible these cops are. I would rather one DWG cop drop dead than never have to worry about the horrible woman I call mom.

Then they take the breathalizer test.

Again, though, it comes down to it. You know someone is going to sue them and win big time. Someone who is a hemophiliac will go out, get pulled over, refuse to take the breathilizer, get the blood taken then say "Im a hemophiliac" and sue them for big bucks.

Okay? Too bad for them. :p

That's all well and good until the government starts criminalizing things that should be legal. Can you guarantee that this won't happen?

Now you're just strecthing. They'd be insane to administer the test without getting information like that in the first place.

Read this carefully: Police already administer these tests at the police station, They are just making the test mobile, as in changing where the test is taken.

Alright, what if the person doesn't tell them they are a hemophiliac, or flat out lies? What if they don't ask if they are? What if they do ask, and the person says "Yes I am", how are they gonna test them? What if the person is NOT one, but claims to be in order to avoid getting a needle? They certainly wouldn't have time to get the medical history of the person to make sure they are or are not a hemophiliac.

There are alot of "What if?" here.

The exact same issues would come up where ever they offer the blood test.