Forced blood tests allowed to stand

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court declined to consider Tuesday whether a police officer may take a blood test from a suspected drunken driver without a warrant.

Justices let stand a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that said a forced blood test would not violate the driver's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches, even if the driver already had submitted to a breath test.

The lower court reasoned that police's urgent need to obtain reliable evidence before alcohol dissipates from a driver's bloodstream justified a warrantless blood test.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/18/scotus.drinking.tests.ap/index.html

[Renew Deal]

1. This is outrageous.

But, we live in a nation of outrages. It won't be long before torture will be legal or whatever reason.

[MADem]

14. Won't be long???

Sadly, that is already happening in Gitmo...and for years, we've outsourced our torture to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Phillipines, and other "not-so-squeamish" nations with impunity.

[Renew Deal]

17. I meant inside the US.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

2. Sieg Heil!

Just lovely!

[Redstone]

3. Why is anyone surprised?

We already have the Saturday-night roadblocks, which are clearly in violation of the 4th Amendment, so what's to stop the cops from going to the next step?

Next up: blood tests for ALL at the roadblocks.

Redstone

[donheld]

22. It doesn't surprise me, it pisses me off

Nothing this country does surprises me any more, but i sure terrifies me to think what this country is coming too.

[barbaraann]

4. DNA collection

OMG.

[WahooJunkie]

7. Re: DNA collection

If you were born semi-recently - they already have your DNA at your hospital of birth.

Newborns are tested for PKU at hospitals, per most insurance company's requirements.

The blood smears are saved and filed at the hospital after the test. Scary.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi WahooJunkie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rqstnnlitnmnt]

35. re: Hi WahooJunkie!!

edit. sorry. ;-)

[MADem]

15. Join the military, they take your DNA

Supposedly, it's for purposes of identifying your bones if you get caught and end up MIA....and then years later, they can figure out whose bones are whose. One has to wonder what happens to those samples once the person in question departs Service. For some reason, I am unconvinced that they are destroyed. I think once you are in the system, you stay in the system....

[sarcasmo]

5. Time to move to Canada

The Third Reich is in full force now. Next will they pull you over for a speeding ticket and force you to take a blood sample. here comes the database they wanted for DNA.

[iconoclastNYC]

9. I HATE THIS CANADA crap

If all the liberals move to Canada who will be left to do anything to stop our slide to fascism.

IMHO this type of post should be banned. Republicans would like nothing more then for all liberals to leave.

Remember that forced migration is a form of genocide.

[Ezlivin]

20. Yes, we should go to Mexico

The climate's much warmer and there's enough corrupt politicians for any American to feel at home.

Plus there's the added benefit of walking down the street and seeing people who look just like your roofer/highway worker/meat packer/gardener.

Here in Texas, you don't even have to go all the way into Mexico to feel like you've left the country.

Whether that's good or bad is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Megahurtz]

6. What? So cops are going to be

carrying needles now?:scared:

You're right. IT IS time to go to Canada.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. They will take you down to the station for that

[yellowcanine]

8. I am willing to submit to a random blood test if George Bush does.

[Sandpiper]

10. Invading your body against your wishes isn't unreasonable?

I used to think we were sliding towards fascism. I was wrong. We're free falling towards it.

[wildwww2]

13. Free falling my liberal veteran ass. We are at the bottom of fascist

stew. Getting ready to be stirred really hard. Please don`t take this the wrong way. But too many of our so called fellow Americans. Are just weak minded weenies. Corporate fascism just gets to eat us all for lunch. Not enough of us to stand and fight. And I have a son who is almost five. I need to protect. My wife`s family and part of mine are GOP kool-aid drinkers. And it pisses me off to be afraid of anything. But Bu$h Inc. and their band of idiots scares the shit out of me.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[KansDem]

12. Once they have "probable cause," they can do ANYTHING...

A few years ago, I was stopped on the highway one evening because I had a burned-out headlight. It wasn't enough to let me know or even to issue me an equipment warning (verbal or otherwise), but the cops felt it necessary to run my license to see if there were any warrants.

There was a time the police would have simply let me know about the headlamp and tell me to have it fixed as soon as possible, but that was pre-Timmothy McVeigh days...

[Mandate My Ass]

16. No more probable cause -- now they call it reasonable suspicion

You honor, of course that burned out headlight could have been a terrorist signal to commence blowing up an office building. So when I searched and found some flares in the trunk and a lighter in her purse I knew I had me a terraist.

Presumption of innocence my ass.

[Mills Street]

18. Doesn't anybody here know anything about drunk driving?

Blood tests are waaaay more reliable than a breath test. If i were suspected, I would rather take the blood test.

And these immediate tests are necessary to convict on drunk driving. It sure beats letting drunks freely kill thousands every year.

The government gives you a license to drive (it is not a right) and when you sign up for this license, you agree to surrender certain fourth amendment rights. One of them is the right to be tested for drunk driving.

[noonwitch]

19. Aren't the blood tests for if someone refuses a breathalyzer?

Or for suspected drugged drivers? I don't think that a cop can stick you with a needle, I think a medical professional has to do that, probably at least an RN.

Regardless, driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege.

I'm far more concerned with the sudden closing of some of my favorite ethnic restaurants, and am wondering if the owners got suddenly detained or deported. Two are middle-eastern restaurants, one is an indian restaurant. All were long-standing businesses in the Detroit area. If people of middle-eastern descent/muslims (the indian guys were muslims) are disappearing, it will only be noticed in areas where there are lots of middle eastern people, like Detroit. Most of "flyover country" won't notice at all, if they actually care.

[Mills Street]

21. In Wisconsin

They do both, generally, because the blood test is considered more reliable. The blood test is the one they use in court, generally.

Keep in mind, that these tests are only for drivers, using them for non-drivers is prohibited.

As far as what you are concerned with, that is a problem. Deportation for drunk driving is a real issue and a concern, given the strict-liability nature of the offense and the lower burden of proof required for drunk driving.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Mills Street!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[NYC]

37. Who draws the blood?

A medical professional?

[noonwitch]

48. I didn't mean deportation for drunk driving, I meant deportation of arabs

I'm more concerned about the possible disappearance of people. The businesses I'm talking about are long-standing restaurants. One was Taj Mahal Indian restaurant in Hamtrammck. It's been there forever, and just closed up one day without warning. The same with al-Raushdee in Royal Oak. There might be a different explaination, but it seems weird that suddenly this is happening.

The third one that closed, Kabob Village in Dearborn, was the first I noticed, but I chalked that up to the road construction on Michigan AVE making it difficult to get into their parking lot.

[Mills Street]

49. Oh okay...

There was a case in Florida that concerned whether or not someone can be deported because of a drunk-driving convictions. I thought you were alluding to that type of situation.

[Rose Siding]

27. I want this guy locked up, too but that isn't the issue

The issue is forced blood tests.

[Mills Street]

29. You don't want a blood test?

Then don't drive. They can't give you one then.

[Rose Siding]

32. I'm not so eager to grant the govt power over my body as you

All this case needed (if it needed ANYTHING- a two time loser blew a positive! TWICE!) was an after hours phone call to a judge.

Do you really want every local officer to have control of your body at will? Do you really believe that is the cost of driving? Suppose they wanted to strip search you for drugs? -lots of drug induced crashes in your neighborhood lately. Bend over!

Drunks have hit me more than once. Months of my life were lost. I couldn't sit on a jury in a drunk driving case- I'd never be objective. BUT all of history tells us that power granted to govt is subject to misuse and nearly impossible to retrieve.

Liberty is too precious to surrender for security when there are other avenues available.

[Mills Street]

36. I am not granting control over of my body to anyone.

But, when I get my drivers license, I am agreeing to subject myself to drunk driving tests.

Everybody keeps making slippery slope arguments here. The rules are like this because drunk driving kills a lot of people, and is nearly impossible to prove without testing. The court didn't rule on DNA tests ore cavity searches or anything like that.

Read the forms you sign when you get your temps. You are surrendering some of your civil liberties when you get a drivers license. It's a choice you make. Don't want to surrender them? Don't get a license.

[PassingFair]

40. Are you kidding me?

Forced blood tests? Could ANYTHING better meet the description of illegal search and seizure?

Are you one of them advocates for torture, too?

Don't wanna be tortured? Don't drive!

WTF?

[Mills Street]

51. First of all, they are not forced

You can avoid them by not driving or getting a license to drive.
You consent to them when you get sign up for your temps.

And like all searches without a warrant, probable cause is needed.


And HELL NO, a I an not an advocate for torture. I am insulted that you would suggest that, and also confused about how torture is linked to driving.

[sweetheart]

28. Next we should test the hands of fast food workers

As many people die from food poisoning because hands arn't clean, and
all workers should submit to hand scrapings and DNA tests.. It sure
beats letting fast food workers freely kill poeple every year.

Same with drunken skiiers and skiiers who don't wear helmets. Drunken
roller blading, bicycling and skate boarding as well. Same with
corporate decisions and government decisions to go to war... golly
the argument can be abuse a millioin times over to turn our world in
to GATTACA.

It sure beats having any 4th amendment rights!... .NOOOOT

[Mills Street]

31. 15,000 die every year because of drunk driving

How can you belittle this serious problem?

First of all, unclean hands very rarely kills fast food eaters. Can you site a case where it has ever happened?

Second... You can't clean your DNA, nor can you die from eating food handled by someone with deadly DNA, actually, there is no such thing as deadly DNA being ingested and killing someone. This is just made up stuff you are talking about.

Drunken skiers (and rollerbladers etc...) and skiers without helmets aren't great risks to other people. They don't kill anybody.

Let me introduce you to a few people who lost loved ones to drunk driving. They are only a few of about 15,000 innocents that die EVERY YEAR. You can tell them that your right not to be pricked by a needle is worth their lost loved ones.

[sweetheart]

33. its the 4th amendment.... dude there are no exceptions

Your case could be better made against the second amendment if you're
going after the bill of rights. I can't wish you luck, as perhaps the
better path is to hold the makers of drink legally liable for its
abuse, and force commercial remedies.... there are many ways to deal
with this problem without shredding the constitution.

[Mills Street]

34. The court did not find an exemption to the fourth amendment...

which provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The court merely says that in this instance, the search is reasonable. Given what I said earlier, this search seems reasonable to me.

[sweetheart]

43. Theres always an excuse, isn't there.. . don't mess with the rights.

I submit that there are alternatives, such as fixing a breathalizer
tube in to the ignition mechanism for once-convicted drunk/disorderly
offences. Another is to let the harmed sue the alcohol suppliers for
providing their product in such a way that it be abused.

I do not know the number of deaths form asbestosis (asbestos), but its
a company that made a product that, as people used it, turned out to
kill people indirectly. It strikes me that under the law, alcohol and
gun manufacturers are similarly responsible... so rather than take the
law to the corporate end of things, or to the car manufactuerrs that
a drunken person might even start a car, it is taken towards eroding
our civil rights... and the court is wrong... it is a bunch of suckers
who have agreed with the progressive erosion of civil rights until
we're taking blood samples and re-interpreting the sacred right to be
protected from unreasonable search and seizure... and had you posited
the blood sample technique to the framers of the constitution, there
would have clearly been a flat "no" as to it being reasonable. There
are other ways.

Establishments that serve alcohol could require the keys be turned in
at the door in order to receive a drink by law, and these locked in a
security box. On leaving, a driving patron must take a brethalizer
test and if proved positive hail a cab. Your way of approaching the
law is reactive... "busting" perps. My way is preventive and avoiding
the entire approach towards invasive policing to start with by
having those who wish to indulge safely regulated by the public.

As it stands, all people are subject to this search, and that is why
it is unreasonable. I never drive over the limit, and yet you are
going to take the blood of this innocent citizen and call it
reasonable. What kind of erosion is that? How many of your 15,000
are repeat offenders... how many would be prevented by simply having
brethalizers on their ignitions... better yet, to have a drivers license
that is on a chip/card that must be inserted in to the steering column
in addition to the key, in order for the vehicle to start, and for
those with DWI offenses to use the brethalizer... and not be able to
start a non-brethalizer car.

My point with the fast food example, is that some peole die from
bacteria infections passed on by dirty hands, a very small few die
and its difficult to prove... but some do.... and when you start using
the argument you use, there is no end to it all... eitehr it is or is
not appropriate to take biological material out of someone's body,
and i find that wholly and completely an invasion of privacy and a
sick and unreasonable invasion of an evil evil government.

Surely you're aware of that villiage on cape cod where they're testing
all the men forcing mandaory blood tests of all residents 450 or so,
to find a suspect.... and all due to people liek you, eroding the law
until the unthinkable is further eroded, that the next generation
force all citizens to keep a DNA sample and a blood sample on file
with the government just in case for any crime purposes.... NO.

[Mills Street]

54. Your ideas are much more constricting against freedoms than

mine.

First, the 15,000 are innocent people killed by drunk drivers. Not drunk drivers themselves.

The reason we catch criminals instead using every possible precaution to prevent crime is because those precuations inhibit our freedoms so much.

Secondly, who from the bar or car company do you want to send to jail for second degree homicide for killing someone for drunk driving? This is a serious, serious crime here. Holding them liable in a civil manner (like asbestos) is one thing, but locking them up is another, and drunk driving and killing someone can land you behind bars for 20 years.

As far as your preventions (like your bar example), would any of them work to the point that they would eliminate drunk driving? NO! It would help, but people get drunk at home.

As it stands, all people with probable cause are subjected (you have to be driving poorly, at least). In this case, you would likely be arrested BEFORE given the test, based on poor driving and a breathalizer.

Your other plan is for people with a DWI already, but what about all those drunk drivers without an offense? How are we supposed to stop them?

You still haven't given me one peice of evidence in the face food case that the scenario ever happens.

And I am not aware of the village on cape cod. But if what you say is true, it is not because of people like me. I didn't make that decision, and I don't believe in manditory dna tests.

[sweetheart]

60. true libertarian views.... bust the murderers and fire the police.

I'm a libertarian liberal, and i would rather us libertarian means to
sort out drunk driving. This would be charging the driver with murder
and letting them sit in prison for the same period that any other
murderer does. This is all the policing i require on the subject.
Anyone foolish enough to drive drunk, will lose a lot more than their
right to drive.

As well, it would encourage a driver who was in any way impaired, like
say on so many other perscription drugs, like soma and painkillers to
drive off the road rather than hit another car and risk injuring or
killing another. The crime is killing with the car in my book, or
causing injury with the car, not driving drunk. There are plenty of
people who've driven drunk and never been caught, never caused any
damage and no harm done.

So that's my real solution. Fire the police nazis, fire your blood
testing patrol, and make anyone who kills with a car pay for the crime
of taking life in a big intense way... a way so deterring, that to
even consider driving whilst impaired is socially deterred.

I postulated the other mechanisms, given the silly sorts of systems
we use in law and law enforcement... all of which lead you further
and further in to my blood, my home, my correspondence and my private
fikking life.

Road block testing, and mandatory car pull overs are sick and
unneccessary. Just bust the criminals please and leave people to
their privates unless they commit a crime.

[Mills Street]

63. Right now the penalty is second degree homicide...

20 years(in Wisconsin). That is intended to deter, and still, 15,000 die every year.

We could go to first degree murder, but it is really, really hard to to deter drunk people. Plus, there are culpability issues with the same sentence for a drunk driver as a serial ax murderer

The laws on drunk driving are strict the way they are because the alternatives just don't work.

[sweetheart]

64. Its a problem here in scotland

Its a rural area, and people drive to the pub, have a couple too many
and drive home. The publicans should hold the keys and be charged with
making sure none of their patrons leave to drive drunk.... but it happens
more often than not.

There is, statistically, quite a bit of repeat offending, and the
breathalizeer ignition can prevent that... i'm a big fan of such ideas.

You and i generally agree. I don't want my kid killed by a drunk
driver any more than anyone else does... and i'm for any method of
shifting this concern elsewhere. Having a taxi service that drives
the persons car home as well, would be a help, as often people drive
home drunk, cuz they want to have their car at home where "they" will
be when they wake up... and this leaves them taking the risk when
they're not sure.

I ran in to someone recently, who's husband had an alcohol problem, and
she's shifted him on to cannabis. She says he's much healthier and
better behaved since he gave up drink for smoke. I can't help but
wonder, if we should charge all the costs of drunk driving enforcement,
jails, testing and victem compensation on to the drinks themselves that
those who consume the drink, pay the full social cost of drink on
society. Perhaps the real problem is economic, and the cost is
simply discounted by public subsidy.

[harpboy_ak]

45. you agreed to it!

"its the 4th amendment.... dude there are no exceptions"

it may be redundant for me to post this, but you don't seem to get the point. if you apply for a driver's license you AGREE to submit to a breath or blood test in every state (otherwise they wouldn't be getting any federal highway construction money), and refusing the test is grounds for instant license revocation in many states (including mine).

if you don't want to take such a test, DON'T GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE. driving is a privilege, not a right. I WANT DRUNKS OFF THE ROAD. i've had too many friends killed by drunks.

IMHO, refusing a test should be grounds for a 5 year license revocation if the perp has a previous drunk driving conviction.

BTW, refusing the test doesn't stop the cops from getting a warrant to do it anyway.

[sweetheart]

46. No i did not

I've a UK license, and if you pull me over, driving a rental car
in the USA on holiday, i never signed anything for a blood sample.

I agree with you about wanting to curb drink driving, however there
are better ways, preventive ways, rather than this silly culture of
criminalization and invasive policing... as i wrote in a post just
around here using preventive measures, rather than punative ones.

[Mills Street]

58. Yes, but since you are in a rental car, the rental car company

will simply take back your car if you refuse, and good luck getting one through another company.

[Avalon Sparks]

41. Actually I just took defensive driving....

The course claimed about 10,000 die a year from drunk/drug related auto accidents.

[Mills Street]

50. Here is my source for the 15,000 (it is actually a little higher)

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm


During 2003, 17,013 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 40% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2004a).

This total is actually a 2.3 percent drop from the year before.

[tkmorris]

57. Well, not to be contrarian, but

That phrase "alcohol-related" ought to tip you off. It doesn't mean that alcohol is deemed to have caused the accident, or even that it contributed. It merely means that there is evidence that one of the parties involved may have inbibed alcohol. Plenty of "alcohol-related" accidents are really just-plain-accidents, seems to me.

I don't wish to belittle the problem of drunk driving, merely to point out that the statistics are being inflated to justify legislation.

[Mills Street]

59. It's really hard to parse whether or not the alcohol...

caused the accident. Yet, considereing that of ALL fatal accidents, 40% have alcohol involved, drunk driving seems to have a lot do with killing people on the road.

I don't know why the CDC would inflate the statistics.

[AmerDem]

38. we're on to ya, we know what you look like

[Mills Street]

55. So, lets call the guy who wants to stop drunk driving a NAZI?

Is that what we are down to?

Yup, me a simple law student and all those courts, we are all nazis.

Real nice.

[the aocp]

23. an appalling, but not suprising, further erosion of our civil rights.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi the aocp!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[tom_paine]

30. Ha Ha. Of course they are...

Well, at least for the moment we seem to be taking the slower path to Tyranny.

More like the Romans than the Nazis or Soviets.

But this thing isn't over yet. LIHOP #2 and the coming economic catastrophe are on the horizon.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. Outrageous. eom

[Rex]

42. Can they beat you to get the blood?

nt

[SoCalDem]

44. Have you considered this?

If you have EVER had a blood test or a urine test , are you SURE that your test "materials" were disposed of? Blood on a slide is an easy thing to store.and it identifies YOU..

If places cavalierly sell your information to marketers, are you sure that labs are not just "sitting on" thousands of slides. just waiting for the time that they become a money-making commodity?

re-adjusts :tinfoilhat:

[The Flaming Red Head]

47. Objecting is asking not to be stuck four times with the same needle

Then they can hold you down and put their hands over your face so you can’t breathe and twist your neck, while one tries to break your other arm to obtain compliance and the same orderly keeps sticking and sticking with the same syringe even though he can‘t seem to hit a vein. That’s called refusal.

[American Tragedy]

53. Last time I had to have blood testing, the lady was a damned butcher.

It took approximately five minutes of poking the needle in various positions up both arms before she finally was able to draw enough blood. "You have such tiny little veins!"

When I left there, I swear I had track marks and bruising to rival a heroin addict.

[American Tragedy]

52. About three years ago I was pulled over around 1 am, totally at random

Since I wasn't doing anything objectionable, I was even wondering if he had tailed the right car. The cop just approaches my car and immediately asks me if I've been drinking. I had not. He goes back to his automobile, and emerges with a breathalyzer. Uncertain of the law, and too tired to unload my usual civil libertarian outrage, I complied. Sure enough, it was negative, and his face unmistakably conveyed grim disappointment as he let me go.

So, is this normal? Can police officers just pull somebody over without any cited cause and force them to submit to drug testing? I might not have questioned it in this instance, except when I got home that night and mentioned it to my parents, they were infuriated.

[Mills Street]

56. They have to have some reason....

but the reason can be small and pretty close to random. You actually surrender your right to not take a breathilizer when you sign your temps.

[youngdem]

61. small reasons

Their reasons can range from checking for proof of insurance,or seat belts. I too have been "randomly" stopped, for "proof" of insurance, and then asked if I had been drinking.

[Mills Street]

62. Yeah, it can even come down to the time of night

but usually it is something like failure to use turn signals or driving over center line or something like that.

But they are required to report why they suspected one of drinking before giving a Breathalyzer, and usually a field sobriety test is administered first.

If there wasn't a Field sobriety test (walking the straight line) then you got a really lazy cop.

[Sivafae]

65. I really admire the intention of this ruling

but I have to say that it is going a little too far.
Personally I never understood the reasoning of arresting the drivers when, in some states, bars close hours after liquor stores. Ya know, you are working with addicts in this situation, and they just cannot control their addiction. So if you were an addict, and you needed to get trashed, and if was after the liquor stores closed what would you do? Well I'd go to a bar, and then drive home.
I just wish that we would stop fooling ourselves when it comes to this issue. We are treating these addicts as if they have power over their addiction. They don't, that is why they are addicts. If we attacked the problem that is the the cause, addiction, rather than the effect, drunken driving, then perhaps we'll get somewhere.
But ya know, the states, counties, and the policemen themselves make so much $$$ off this problem, that it is no wonder that they don't really want to fix the real problem.

In my own situation, I have had to lie under oath, something I take very seriously, because I could not negate what the police officer wrote in his report. Of course, what he wrote in his report was pure fiction. the only part that mattered was the Breathalyzer. Now mind you, I was not the one being arrested. But there is a great deal of subversion of justice happening with this issue. So this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Just remember that 2 glasses of wine with your dinner is your ticket to these tactics.