Refuse a breathalyzer this weekend and you'll be giving blood

And hope to hell that the breathalyzer they use is one of the ones that's accurate. They reportedly have an error rate as high as 25% depending on various factors.

 

Pretty low standard of proof, right?

 

Either way, you end up in jail, then the blood test would actually exonerate you. Lawsuit.

I think the easy answer is to not drive after drinking, and if you do drive, drive safely, so that you are not pulled over.

 

That's a little ridiculous. I will never again take a breathalyzer if I've consumed even 1 drink in the last 4 hours. As people have pointed out, the error rate is just too high--it's not worth it.

(I took one once...and I was fine--it measured me at 0.02%)

 

doesnt your license automatically get suspended for 3 months when you refuse a breathalyzer?

 

What lawsuit? I'm pretty sure the police wouldn't lose their qualified immunity for relying on the results of a generally accepted police tool, even if the later blood tests disagreed.

As a matter of fact, I could see the Breathalyzer test being admitted and a jury figuring that by the time the blood test was taken, the BAC had fallen. Assuming you're even allowed to enter the scientific evidence of unreliability, I don't trust a jury to be willing and able to accept that and discount the results of the Breathalyzer.

 

Where are all of the liberals at spouting off that taking blood violates your 4th amendment right??

Where you at?

 

present

 

It's nixed by the 2nd amendment right, the right to bare arms...for needles.

 

If a cop gets a search warrant to draw your blood - you're not really going to have a good case for a lawsuit. Those of you saying you should refuse everything need to realize that if they get a search warrant to draw your blood - they aren't asking your consent anymore. It doesn't matter if you refuse to give them blood or not, they're taking it if they have a warrant.

As for a 25% error rate on Intoxlyzers...that's just not true. As long as they are maintained properly and calibrated properly they are effective. The state has to prove that it was working properly at trial. If you refuse to blow, you could be facing a suspended license - its called the implied consent law. When you get a driver's license in Texas you are agreeing to provide a sample of breath or blood (the cop's choice, not yours) if you are detained for suspicion of DWI. If you choose not to provide a sample, you have a right to an administrative hearing, but in all liklihood, your license will be suspended. Moreover, the State can present your refusal as evidence of your guilt.

 

I'll go you one further....I think that you shouldn't have to give your fingerprints if you aren't a criminal to get a Drivers License as they never used to require you to do.

I also think that if you commit a crime you should be punished if that crime is speeding or shooting an unarmed man who is no threat to you...and that should apply if you are a civillian or a member of the sainted "blue brotherhood"

 

i see a somewhat parallel situation -

as a pediatrician I often see angry parents who were detained by the police/social worker at the local emergency rooms whenever the ER staff has concerns of physical/sexual abuse. they often are quite inconvenienced while questioned or the home environment examined.

many times the parents followup with me and their explanation makes me scratch my head as to what could the ER have been thinking. but sometimes of course I thank god they investigated further.

But, i always use the same line to these parents - that "if they are going to make a mistake in being overcautious or undercautious, I'm always glad they take the overcautious route since we are talking about potential abuse". i tell them to put aside their anger for one minute and realize that the ER's are simply trying to make sure no child goes home to an abuser..
(of course i practice the same way but the ER's tend to see more cases).



I see a parallel situation here - I understand civil liberties and all, but I would rather the police be overaggressive than underaggressive when it comes to taking people off the street who may be driving drunk - I mean about
16,000-18,000 die every year in alcohol related accidents.
so put aside your indignation for one minute and realize that sometimes the ends justifies the means.

 

You do know that you can be a liberal and still understand the requirements and compromises necessary for maintaining a safe population, right?

When you first began posting I thought you were a well reasoned, articulate and good example of why most fear of police officers was unfounded.

I even defended and thanked you in an earlier thread.

You remain a well reasoned, articulate poster. However, as you have revealed more of your thinking, you are now reinforcing some of the negative stereotypes many folks have of police officers.

I don't think you're a bad cop and doubt you would routinely hassle law abiding citizens, but you do present a side that would definitely make me think that you might take some pleasure in spraying a smartass liberal with mace for demanding protection of their civil rights.

 

I thought about it for a minute and reaffirmed that the end does not justify the means. I don't appreciate harassment from doctors any more than I like it from police officers. If they have reasonable cause, fine. But, I won't be putting up with infringement to "be on the safe side."

 

I've never met a parent who thinks that being investigated wasn't a harassment or infringement - even those who eventually were proved to be abusers. Same way I'm sure there are very few impaired drivers who admit to being impaired. what i'm saying is that if they are going to have to make a call on someone who's behavior is borderline - then I have no problem with them leaning a little to the overcautious than undercautious side.

however I do agree that taking blood should only be if they have reasonable cause and not simply refusing breathalyzers at a random checkpoint. i'm assuming that they are asking for breathalyzers due to some cause.

 

People still seem to forget that the police are not just randomly pulling people over and having them take a breathalyzer. We all understand this is an infringement.

However, if your driving is erratic enough to warrant the attention of a police officer, whether you are drunk or sober, I want them to pull you over, you should want them to pull me over, too. For all of our safety.

Now, we can stand on ceremony and debate all day about whether it is an unreasonable request for a breathalyzer, but let's not forget that it was the erratic driving that brought about the pullover in the first place.

I've been pulled over before after a sneezing fit caused me to swerve. When I explained that to the cop, he laughed and let me go.

 

bronxfan.. good parallel. But I would never refuse any investigation regarding abuse. You're relying on a process that goes over a period of time to figure out whether you're abusing a kid or not...and since I wouldn't be guilty, I say, 'have at it'. I understand why they have to question people and be overcautious.

In the breathalyzer situation..I understand. But you're relying on 1 try (or sometimes 2) on a piece of equipment that may or may not be well-maintained and may or may not have a relatively high error rate.

For something that will, in 1 single shot, determine my guilt or innocence for all intents and purposes... I would rather it be something with MUCH better accuracy and lower deviation. Like a blood test.

 

They don't need the blood results to arrest you. If you refuse all tests and they smell alcohol on you and can further articulate their opinion that you've lost the normal use of your mental or physical faculties - they can arrest you. If you take field sobriety tests and refuse the intoxylizer, they can use the results of your FSTS to arrest

 

You assume correctly. In order to get to the point of asking someone to take an intoxilyzer, they have either done field sobriety tests or refused to do those tests. Morever, the officers have noticed other signs of intoxication. On a sepearate note, check points for DWI aren't legal - the courts struck those down a while back.