cops looking forward to forcibly drawing blood

[Liberal_in_LA]

Police say syringes will help stop drunk driving

By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press Writer

Sunday, September 13, 2009

(09-13) 11:56 PDT Boise, Idaho (AP) --

When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he'll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver's arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

"I was looking at people's arms and hands, thinking, 'I could draw from that,'" Dowell said.

It's all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program's aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

-----------------------------------

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can't hold down a suspect and force them to breath 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.

The nation's highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/13/national/a082211D27.DTL#ixzz0R38l8nF8

[wildbilln864]

1. sooner or later...

they'll be checking for marijane and other drugs too. :banghead:

[csziggy]

3. Or add everyone they test to their DNA database

This has so much potential for abuse it is frightening. I had hoped this kind of crap would stop as of January 20, 2009 but apparently my hopes of a President who would follow the Constitution were just a vain dream.

[Maru Kitteh]

7. I don't think Obama is writing police policy in Idaho, and #2

The supreme court decides constitutional matters, not the executive branch.

It's really dumb to blame Obama for some breathtakingly stupid new police policy in Boise. Really, really dumb.

[csziggy]

13. No, but he has not done anything to change the attitudes in Homeland Security

Which translates down to attitudes in law enforcement all over the country. Maybe some of this was in the works well before the election and the inauguration, but it certainly seems as though we are hearing of new moves by law enforcement all over the country that restrict and invade personal freedom more and more.

A statement by the President can change often attitudes and trends. But then, DADT is still in effect and I thought that would be gone by now.

[Maru Kitteh]

15. Nice fail attempt at changing the subject. Let's focus please.

You blamed Obama for a stupid local police policy in Boise Idaho and furthermore claimed that Obama wasn't upholding the constitution in this matter.

Obama doesn't write local police policy in Boise Idaho, and it's certainly not his job, or even desirable for him to comment on every little hair-brained idea that comes down every little podunk pipe.

Obama does not have the ability to arbiter constitutional law. He is the head of the executive branch. The supreme court decides constitutional matters. They are the highest branch of the judiciary.

This is 7th grade level civics stuff here.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. This is not simply a local matter, and that is clear from the OP

"If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training."

It means talking to the NHTSA, which is a Federal Agency in the ooops, executive branch of government. The Idaho trial is part of a larger NHTSA program. Mr La Hood should be addressing this, but of course, he's a Republican.

[politicat]

66. All that means is NTSB wants data to be tracked, and they'll look

at the cost-benefit scenario when this program's been running for a while (assuming the state or district courts don't injunction it, which could happen). This program's not terribly practical, so it'll probably go away.

To be honest, here's the likely scenario: 20 wannabe phlebotomists get trained. After six months, the state government realizes a) the accidental needle sticks are expensive to treat (because you have to treat every ANS as potential HIV); b) most people have really crappy veins for drawing blood by novices, even when not intoxicated (and lots of medications and intoxicants make it harder) and c) holding down and forcibly drawing blood from someone with a needle phobia is going to get them sued. The program will be deemed too expensive and too difficult and it will vanish with the rest of the hairbrained ideas.

Government does a lot of trial and error. That's why they're called pilot programs, and 90% never get second funding.

[Occulus]

19. Obama could at any time end cannabis prohibition by

saying to Sebelius, "issue a ten-page scientifically and medically supported report tomorrow to the DEA recommending the cannabis schedule be changed from I to III or removed from the list outright or you're fired as of 5PM tomorrow evening".

He could, but he won't. He could also issue a daily blanket pardon to all persons arrested within US borders for possession of cannabis up to x ounces... but he won't do that, either.

[Tx4obama]

24. I think he will during his second term. n/t

[michreject]

33. How many good programs didn't get introduced

because a President thought that he would get it done in the 2nd term, only there wasn't a 2nd term.

It happens.

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. +1

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

22. It's a FEDERAL program

BOISE, Idaho -- When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he'll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. These days, his eyes will also focus on the driver's arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

"I was looking at people's arms and hands, thinking, 'I could draw from that,' Dowell said.

It's all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program's aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/officers_in_idaho_and_texas_ar.html#preview

[Lone_Star_Dem]

48. It's not a federal program in Texas. It's a new state law that went into effect Sept. 1st.

In Texas they only just passed a law saying a person involved in a crash, suspected of drunk driving or not and where there's bodily injury of any kind, or has a child in their car, or previous D.W.I. convictions, will have blood drawn automatically within a matter of minutes. The state is also training police to be pflebotomists, but the federal government is not involved. It's a state level thing.

I can't speak for Idaho, but here in Texas it's all the states doing.

[PM Martin]

54. Even if you agree to a breathalyzer test?

:wtf:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

62. Yes.

It's a law that's sure to go before the Supreme Court system.

It amazes me how the Republican population can scream out for a smaller government with less control over their affairs, and then drool over a law taking away their rights.

[dysfunctional press]

9. or- in relation to the story in the op...

a 'vein' dream.

[IDemo]

12. They're way ahead of you on that

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html

Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.

[Lagomorph]

26. You have a point.

Drawing blood can be a very painful experience for someone if the drawer is of a mind to hurt them.

I've had it happen to me. That meaty part under your thumb, just go deep, over and over. Keep repeating "oh, the vein rolled" with a slight sneer on your face.

[Ms. Toad]

56. That meaty part under your thumb is not an appropriate site

Trust me. I had over a hundred blood draws out of one hand in less than one month (I stopped counting at 100 - I think I had at least a week to go in the month before they stopped). If that was a site for drawing blood, they'd have done it. Back of the hand - yes. Meaty part under the thumb - no.

Not to say it can't be painful - my mother's veins do roll and it is an extremely painful experience for her - just that the particular site you are suggesting isn't anywhere near where anyone should be sticking a needle.

[Lagomorph]

61. Yeah, that how I knew I was getting

"the treatment".

Every nurse I talked to since then said WTF?

[politicat]

64. Nice pun... and sadly, at this point, it's technically a states' rights

issue. The 1966 USSC ruling made biochemical screening for intoxication a presumed consent issue. At this point, the whole ballgame has to go back to the USSC, and since right now, they're willing to say that a person need not have an expectation of innocence, just of competent (if mistaken) conviction, I doubt the Bush and Shrub stacked court will side with the individual on this.

In this specific case, however, you really can't blame the President (well, you can, but it's not his decision -- he doesn't run Idaho -- and he can't overturn it -- because it's a states rights issue -- and the legal precedent is set -- and the Prez was in kindergarten at the time, so really not responsible).

[DCKit]

17. Or they'll kill a few people.

Phlebotomy is not for enthusiastic amateurs.

[BlueIdaho]

2. Hey I live in Idaho

and I wouldn't trust one of our stumble bums in blue to collect a stool sample let alone a blood sample.

[laughingliberal]

4. In some states an LPN can't start an IV without getting specific certification

and they want to let a police officer do this? Save me!

[northernlights]

29. starting an IV and drawing blood are very different procedures

Not that I approve of allowing cops to forcibly draw blood, but phlebotomy only requires a high school diploma and hospital training where I live. (Actually, pretty scary, imho, considering what can go wrong!)

Just wait until they draw blood on someone with a clotting condition and cause a catastrophe...

Seriously, what if someone is on anticoagulants and having a heart attack or other medical problem? They think the person is drunk, draw blood, fail to compress long enough because they don't know the person is on anticoagulants and having a medical problem. And things spiral down from there...

[Mariana]

32. Anyone with those conditions will have to carry their records

or doctor's note or something with them at all times when driving, and just pray the cops listen.

[LiberalFighter]

52. Cops don't listen when it will reduce their power.

[TroglodyteScholar]

63. +1 n/t

[Ms. Toad]

57. The risk in anti-coagulants is primarily internal bleeding.

I've been on them for about 4 years - there are other clotting factors that come into play for surface bleeds.

Far more at risk if they are having a heart attack and the cop tries CPR - that pounding will cause internal bleeding that may well kill recipient. But, then again, so would the heart attack.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Should cops draw blood when they don't regularly perform such an operation?

Aren't they performing a medical procedure?

I don't know of non medical personnel drawing blood at Red Cross operations.

Would chain of custody be proper?

What happens to the blood when the suspect does not register above the BAC?

[Maru Kitteh]

10. My guess is that's what it will go to court on. I hope it makes it to the SC again and fails.

The only way I can see it is if police departments set up small clinics in their police stations and staff it with registered nurses to do the draws.

Ordinary cops doing venipuncture? No. That's the last damn thing we need.

[LiberalFighter]

51. If police departments staff their stations with RN's

I see that being fought tooth and nail on the basis of wasting taxpayer funds.

It would be more effective to utilize the local hospitals for the procedure then to hire full-time RN's.

Any elected LEO's that advocate anything beyond hospital should be drummed out of office. Any appointed should be fired.

[brewens]

6. I don't like that idea

It seems that you should not have to allow a cop to jab you with a needle under any circumstances. Drinking is legal and it's also legal to drive after you have been drinking. You just can't drink too much. Just because a cop thinks he/she smells alcohol should not give them the right to draw blood.
Reasonable suspicion frequently only means that they think smell alcohol. Even if a driver passes the field sobriety test the cops still make them blow. What is the field sobriety test for? If you pass that you should be free to go. It's really only used to build more of a case against someone that tests over the legal blood alcohol limit. The truth is that a lot of people can pass the field sobriety test at over the legal blood alcohol limit. Passing the field sobriety test should indicate that you are safe to be driving.
BTW, I don't drink and I never had any DUI's when I did drink.

[undergroundpanther]

8. People tolerate

companies demanding piss tests and telling them to stop smoking and lose weight.We have let the corporation and state collect body fluids and invade our privacy and control what we do in off hours.This is the next step.

And I fear the arguments will be similar as the ones justifying piss tests too. You watch.

A corporation,a state or an abusive psychopath can never have too much control over it's victims lives.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Speaking as someone who has passed a field sobriety test, I'm not sure that's entirely true

When I could very easily stand on one foot for 30 seconds the guy knew I wasn't going to blow .08 on the breathalyzer and so he didn't even bother trying.

[ohheckyeah]

11. This is a federal program and it should be

challenged by the ACLU.

[Mind_your_head]

14. Don't any of these cops just want to take their $50,000/year and JUST GO HOME

and hope that their next traffic stop won't be the next tragic headline in the local news? :shrug:

I REALLY DOUBT that cops are rubbing their hands together thinking, "oh boy, I get to draw BLOOD now" (from the people that I arrest, who possibly harbor HIV, Hepatitis, etc.)

Sounds implausible (and most likely fear-mongering hate crap from the uber-wealthy that own the media and wouldn't touch a "common-man" with a ten foot pole).

SURE. Cops are gonna go out there and draw blood "at the scene". Good luck w/that! :eyes: (btw, I'd bet some will, but those are the ones who are a bit, ya know, :crazy: )

[LisaL]

16. It is really really scary.

Forcibly drawing blood I presume in field conditions? Yikes.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Cops forcibly draw blood all the time...

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=police+brutality&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g7

Idaho. Heh.

[paulsby]

21. we do it in WA state. i've done it.

not for DUI (unless one gets a warrant) but for various mv offenses, like MV assault resulting in serious bodily injury.

i've also had to gown up and go into an operating room in order to do it.

it's pretty unique to do for a MERE dui, but not unheard of. a while back, when there were issues with the breathalyzer simulator solution (long story) we had a DUI officer who would routinely do blood draws via warrant for DUI's.

it is true. you cannot force somebody to blow. you can tie them down to take blood.

[Rex]

23. How about less public advertising of drugs as fun for kids to do?

Oh nm, just take my blood already - officer.

[lostnfound]

30. You aren't talking about infringing on corporate free speech are you?

How radical.
:sarcasm:

[Rex]

40. I know, I know, hail to The King

of Beers!

[Tx4obama]

25. Ain't gonna happen.

Unless the person is passed out the cop wouldn't be able to get the needle in the vein.
Drunks don't sit perfectly still - the wave their arms around and most of the time want to argue and fight - especially if they were to see a cop coming at them with a needle!

'a medically approved manner' sounds to me like at the hospital by trained hospital personnel.
I don't think that a cop drawing blood program would hold up if the case is brought before a state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court

[datasuspect]

35. it's legal in texas as of Sept 1

Section 724.017 of the Transportation Code is now expended to allow more situations where police can do a forced blood draw without a warrant.

[Seldona]

67. Than the officer can simply taser you until you submit.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that constitutional.

[WeDidIt]

27. I will NEVER allow a cop to draw blood from me

They'll have to shoot me.

[datasuspect]

36. you can be beaten into compliance

trust me, 5 or 6 of them motherfuckers on you and you are going down. with or without a whimper.

[PM Martin]

55. And that is why when the cops ask for donations

I tell them that they get more than enough compensation for their jobs.

[daedalus_dude]

28. They`ll have to kill me or knock me out before they will draw my blood.

[Liberal_in_LA]

47. and they will, unfortunately

[midnight]

31. The folks here that are not concerned about this next step should

be. Those who want this for safety will sell fear......Mothers against drunk driving have not lowered the drunk driving problem,but they have raised the incarceration rate in this country. This prison for profit mentality sure sits right with some folks. If our legislators are interested in saving lives, don't create wars, and please allow people into see their doctors. Those two safety measures would greatly help save lives.

[salguine]

37. No potential WHATSOEVER for abuse of this law...

[starroute]

38. They were doing this in Texas a year ago

I don't know how it came out, but here's a story from July of last year about a lawyer challenging the practice:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/DWI.DWI.blood.2.762517.html

Law enforcement agencies across North Texas will be cracking down on drunk driving over the July 4th weekend - including taking blood samples of suspected drunk drivers.

But one man says how those samples are collected is sometimes illegal and he's taking the system to court.

Attorney Avery McDaniel is arguing that some of the people taking the blood samples aren't qualified to do so under state law and he says currently there's nothing the 'average person' can do about it.

"If an officer believes that you're intoxicated and you refuse they will get a search warrant and they will physically hold you down and take your blood," McDaniel explained.

[Echo In Light]

41. "Whaddyamean he's REFUSING to let us jam this needle in his arm?! TASER his ass, NOW!"

[Javaman]

42. I'm waiting for the first moron to push air in, instead of taking blood out.

Oh there is so many things wrong with this.

[dembotoz]

43. just not a good idea

if they could do a skin prick ala blood sugar test--That might be one thing.
But a full blood sample.

I do hope the victim has the right to sue when it goes very wrong.
And you know it will.

[GreenArrow]

44. straight outta de Sade

.

[snooper2]

45. Doesn't make much sense to me...

If you don't blow you lose your license and will get a DUI anyway in most all cases...or take a plea like 90% of cases...


People aren't going to quit driving drunk because now cops have a syringe in their arsenal :rofl:

[Lance_Boyle]

46. Any non-medical professional draws a needle on me there's gonna be trouble.

Those fucking pigs had best be ready to kill this "person of suspicion" - I'm not getting stuck by fucking bacon. Fuck them and fuck that.

[Shireling]

49. Dangerous to our health

This is a great way to spread disease!!!! :scared:

I doubt that the police will always be using sterile needles.

[Arctic Dave]

50. Sounds like a lot of problems.

What do you do with the blood afterward? What if the person has HIV or another blood born pathogen and the officer gets stuck? What if the person develops an infection due to poor procedural hygiene? What if the officer collapses the vein?

Sounds like a huge exposure to liability for such an unnecessary procedure.

[madville]

53. Don't drink/get high and drive and you don't have to worry about it

I don't want anybody taking my blood or a saliva swab to see if I match some DNA found at a murder scene so I try real hard not to be involved in murder. If I don't reek of booze, act all tweaked out, or have my bong buckled up in the seat next to me I won't get checked on the side of the road either. Pretty simple, don't your life and others' lives in danger and you won't have to worry about it.

Of course I'm not worried about my DNA being on file because it already is with the federal government anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

59. Sorry - but that's not the case.

That is the reason there are constitutional protections. Not to protect the people who have committed a crime, but to protect the innocent who are falsely accused.

There are any number of medical conditions which might make you appear to be drunk when you are not, so just avoiding being intoxicated or deliberately acting intoxicated may not keep you out of the line of sight of a cop with a syringe: low blood sugar; a head injury; Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia; epilepsy; heart disease; certain types of palsy; a drug reaction; sleep deprivation; eclampsia; dehydration, or sun stroke.

[JuniperLea]

65. Or pissing off that cop the week before...

And he is wanting to exact his revenge!

[Ms. Toad]

69. Yep.

Even if you were only pissing him off by exercising your constitutional rights.

[politicat]

68. Yeah, that works as long as you drive a late model car and you're

white and male and look like you belong in the community where you're driving. Take any of those out of the equation... things start getting dicey.

My father -- who would sooner go back to Vietnam and fight that mess again than drive drunk -- drives a beater truck (physically, anyway. Mechanically, it's golden) because he's a civil engineer doing highway construction and his vehicles always look beat to hell by about the 3rd month of ownership anyway. He also refuses to wear sunscreen and he's dark-haired and eyed. He works in Arizona and Nevada. He's Anglo, and as soon as he opens his mouth, that's obvious (midwestern accent like a rusty chainsaw), but he gets stopped for Driving While Hispanic at least once a month. Usually, it's just a "did you know your taillight is out/too bright/too dim/I needed a bullshit excuse to pull you over because you have dark skin and you're in a beater and driving in a really good neighborhood?" sort of license, registration and insurance check, but sometimes these go badly.

Three years ago, he had a nasty case of bone spurs on his ankle -- this made him limp, stagger a bit while going from sitting to standing, and made it impossible for him to stand on one foot. He was going for surgery in a couple weeks, so his doc didn't give him a note to carry -- no reason. One of his buddies got 'faced and called my father for a ride home from the bar. My father did so, but the smell of beer lingers, and having a drunk in the passenger seat...

Needless to say, my father got pulled over, failed the field sobriety test (though explaining the entire time it was a physical issue), passed the breathalyzer -- AND STILL GOT HAULED IN. The cop has the power to make that call, and my staggering, beater-driving father probably pissed the cop off just enough. (I'm sure he was blustering about being offended and he's not a Mexican and racial profiling is all crap and yammer-yammer-yammer -- my father's intelligent, but sometimes he's not *smart*)

My father fought the case for 18 months before it got dismissed, and having a DUI arrest on his record made working very difficult, not to mention how expensive it has gotten (22K, last I heard). Now, he's fighting to get the arrest expunged.

My father did everything right -- insurance on his truck, good registration, no drugs or alcohol, safe and sane driver, cooperated fully with the police (in his mind, and he did everything they asked...) and he still got tagged. When I was in grad school, in the same city, I drove a beater and lived in a bad neighborhood. I got pulled over for the same bullshit reasons, just to harass an obviously liberal freak. 19 times in 18 months. (I had gay pride stickers on my car.) Never once got a ticket.

So don't just assume that if you behave, the cops will behave. Their definition of "behave" is far stricter than the legal one. They don't like to either have their authority questioned or be proved wrong... and doing either puts the citizen at a disadvantage.

[Kaylee]

58. Unless you have a RN, LPN, CNRP, etc. after your name....

you ain't sticking a needle in me and drawing my blood. Has Idaho gone insane!

[followthemoney]

60. Where will this all end?

I hope the line is drawn far short of the roadside colonoscopy.