Police to draw blood from drivers who refuse breath test in DWI crackdown Labor Day weekend.

[dixiegrrrrl]

From NOLA.com:


Police agencies across Louisiana this Labor Day weekend will be prepared to get court orders allowing them to draw blood from drivers they suspect of being impaired but who refuse to take the alcohol breath test, officials said.

It marks the expansion of a "no-refusal" program that appeared for the first time in the New Orleans area over Memorial Day.
Louisiana State Police is participating, as are myriad local law enforcement agencies, from the Jean Lafitte Police Department to the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office, as well as judges, according to the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission.

The commission is coordinating the Labor Day program using $1.2 million in federal grants. The grant money will cover overtime costs incurred by police agencies statewide for their officers' work in DWI programs, including sobriety checkpoints.

**********************************

Several points here.

** the "expansion" of the same thing they did Memorial Day. Notice the "mission creep"

** Emergency medical technicians or nurses also will take part; they'll draw the blood from DWI suspects.
Notice the cooperation from health providers.

** Federal funding. Notice how the Feds are giving money to expanded invasive police searches.

** lack of "probable cause" to stop and search drivers.

Here in Ala. it is announced that police are using road blocks, check points ( same thing, really) along with new BAT mobiles ( Blood Alcohol Test), a van at each checkpoint where a suspected DUI driver will be taken into and have to blow on a breathalyser.
No mention locally of having to involuntarily give blood.

But, in the past, involuntary blood giving has sparked court cases.

To forestall any thread jacking, allow me to say I am NOT in favor of drunk driving.

I AM opposed to use of War on ______________ as an excuse to get around constitutional rights.

and btw....many a DUI case has been kicked out of court because police routinely do not provide required documentation of maintenance of breathalysers.
Blood tests have a whole other chain of custody issue, on top of the invasive procedure argument.

[CreekDog]

1. They can't make you do a roadside sobriety test

and to get you to take a blood test, they'd need to arrest you before they could require it, right?

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Don't know.

If you refuse a roadside sobriety test,they can and will and do arrest you, tow your car.
I assume if you refused a blood test, same thing, do not know the law about it, or how the law varies from state to state.
Usually the normal coercion is involved: Take the test or be arrested for DUI.
Cal. has an implied consent law, which means you are presumed as a condition of the privilege to drive to have impliedly consented to chemical testing.
Blood tests are a natural progression of the already accepted ( and highly unreliable ) breath tests.

Each one degree of body temperature above normal will cause a substantial elevation (about 8%) in apparent BAC.
Doesn't matter if DUI arrest is later declared invalid, you are out your car, tow fee, lawyer fee, and maybe even insurance points.

Personally, if I were a radical, I would chug a beer in front of the officer after i had been stopped.

( Again, i am NOT supporting drunk driving, I am against creeping police state tactics).

One could argue being forced to give incriminating evidence is unconstitutional.

edited to add this:
Each one degree of body temperature above normal will cause a substantial elevation (about 8%) in apparent BAC.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. wrapped in a flag, and federally funded...

the face of amurika is morphing

[Hannah Bell]

3. creeping fascism. bring back the warren sc.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. Creeping far too close. I would have thought this would have attracted more notice.

I guess it's not really that important...