It's much safer to take it off the innocent victims as they lay bleeding in their car after an accident with a drunk driver.
Never in your new mustang... you have more willpower than me. _____ I don't think this is a money grab as much as I think this is a scare tactic to keep people sober on the roads. Every year around the 4th of July and New Years the police announce some sort of task force that will be out patrolling. Forcing people to a blood work test is a bit much though IMHO.
Torn on this one. I HATE drunk drivers with a purple passion. But I hate the fact we are slowly shifting into a fascist police state more.
I am a DA, and you're full of crap. Just because cell phones are also dangerous doesn't mean drunk driving isn't. Anything that saves lives is a good thing. Voluntary breath tests is a dumb way to test for drunk driving. If we're going to have a legal limit of .08 (and everyone think that's a good idea), why penalize people who willingly submit to those tests, and reward those who refuse? Why would anyone who's halfway intelligent consent if they've had even 1 or 2 drinks? It can only hurt you. If you're going to have a BAC level as a statutory definition of intoxication, then you NEED a way to test people that doesn't depend on their willingness to help in their own prosecution. Blood draws are an inexpensive (for the taxpayer) and fairly noninvasive way to do that. They get a licensed nurse to draw a small blood sample with a sterile needle and you're on your way. And they're alot more scientifically accurate way to test blood than the breathalyzer. And the "overvigilant DA" crap is ridiculous... I dismiss any case on first glance if I see that the guy's below .08, even if it's just on one of the two tests done. Every DA I know does the same. You're full of crap, or have had bad experiences. But what you describe simply doesn't happen on a regular basis. If you as a citizen want prosecutors to prosecute DWI cases, then give them blood test results so that they can let those under the legal limit go and spend taxpayer resources prosecuting those who are above the limit. So much time and money is wasted trying cases based on standard field sobriety tests... imagine how many fewer misdemeanor courts and prosecutors (and defense lawyers) the public would have to spend money on if every DWI case had a blood test. I don't think the public realizes what a strain these cases are on taxpayer's resources. (The only people getting rich are DWI attorneys like Rocket G and his friends. Good lord, $5-10k for a misdemeanor case makes me ill to think about. Talk about robbery.) If you think that drinking and driving is a great idea, on the other hand, then don't do blood tests, and let every person who simply refuses to do any tests get away with DWI scott free. Because that's basically what happens now.
I'm not saying I've never enjoyed her, but I do not street race. Period. Racing is done at the track under controlled conditions. I've known innocent people killed by street racers. Street racers are as bad as drunk drivers. Lock them all up. Screw 'em.
What happens to the blood after it is drawn and determined that the person is not intoxicated? Same question if the person is over the limit or on drugs -- is it destroyed after the conviction or stored?
I see some strange logic in this thread. "It isn't my fault I drink and drive. The city doesn't have enough public transportation to get me around when I drink. It is the cities fault, and not mine." Even though only person is ultimately responsible for drinking and driving, and that is the driver. "There are things that hamper driving just as bad as drinking does and they aren't illegal, so why can't we drive drunk?" Even though there are scientific studies showing how dangerous drunk driving happens to be. "The city is just going after drunk drivers to make money. Since their motives aren't pure we should be allowed to drive drunk." It is ludicrous. If you drink and drive you are posing a danger to other people and yourself. It is a crime. You have the choice to drink and drive, or not to. All of the other crap you bring up might be true, but it doesn't change the facts or the law about drinking and driving.
I don't think anyone here is advocating drinking and driving. The people on the roads causing the biggest threat aren't going to need to have blood taken to determine if they are intoxicated. Drawing blood to determine if someone was above a .08 seems a little too invasive to me. Does that mean I think it's OK to drink and drive? NO. I will never argue the fact that it's good to try and reduce the number of alcohol-related accidents. But I also will never argue that it's OK to have someone draw blood from me because I had a glass of wine with dinner and swerved to avoid something in the road on my way home. Let's just implant a chip inside everyone that we can always monitor them and know exactly what they are doing.
The blood sample and test results are stored as evidence available to either side until trial is over. Regardless of whether they are incriminating or exculpatory. If the defendant is acquitted the case is over and the evidence is no longer needed. If he is convicted and appeals the evidence is of course stored until the appelate process and any subsequent retrial is completed.
because they will forcefully draw blood from you if you are even suspected of having drank. sorry if thats confusing to you. indeed.
i'm going to have to agree with fatty on this. doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong.
this is the key issue of this thread - it isnt about drinking and driving - any reasonable person is against that. it is about individual cops having the ability to have anyones blood drawn - ima drummer said it best - POLICE STATE that day is approaching faster than you might think.
Only "our" Fatty would think about how the Man is bringing him down and doing "money-grabs" while he is receiving a blow job from a female!
It is a precendent that was set quite a long time ago and is constitutionally permissible with a judge's warrant.
Not only constitutionally permissable, but I know of at least one Texas county that's had a similar program in place for some time now.
Maybe you missed the point because it's not up to individual cop. You make it sound like the cop is walking up to the car with a rubber band, needle, and a vial ready to stick the driver in the arm. They still have to get a search warrant, signed off on by a judge, which may or may not be given, and have a nurse do it. THIS IS SOMETHING THEY CAN DO NOW! The only difference is that on these 3 nights, they are expediting the process by ensuring a judge is available to hear the request for a warrant. And I'm still pretty sure you have to have some kind of evidence (swirving, slurred speech, balance problems, etc.) in order to get a search warrant. The court system is still the court system and they don't hand out search warrants just because somebody asks.
