You make it sound like the cops tackle them and jam a needle into their arm. As you know, this is not how it goes down. DWI is a crime. They have the availability of forensic testing orders (blood, DNA, etc) for a whole host of other offenses, but this one is somehow special? Very strange to me. Are you saying that somebody is suspected of rape, we shouldn't be allowed to take blood for DNA or other identifying markers because it is too invasive? Ah yes, the old defense of this doesn't work the way I would like, so let's do nothing. By the way, DWI laws don't mean much if you can't garner a conviction. Because this one happens all the time.
I would be very careful with your comparisons. If I have three beers and drive home that is not equivalent to rape and I think you trivialize rape when you conclude they are the same. As you know being questioned in any crime does not meet the test to get a blood warrant.
I just read this part. You're a DA, and you think like this? Wow. I would hate to be living in a "bad neighborhood" in Houston these days with these kinds of attitudes over at the DA's office. Then again, ol' Chuck Rosenthal's office is nothing if not a bastion for the good ol' boys right?
Refman, c'mon - being accused of misdemeanor DWI rates a comparison to being accused of rape, a felony?
And, according to your statement, NO criminal law (not just DWI) means anything if you can't get a conviction. So why then not just take a DNA swab & a blood test every single time anyone is accused of anything?
The coolest part about all this is they are going to do it no matter how much the clutchfans anti blood test brigade b****es and cries. You don't have to convince me...I'm happy. It sucks not being able to do a thing about something you believe so strongly in.
It sucks that so many people look at complex issues so simplistically. Then again, ignorance is bliss!
Hahaha...complex issues...I'm having Christmas drinks and my wife is driving. Nothing complex about NOT getting behind the wheel after drinking. Merry Christmas to all, and make sure to remember that if you do drink and drive, you might end up getting poked by a needle.
You are the one embarassing yourself here, G. So how many times have you been nailed for DUI? Is your license still suspended?
Wow, Rashmon - how about Never. I think I have maybe 2 speeding tickets in over 15 yrs of driving. I don't get drunk & then drive. But thank you for proving my point about many posters in this thread. If you argue the merits of this measure, I guess that means you're a raging drunk and drunken driver right? If I tell you I don't think that handguns should be banned you'll probably accuse me of being a baby killer & planning the next Columbine.
I probably shouldn't have tossed you such a softball. If you are accused of a crime, you are subject to having forensic testing done, period. If you fail a field sobriety test, there is likely probable cause for the testing. If you blow in the tube and come in under .08, there is likely not probable cause. For the purpose of telling whether or not you are impaired at the time you are behind the wheel. Probable cause warrants are very specific and are tailored to be as restrictive as possible to avoid the cops going on a fishing expedition for extraneous offenses. Bingo. No...it just means that you fall on the wrong side of the Constitutional argument. The Supreme Court spoke on this a long time ago. I wouldn't. I think there is such a thing as responsible gun ownership just as I believe that there is such a thing as drinking responsibly.
Should the level of forensic testing be the same for a misdemeanor as it is for a felony? Just curious as to your thoughts. But people go to jail for being under .08 all the time, and "failure" of the field sobriety test is a completely subjective decision. If a person blows a .06, and then the cop decides they "failed" the FST, do you really think a judge would later deny the blood test warrant to the cop if requested? The "wrongness" of drinking & driving was never at issue here. And you never argued the merits of something the Supreme Court disagreed with you on? Since when did a SC decision end a debate about an issue? I shouldn't have lumped you into Rashmon's idiocy. You were kind enough not link my arguing the point to my somehow being a raging drunk driver.
There are reasons that can be argued for gun ownership. There are no reasons to argue for drunk driving. If there is evidence of a theft and fingerprints were left, they can be taken. If there is evidence of rape, blood can be taken. If there is evidence of a drunk driver (which kills), blood can be taken. There is absolutely no problem with that. There's no defense of drunk driving. A decision many make out of convenience (see fatty) that puts others' families at risk of disablement and death. Unconscionable.
Cohen, No one here is arguing "for" drunken driving. My response was to Rashmon's moronic post asking how many DWIs I had, simply b/c I was arguing against the merits of the blood test. Anyway, it's pointless to continue to discuss this. On the one hand, FT is right - the state will put into place "after-the-fact" measures like this and all the argument in the world won't stop it. So people will continue to drink, drive, maim people, and get DWIs & the DA will get a small bump in their DWI conviction rates. What they will never do is put into place the two things I suggested that would actually stop drunk drivers BEFORE they ever get on the road - alcohol sensors in vehicles & controls at bars. Whether that is because our society isn't ready for it, or the car/bar lobbies are too strong, or whether the state doesn't want to lose DWI revenue is open for debate. And in closing, before everyone continues piling on Fatty, he does have a point about mass transit & DWIs, if not a well articulated one. In cities with effective mass transit systems DWIs & DWI related deaths are nothing compared to what they are here. Does that in any way excuse anyone driving drunk here? No. Does it mean we should build a monorail to simply cart drunks around? No. But if DWI is a huge problem locally, and building out mass transit will help to greatly reduce that problem, all the more reason to do so. Merry Christmas people. May your holidays stay free of drunk drivers & the HPD.
the drunk drivers' civil liberties are being violated! they are entitled under the Constitution to drink and drive without the repressive hand of Big Government getting involved!
Actually Fatty may not have been arguing for Drunk Driving, but he was arguing for it unless the city provided Bus service after midnight. Here was the exchange. So it does make sense to point out that just because the city doesn't make it easy for you to get home is still a horrible excuse to drink and drive.
