Austin PD to conduct non refusal blood draws.

[Mexican_Hippie]

Q: If they don't need blood to prove impairment then why force a blood test?

The risk is that someone is impaired when they're driving and causes damage to someone else or their property.

Drawing a sample seems extreme if there's not enough obvious evidence of impairment. If there's enough obvious evidence of impairment already then the blood isn't needed anyway.

It seems to me that .08 is kind of arbitrary. Someone could be .08 and not be impaired to an unsafe degree, while another person is completely unsafe at that level.


(I do believe people have a right to drive their vehicle on public roads they've paid taxes for - not a privilege. I also see DWI as a pre-crime. But I'm setting those aside because I really don't understand why the blood is needed anyway).

 

[NeckBeard]

Statists going to state. Its always great to see so called freedom loving people supporting authoritarian agendas aganst their fellow man - even the innocent.

 

[Younggun]

Q: If they don't need blood to prove impairment then why force a blood test?

The risk is that someone is impaired when they're driving and causes damage to someone else or their property.

Drawing a sample seems extreme if there's not enough obvious evidence of impairment. If there's enough obvious evidence of impairment already then the blood isn't needed anyway.

It seems to me that .08 is kind of arbitrary. Someone could be .08 and not be impaired to an unsafe degree, while another person is completely unsafe at that level.


(I do believe people have a right to drive their vehicle on public roads they've paid taxes for - not a privilege. I also see DWI as a pre-crime. But I'm setting those aside because I really don't understand why the blood is needed anyway).

Hippie agrees with me in this post.

 

[Shorts]

Q: If they don't need blood to prove impairment then why force a blood test?

For the court to solidify the conviction based on evidence.

It also becomes important for sentencing/punishment when there is already a history of DWIs or factors that increase the penalty, like driving w children in the car, accidents, etc.


For example in the landmark case here, the lawyer clearly states throwing out the illegally obtained blood draw (.16 in his case) makes the DWI case against his client much weaker because of how he appears on the dash cam. A legal blood draw would add scientific proof of BAC to the evidence submitted.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...at-lets-police-draw-blood-without-5919510.php


ETA: for the record I'm not saying the illegal draw should be admissed, it should not! I'm saying that a legal admission of evidence makes a stronger case in court.

Drawing a sample seems extreme if there's not enough obvious evidence of impairment. If there's enough obvious evidence of impairment already then the blood isn't needed anyway.

PC has already been established and the traffic stop has been affected. Prior to draw the subj was in custody.

Here's what's required according to the Texas Municipal Courts
http://www.tmcec.com/public/files/F...0/Judges/9. Blood Draws/CM - Blood Draws.pdf

It seems to me that .08 is kind of arbitrary. Someone could be .08 and not be impaired to an unsafe degree, while another person is completely unsafe at that level.

Agreed. There's been some amazing BACs with very little impairment displayed.

 

[Jon Payne]

I've been the arresting officer that had to get a warrant for a blood draw. It was a felony DWI. As long as the proper procedures are followed I'm good with it. You'll notice I don't get into these debates. Then again, maybe it's because I'm a parent that had to bury a child due to a criminal's recklessness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brian Boru]

Gestapo.

That's the only name for it.

 

[BRD@66]

I visited with an internet neophyte who asked me to explain the term "troll". I referred him to this thread.

 

[roadkill]

If LEO are tasked with keeping the public safe and they pull over a possible DWI and perform the field sobriety tests and make an arrest they have removed the danger from the public. So what if he gets off of his charge, the danger was removed from the public. It's about safety not conviction records right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StevenC.]

Suits me.
Nothing uncivilized, in fact it's the epitome of civilized.

 

[Se7en62]

I've been the arresting officer that had to get a warrant for a blood draw. It was a felony DWI. As long as the proper procedures are followed I'm good with it. You'll notice I don't get into these debates. Then again, maybe it's because I'm a parent that had to bury a child due to a criminal's recklessness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the best perspective anyone could possibly ask for on this subject.

Jon, I'm sorry for your loss.

If LEO are tasked with keeping the public safe and they pull over a possible DWI and perform the field sobriety tests and make an arrest they have removed the danger from the public. So what if he gets off of his charge, the danger was removed from the public. It's about safety not conviction records right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The issue is insuring a lesson has been taught in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of the offense occurring again.

If it were solely about removing threats from the street, cops would be just taxiing drunks home and to again from the county drunk tank, with no charges involved.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

For the court to solidify the conviction based on evidence.

It also becomes important for sentencing/punishment when there is already a history of DWIs or factors that increase the penalty, like driving w children in the car, accidents, etc.


For example in the landmark case here, the lawyer clearly states throwing out the illegally obtained blood draw (.16 in his case) makes the DWI case against his client much weaker because of how he appears on the dash cam. A legal blood draw would add scientific proof of BAC to the evidence submitted.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...at-lets-police-draw-blood-without-5919510.php


ETA: for the record I'm not saying the illegal draw should be admissed, it should not! I'm saying that a legal admission of evidence makes a stronger case in court.



PC has already been established and the traffic stop has been affected. Prior to draw the subj was in custody.

Here's what's required according to the Texas Municipal Courts
http://www.tmcec.com/public/files/F...0/Judges/9. Blood Draws/CM - Blood Draws.pdf



Agreed. There's been some amazing BACs with very little impairment displayed.

But BAC is not evidence the person is necessarily impaired and represents a risk to others (risk vs law).

I guess my hang up is mostly with the burden of proof and also taking blood without a warrant.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Hippie agrees with me in this post.

Dang it, I must be losing my mind!

 

[Younggun]

This is the best perspective anyone could possibly ask for on this subject.

Jon, I'm sorry for your loss.

Actually, that could cause a very biased perspective.

Its terrible that it happened, but it doesn't make a particular person more reasonable or clear headed on the subject.

 

[TheDan]

I guess if you were suspected of a rape, they would have to jerk you off to get a semen sample?

I am against drunk driving as much as the next guy but these practices open the door for further rights violations.

People are pretty quick to support rights violations in the name of "the greater good" or "public safety", especially when they think it can't ever effect them.

 

[Mreed911]

I guess if you were suspected of a rape, they would have to jerk you off to get a semen sample?

A cheek swab will suffice.

 

[TX69]

Actually, not completely. Refusal to provide a specimen is admissible as evidence against the accused.

The blood sample can exonerate them if they're under the legal limit... and prevent a trial.

That's a pleasant way of normalizing how they can reach high up into your free ass to prove your innocence lol. Would be better to avoid Austinweird all together.

 

[Mreed911]

I'm not against alcohol. I love scotch. I love getting a good buzz. I personally can't get drunk because I learned early on in life that if I cross the line to drunk I won't stop until I pass out. Not for me.

I'm not anti-alcohol. You want to drink? Drink. You want to get drunk? Get drunk. I have no problem with that.

You want to do it in public? Fine. You have a plan in place to be personally responsible (out with friends who aren't all getting drunk, ensuring you have a driver, using Uber, a taxi or other public transit)? Great.

You want to put YOURSELF at risk of serious bodily injury or death? Go right ahead. Skydiving isn't illegal, so "hold my beer and watch this!" shouldn't be, either.

You put the public at risk of serious bodily injury or death? Criminal act that should be investigated, prosecuted and punished.

 

[Mreed911]

That's a pleasant way of normalizing how they can reach high up into your free ass to prove your innocence lol. Would be better to avoid Austinweird all together.

Your free ass isn't free when it perpetrates a crime against the state.

Even the constitution recognized this. It's not "you can't get evidence," it's "you can't get evidence without a warrant."

Blood draws with a warrant are, by the very letter of the law, constitutional.

 

[TX69]

Statists going to state. Its always great to see so called freedom loving people supporting authoritarian agendas aganst their fellow man - even the innocent.

Frightening isn't it. I can almost see them clinching their fists, grinding their teeth, dying to scratch that itch of voting for prohibition.

 

[AustinN4]

That's a pleasant way of normalizing how they can reach high up into your free ass to prove your innocence lol. Would be better to avoid Austinweird all together.

It isn't just Austin.