731 users online (112 members and 619 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,504

    Cops allowed to draw blood for DUI stops

    I found this article today while reading The washington times I understand why they want to do it but I am still outraged by them being allowed to do this. Anyone else think this is wrong? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position3

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rowlett, TX
    Posts
    2,292
    Folks down here have given it a negative review.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    501
    Crazy. Cops acting as Phlebotomists? With no certification? Even Coumadin clinics require staff to be licensed phlebotomists for just finger pricks.
    Somebody will sue, and that will be that. Cities can't afford law suits these days, nobody is paying their property taxes with all the foreclosures.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,053
    LOL If one ever tried to stick this needlephobe, I'd for sure wind up in jail.

    Kidding aside...
    Officers can't force a suspect to breathe into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood - a practice that's been upheld by Idaho's Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
    I thought I had seen it all. WTH? That is just ludicrous.
    Always JMO, FWIW, YMMV...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Muffet View Post
    LOL If one ever tried to stick this needlephobe, I'd for sure wind up in jail.

    Kidding aside...

    I thought I had seen it all. WTH? That is just ludicrous.
    Maybe tell the cop you have aids? Scare em a little.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulmagent View Post
    I found this article today while reading The washington times I understand why they want to do it but I am still outraged by them being allowed to do this. Anyone else think this is wrong? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position3
    The first thing that came to mind are the safety issues involved. (It would be a very bad time to discover a "bleeding issue" is present.) IMO, it's not a practice that I'm comfortable with. I applaud officers for getting drunk drivers off the roadway, I just don't feel this is a logical step. Since burglars have been able to sue for being injured during a commision of a crime, how many lawsuits could come from a procedure like this?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,970
    This is where I live, and trust me, it's not going over well with the public. I think it's ridiculous. I think there are way too many things that could go wrong.

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsup...ry/900203.html

  8. #8
    If they're going to do this, what's stopping them from doing on the spot drug tests? I think the breathalizer is enough to get drunk drivers arrested and off the roads. The blood/urine tests can wait until a lab does them.
    Last edited by MarleneM; 09-15-2009 at 01:06 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    It costs me an extra $5 every time a medical assistant handles a needle for my cat at the vet! The $5 pays for the additional insurance on the assistant.

    And doesn't drawing blood require finding and sticking a vein? I've had nurses require numerous "stabs" before they got it right (and I wasn't intoxicated or resisting).

    Now cops are going to be using needles on supposedly drunk suspects?

    Or is that the real point? Will officers will be able to add a "resisting arrest" charge for anyone who isn't a good patient?

  10. #10
    As of 9-1-09, the blood draws are warrantless. There are limitations but I still dont think this will go over well. If I was a cop, "I" wouldnt want the job of messing with other peoples blood. jmo


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,053
    I'm not sure I understand why they can't force someone to use a breathalyzer instead.
    Always JMO, FWIW, YMMV...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Muffet View Post
    I'm not sure I understand why they can't force someone to use a breathalyzer instead.
    Exactly what I was thinking!!
    Find Brian Shaffer!!
    www.findbrianshaffer.com


    Janet Christiansen, Kaiden, and Family, justice WILL prevail!

    JUSTICE FOR AMBER!

    ~*Cancel my subscription, I'm THROUGH with your issues*~

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southern CA
    Posts
    923
    I wouldn't think the cops themselves would want have to do it. Don't they haul people into ER's anymore and just have it drawn there?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,504
    The DUI stands for driving under the influence, while DWI stands for driving while intoxicated. The article states they are looking for people driving with Under the influence of both, Now in virginia they Can charge you with possesion if you test positive from blood test. Weed will show up in people system for 30 days. I think this it a health threat to the public ,a threat to peoples right to privacy and has the potential exposed peoples personal health information,not to mention very costly to the tax payers.
    Not only are those factors but the police an sheriffs offices arround the country are full of stories about not so law abiding officers. To give them even if a few the pontential to plant evidence, set people for crimes commited by themselfs or family and friends is aburd. And to say that the ends justify the means is counter productive to the justice system. The cops job is to serve and protect . If they think your drunk they have the right to arrest you . If you refuse to breath test then they can take you to the hospital. They should never ever be in possesion of your dna or blood for any reason EVER. We have a legal system for a reason. To protect agaisnt unfair prosecution, The scariest thing to me is that this the federal goverment asking for this and allowing it.
    Last edited by Soulmagent; 09-15-2009 at 06:33 PM. Reason: wording

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,150
    Soulmagent, thank you for your opinion on this. I didn't think of a DNA aspect to this situation, it really could be treading on very dangerous waters.

    (I love the great minds here!)

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Evidence Allowed/Not Allowed
    By Chiquita71 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 01:26 PM
  2. If Baez is not allowed to touch KC..why is Lyons allowed to touch KC?
    By affinity in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 02:34 PM