Cops Are Out For Blood-Can You Refuse?

You are out partying it up with your buddies one weekend.. You have a few beers, which turns into a few too many. In the true tradition of an obnoxious drunk you tell all your friend you are fine, head to your car, stop to puke in an alley and you are on your way. You are pulled over. You are asked to peform a field sobriety test. You pull out every piece of law you have ever heard in bars, nightclubs and your last stay in the drunk tank.

“I don’t have to take the field sobriety test ”

Well you are right, at least in Texas you have to right to refuse do the field sobriety test, blow into any probably cause breath analyzer, or say anything at all. While there are possible consequences for your refusal ,you can basically stand mute(if you are able to stand). The police officer then says “fine we are going to draw blood”. Your response is “please see previous refusals”

Police officer goes back to his car for a bit, and comes back with this piece of paper. You manage to slur out the party line again…. “please see previous refusals”

The officer, responds, “you can take your previous refusals and stick them in your beer can. I have a search warrant to draw your blood.”

Hmmm……. the jail house lawyers in the drunk tank didn’t tell you about that one…..

Your response? Drop your pants and bend over(figuratively) for the needle! Danger Will Robinson!

Do you have the right to refuse a blood test at a DWI stop? Not if the cop has a properly obtained warrant to draw your blood which he went back to his car and obtained from an on-call magistrate. In fact, even if the warrant was improperly obtained, the cop is taking that blood and you can argue about whether the warrant was properly obtained in a suppression hearing or on appeal after your conviction. Welcome to the “no refusal” policy being instituted by an ever increasing number of law enforcement agencies. .

The Dallas police and departments all over the country are instituting these “no refusal” policies with increasing frequency at DWI stops. It started with holidays only, went to every weekend and when budgeted and staffed for, will be the modus operandi every day of the week. This means you can forget everything you have ever been told about your right to refuse various tests when you are pulled over. You can throw whatever your state’s drunken driven statutes say about right to refuse out the window.

Local police departments through the use of search warrants and “on call” magistrates have in effect been able to write their own legislation without the help of the legislature that says you can not refuse. In order to get a better feel for the effect of this statute, I decided to talk to people in the trenches.

Richard Warfield, a very respected local Dallas Attorney specializing in DWI had this to say:

“The law in Texas regarding DWI’s(Driving While Intoxicated) requires that if a peace officer has “probable cause”(i.e.,he smells alcohol) to believe the driver of a motor vehicle may be intoxicated, the officer can demand the suspect give a specimen of his breath or blood to determine the level of the intoxicant, whether it be alcohol or drugs.

However, the Texas Legislature enacted a Statute under the Transportation Code(Sec.724.012) which states if a suspect refuses to give a specimen “none shall be taken.” This is out of respect for the rights of the accused and the inherent dignity of the individual. In other words, to forcibly extract breath or blood from a suspect is considered so invasive as to offend our sensibilities as a proud and free people.The argument can be made that if one is suspected of a serious felony such as murder, if the state seeks and obtains a search warrant, such a specimen would be taken.

A DWI is, much to the chagrin of Mothers Against Drunk Driving(MADD), still a Class B Misdemeanor. This all changed when the highest criminal court in Texas ruled in Beeman v. State that if an officer obtains a search warrant for ones’ blood, the warrant trumps the wishes of the Texas Legislature and we no longer have the right to refuse. I can’t help but think this is another example of the will of the people being overridden by an activist judiciary. By the way, this opinion was written by Judge Micheal Keasler, a Republican on an ALL Republican high court.

What this means to us is that if a local police or sheriffs’ department wants to set up a procedure whereby they have access to a local judge 24 hours a day, they can get the warrant EVERY SINGLE TIME!

The Dallas Police Dept. came up with this procedure this past weekend so they could have it in place just in time for our National Holidays of Memorial Day and Independence Day. Think about that. On those days on which we celebrate the memories of those brave souls, those patriots, who gave their lives so that we could become and remain free, our own govt. can now forcibly extract by needles our body fluids if any police officer says he smells alcohol on our breath and saw us drive.

This is a bit like the “Broken Windows” crime theory in reverse. When our “little” dignities and freedoms are abridged, and the people put up with it, the next thing you know our Govt. spies on us without warrants, we operate secret prisons, torture suspects, kidnap and even invade foreign countries not a threat to us. In other words our way of life, our democratic republic is under assault at all levels, on small scales and large. If we wish to override the Beeman decision, citizens should contact their State Rep. and express their outrage as only the Legislature can remedy this.”

That is the opinion of one Dallas DWI attorney.

Then of course there is Jacqueline Saburido. You can read her story here. Her photo graces this blog. I wonder what she would say. She is one of many dead and alive who probably wished there was a “no refusal” policy that deterred just one person from drinking and driving. That one person that disfigured them or wiped out their family.

There is part of me that says so what. If you don’t want to have your blood drawn, don’t drink and drive. It does not get any simpler than that. There is part of me that says there are to many graves and Jaqueline Saburidos out there. This is a good thing.

Then there is that part of me that has concern about this evolving into a “kangaroo procedure” where magistrates do not even listen to the facts. They simply fax the warrant over. Who knows, maybe the magistrate is taking a dump when the call comes in and his wife listens to the cop and faxes the warrant over. You get the point.

When the process becomes a complete rubber stamp farce, the joke is really on the Constitution as our rights our stripped away piece by piece.

Is it a trade off? Is the Constitution supposed to be a trade off? If we say we are trading the pain and suffering of future Jacqueline Saburidos and the future graves of unsuspecting families on their way home from church with a reduction in civil liberties does that make the trade off acceptable?

I use the picture and story of Jacqueline to make a point. We should never forget that when you lift the curtain on all the theories, constitutional arguments, lawyers, drunks, etc, there are real people. Should this change our opinion?

So what do you think? Should police have the right to draw blood at a DWI stop involving no injuries, no accident, nothing but your smelly breath? Is this a violation of our constitutional rights? Do we even care if lives are saved?

Police Arrest 76 In First Use Of “No Refusal”

74 Comments For This Post

  1. LewP (15 comments.) Says:

    Excellent read and some excellent points Brian. Regardless if the judge is a Republican or Democrat the issue is getting drunks off the road to save lives. It’s a simple formula really. The less drunk drivers, the less DWI deaths.
    I don’t think the general population is aware that a bartender can be charged with criminal negligence if they serve alcohol to someone that appears to be already impaired. If that customer goes out and runs over a toddler in the street, or some other unfortunate accident, that bartender will get a visit from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Texas law is pretty clear..Do NOT drink and drive. Period.
    If you don’t want your civil liberties jeopardized, then don’t take a chance with a victim’s civil liberties and kill them because you had to much too drink and drove a lethal weapon.

  2. Melissa Z. Says:

    I agree! Drinking and driving is so stupid but yet so many people still do it. I worry whenever I am on my home from an evening out that one of those stupid drivers under the influence of alcohol will kill me or seriously injure me. It’s so simple, call a taxi or wingman or don’t drink instead of getting behind the wheel drunk.

  3. Michael M. (19 comments.) Says:

    Conspiracy theorists, screaming liberals and "respected lawyers" that make their living trying to get drunks back behind the wheel aside….the intent behind the law is to stop the disasterous effects of drunk driving. Duh. Of course defense attorney's hate this because in areas where blood draws are done, the conviction rate is up to 96% of drunk drivers; so their grandstanding, misdirection and abuse of the courts don't work. And the problem with that is what again exactly??

    Oh yeah, blood draws offer real time, accurate assessments of BAC (blood acohol content) violations too, Counselor. So the only people that get a ride are those that are over the legal limit. Brilliantly simple! Drink + Drive = Ride to the Jailhouse…

    I suspect that "the man is out to get us types" will have a hey day for awhile when the isolated cases where the needle sticks cause infection, or people pass out, or a cop get's contaminated, or the additional costs, etc. But those are usually people with a short time outlook anyway.

    Again, drunk drivers kill more than themselves. And they are obviously not doing enough themselves (hey, thanks "respected DWI attorney's!!) to stop drinking and driving otherwise this measure wouldn't be neccessary.

    I would be happy to give a vial of my good stuff to prove my innocence, particulary if it helped further validate a program that has already proven itself valuable to reduce drunk driving and it's disasterous results.

    Michael M.s last blog post..Bond of Valor

  4. Not Paranoid, Informed Says:


    Try finding out what will be done with your genetic material. In a day and age where that data will become of increasing value, precedents set like these have implications beyond a simple pin prick.

    Live in the now, but think in the future. All laws are extended and abused by those that come later.

  5. Joe Bob Says:


    I’m a wussy, but the last time I had blood drawn I nearly passed out. Fortunately I was at an emergency clinic for an unrelated issue. They took my blood pressure. It was 60 over 40. You don’t get much lower than that without being dead.

    Under the circumstances described I could literally have a police officer potentially kill me if he forced me to give a blood sample.

    I don’t drink, at all, but this “right” of the police is stretching things a bit too far for my likes.

  6. adam Says:

    See, the problem I have is this. You go to the bar, have a few beers, think your fine, until “woo woo” (sirens) you get pulled over, breathalysers/blooddrawn to discover you are over the legal limit. You have no easy access to determine your own blood alcohol level and you weren’t trying to break any laws. If they really want to stop drunk driving try this:

    Mandate all bars to have breathalysers on hand and easy access for the patrons to use them (purchases funded by DWI tickets). If a patron would like, they could test their BAL and then wisely choose which method of transportation to take home. No privacy violations, probable reduction in drunk driving, and perhaps, a more common sense approach to prevention drunk driving.

  7. Tom Says:

    You need more than the odor of alcohol for probable cause. That alone will not do. Other things such as blood shot eyes, slurred speech and sluggish movements would all come into play. When asked to get out of the car do they sway all over the place or need to car to keep their balance. Probably cause is not odor alone and the fact that you wrote that leaves me to believe that you’re looking to create quick emotional responses from the readers. Pretty good article to get people thinking but not completely factual.

  8. Jason Says:

    What’s wrong with revoking the licenses of people who refuse the test? It gets them off the road, and avoids the disturbing situation of the government forcibly extracting blood on the word of an officer alone. Sure, you can still drive without a license, but once they do that, you take their car away.

  9. Mark Says:

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand and completely sympathize with those folks trying to stop drunk drivers. But the reality is that freedom does involve risks, so we are forced to make the choice between being safer or being more free.

    Now stopping drunk drivers is very noble, but let’s look at another example. We know that guns kill and or injure people. If we bad all guns, we insure that gun violence goes down. Preventing murders and gun-related injures are both very noble causes, are they not?

    Are Texans ready to give up their right to bear arms for the sake of safety? I mean if you’re ready to give up you right to search and seizure, you’re likely ready to give up other rights as well. If magistrates just give rubber stamped warrants, they might as well become part of the secret FISA court — where there is zero accountability and 99.9% of the warrant requests are granted.

    This is typical of police to try and run and end game around Constitutional rights. That’s a concern in itself. Police push the envelope to see just how much they can get away with as well. Police have been granted an awesome power and as such, they need to be held to the highest standards in conduct and in preserving the rights of the citizens they are meant to protect.

    I understand that the cause (of getting drunk drivers off the road) is very noble — but maintaing our rights and freedom is also a noble cause. What we really need is some creative solution that helps prevent drunk drivers without violating our rights in the process. The current solutions are not working. We have the highest # of people (per capita) in prisons and yet the problems are still in full force.

  10. Drea Says:

    This is a point that needs to be taken seriously. We can say that our Civil liberties are being taken for granted because an officer wants to test to see if you are intoxicated… point being if you have nothing to be guilty for (as in being drunk) you have nothing to worry about. Most cops will not pull someone over unless they have a valid reason to… they probably don’t want to waste their time. And most cops, unless they are really really sure you are intoxicated, will not go and get a warrant to take your blood. Cops are not bad people on a witch hunt looking to convict innocent people. I do know this from experience, I have a couple of good cop friends.

    Yes, by incorporating a no refusal law it does keep drunk drivers off the road for the most part… but think about how much good blood testing has done. It has positively convicted rapists and murderers who for all intents and purposes would not have been caught anyway.

    I am of the majority when I say, that no matter how much I’ve had to drink I don’t drink and drive. There are still quite a few people that think it’s OK to drink and drive, and they are the ones that need to be stopped… and this no refusal law will stop them.

    Keep in mind to that despite the .08 BAL is the legal limit, ANY alcohol impairs your ability to drive and gives the cop a reason to pull you over.

    Just some thoughts from someone who isn’t even 21 yet.

  11. russ g Says:

    As Joe Bob pointed out, you simply do not know enough about a person to safely draw their blood in such a cavalier manner. For instance my brother has a phobia with needles, he can’t even be in the same room with them. If a police officer tried to stick him with a needle I know that he would fight back, and under these laws he would be guilty but you can not say he was wrong. We get that the spirit or intention of these measures are good, but good intentions, especially when concerning the law, are invariably twisted and turned around on themselves and end up hurting more then helping.

    A better approach would be to simply use common sense (gasp!) when making these decisions, and hold the officer accountable for the decision.

  12. Jake Says:

    There are many ways to get drunk drivers off the road without shoving a needle into them. Just what kind of training do officers receive in roadside needle sticks, do they have a nursing license or something similar? If someone gets infected due to incompetence or, worse, malice, then their out of luck. Just because someone is accused/suspected of drunk driving doesn’t mean they’re guilty. They should have a right to refuse the invasive test and the officer should have the ability to lock them up, for a reasonable period of time, for this refusal. A 24-hour warrants hotline is bizarre and serves to illegitimize this process. Drunk driving is a totally inexcusable practice, but it doesn’t merit innocent or guilty people having medical procedures performed on them against their will. I’m fine with breathalyzers and field sobriety tests and that a refusal will land you in jail, but am uneasy that you might get in even more trouble for not complying with a warrant obtained over the telephone.

  13. joe Says:

    Regardless of the crime being committed Americans DO have a right to NO illeagel search and seizure. If a cop can just call a judge and automatically get a warrant it goes against the spirit of the constitution. While I agree drunk driving is wrong and victims are to many once one civil liberty is given away it isn’t long until Big Brother watches everyone. Ben Franklin said any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither security or freedom. That’s one smart phrase to consider.

  14. eleete (1 comments.) Says:

    I too am phobic of needles, the scary part here is that it’s not as simple as Don’t Drink and Drive and it won’t happen. In todays taser happy law enforcement world, you don’t have to BE drunk to get the needle, you have to be SUSPECTED of being drunk. Even if you are straight as an arrow, the cop has the right. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a police officer to draw my blood any more than my dog. I’d rather have a trained medical professional no ?

    my $0.02


  15. joe Says:


  16. Dwayne Says:

    Well, Joe, in that case, go for the breath test.

    With that said, I’m not a fan of forcibly drawing blood. Especially from some hack police officer with a needle. I’m not saying he isn’t a damn fine member of our police force, but I barely trust most nurses with it (so many of them fuck up – I had 18 insertions in my left arm before they went for my right, and my vein was right on the surface, and it is very, very large. Somehow she kept blowin’ right through the whole damn thing. My arm was sore for about two weeks), so why would I trust someone whose primary training has been keeping the peace and upholding the law?

    I’m fine with requiring me to blow in a little tube. And if it says I’m inebriated, you can take me to a hospital and have a trained professional in a clean environment draw said blood, and then you can throw the book at me – the biggest book you can find, at that.

    Otherwise, I forsee someone getting hepatitis from this or dying like Joe Bob, without even being near the legal limit (let’s say 0.001 BAC – the lowest most breathalizers go up to). That’s almost two orders of magnitude away from most DWI/DUI laws. So if you give someone Hepatitis C from this, and they weren’t even close to being drunk, the only rational response is a law suit on the order of millions of dollars. That’s the only thing that will make the well-meaning but overzealous re-assess what they’re willing to do.

    After all, you may save another Miss Saburido, but how many will get sick or die as a result?

    It’s not Joe Bob’s fault if he had a beer 2 hours ago, someone draws blood, he dies, and he had a 0.002 BAC. In your haste to protect the innocent, you killed the innocent. How ironic. How unacceptable.

  17. Forrest M. Says:

    Michael M…

    Your anger is understandable, but it’s clear your sights are fixed on only one aspect of this.

    No one, no one, no one, not liberals, not lawyers, not judges, not Democrats, not Republicans and no one else who thinks wants legitimate criminals of any sort to avoid punishment and accountability. What all of us want, and presumably you, is to be sure that when convicted by the State, we are convicted with due process and no one shades the truth, beats us with rubber hoses, lies on the stand, or tramples on our various rights.

    That’s what the legal system is about… an adversarial relationship between prosecutors and defense attorneys that is a complex dance, performed according to a very detailed set of evolving law that consistently gets better.

    Rage if you want, but you enjoy the freedoms that you do because your predecessors in this country worked hard for you to do so. Government always gets more powerful, and it is in full swing right now. All the little tentacles have to be checked, or they will wrap around your shrill throat and squeeze the freedom right out of you.

    I hope age gives you wisdom and insight into these things, and I heartily recommend law school to you if you are of an age where you are seeking an education. It will teach you why you should revere the 1000 year history of Western law that began with the Magna Carta and ends with this obvious challenge to freedom that is sneaking in in Texas.

    Like you, I think you should drive, then drink! Sequence is everything.

  18. FUPD Says:

    They can have my blood when they suck it out of my cold lifeless body. And the first cop that tries, will meet that fate earlier than I.

  19. James Says:

    Don’t like the needle then do the breath test. That’s what I would do but, if the officer still insisted on drawing blood then I would refuse. I don’t care if they have a warrant and I don’t care if have been trained to do it. I’m guessing it would only be a crash course in how to do it. I would be willing to goto the hospital to have it done by someone trained in the medical field. I have had blood drawn before and the person moved the needle in my arm and it was painful. What happens if the officer\s are drawing blood and something happens that causes the needle to break off in the persons arm? That could result in a law suit for the police department. If they are going to start this then don’t get the police to do it. Place the person in cuffs and bring them down to the hospital or clinic to have it done. As for getting back to your car, truck, motorcycle, whatever. That would be the persons problem. So just make things easier on everyone and take the breath test.

  20. Mark Jackson (1 comments.) Says:

    These guys have gone after Texas for some of their more obnoxious law breaking maneuvers.

  21. chaotic_conformist Says:

    Michael M has apparently never been to a jail. Here in AZ, I was witness to multiple people who had their blood drawn (without there consent) they suffered from collapsed veins as well as complications with nerve damage done to their arm. These are working class people, just like you and me that need to have full working capabilities of their appendages to make ends meat. Justified for a misdemeanor, I think not.

    But just like you Brian I get the devil and angel on the shoulder syndrome. The feeling of “yes we need tougher laws” along with “well this is an obvious violation on our constitutional rights” so I see where you are coming from. Is their a middle ground? What about those who drive while intoxicated on illegal drugs? Do you think a cop can “smell” cocaine or heroin on someones breath? What about Marijuana? Marijuana is smoked by over 40 million Americans and there is no way to test it besides a blood test. Lest us not forget the plain just stupid drivers, people who brake for green lights, can’t drive in the rain, put on make up while driving, eating, changing the radio etc…. all of these things kill just as many people around the country as drinking and driving does, but can you get a warrant for it?

    Thanks for the good read, and letting me comment.

  22. chris Says:

    anyone who attempts to impose authority over any other human is not worthy of having a life,and its our responsibility to take them from the undeserving.”don’t ask what your country can do for you,but what it wants to do to you”

  23. derek Says:

    if they would just get rid of alcoholic beverages completely, then drinking and driving would be a thing of the past. Not to mention the decrease in alcoholism, and the health and social problems that come with that POISON

  24. Brian Cuban (120 comments.) Says:

    @FUPD: I usually don’t jump in the discussion but that got a laugh out of me. :o)

    Brian Cuban

  25. Guairdean Says:

    My concern isn’t the invasion of privacy, it’s the dirty needles and incompetent officers drawing the blood. I have visions of orders to store the needle in alcohol and use it again to save funds. I can also see an officer sticking a suspect a few dozen times in order to get a vein. Paramedics get extensive training in phlebotomy. How will an overtaxed budget pay for specialized training and equipment for the police? What happens when the officers find out that a few hours in the sun will automatically raise the alcohol content through fermentation? There are too many questions left unanswered.

  26. redneckbillybob (1 comments.) Says:

    bull shit as usual. they keep taking away rights in favor of some asshole feeling “safe”. oh but i’m a tinfoil hat wearing basement dweller for thinking the constitution should still have value.

  27. Kelly Stevens Says:

    I have a solution. I am a former law enforcement officer (both state and federal) and understand their mission. But I also know that police lie, make misjudgments, and occasionally bully. (Don’t tell me it doesn’t because I have a long career of seeing it first hand).

    Put a personal cot to the officer and to his employer the police agency for making a mistake. Require that the citizen submit to the blood test and if he shows no alcohol or drugs indicating a “mistake” by the officer, make the officer pay a stiff settlement in the $5000 range and make the department pay a similar settlement. Expunge the entire incident. Five such “mistakes” by the officer and his career ends and he finds something he is more successful at.

    Similarly, if the citizen refuses the breath test forcing a blood test and is convicted, add a significant additional penalty to the basic penalty for refusing or automatically impose the maximum sentence.

    If the citizen has been drinking but not enough to be legally drunk then no one wins or loses the point. The officer made no mistake because he did smell alcohol and did observe erratic driving, etc. Probable cause did exist for the search.

    If police officers had to pay dearly for their “mistakes”, brutality and bullying the world would be a far better place. This will not, I assure you, make good cops “gun shy” about enforcing the law. True probable cause is not that difficult to obtain.

  28. randor Says:

    We are entering a new period of prohibition…only this one will be on the installment plan:

  29. Peter T Says:

    To the three individuals below me:

    I suppose this law has its upsides in cases when a violent, stumbling drunk gets behind the wheel, and seconds before hitting a toddler just happening to be taking his first steps in the middle of a busy intersection at 3AM on a Saturday morning, a brave and valiant police officer of the law subdues him and gets him out of his vehicle and in the backseat of his own. I’m not even trying to be satirical, this is the picture I get whenever I have to sit through one of those DWI presentations in school or I watch a commercial about it on TV.

    However, I’m willing to bet everything I’ve ever owned that this isn’t usually the scenario. I’m guessing what usually happens is a cop makes a routine traffic stop because the darn guy wouldn’t follow the perfectly reasonable 55mph limit on the highway. Upon asking for license and registration, he smells alcohol, asks him to step out of the vehicle, and ultimately arrests him when he fails the blood test that he can’t refuse to take. He could very well had a BAC of .09, and the officer was just low on his quota and now the dude is going to be treated like an alcoholic for the next few months – courtesy of the state courts. If the cop is a reasonable and a just one, he might be reprimanded for speeding and informed about the law for the future (or not pulled over in the first place). But I have yet to meet such a mythical creature.

    That reminds me… have any of you individuals (I’m speaking to those who posted under me all for this brilliant new law) ever considered that the BAC limit is absurdly low? Do you realize that a .08 limit is 1-2 drinks for most people? Are you so severely impaired after a couple brewskies that you become an immediate threat to yourself and everyone else on the road that it should be illegal for you to operate a motor vehicle? Common sense says no, MADD and those idiots at Ad Council say yes. Let me remind you that the most severe accidents that give drunk driving its notoriety are usually in the <.15 bracket. Wake the fuck up, people.

    I know I’ve been rambling, but this law (like other DWI laws) is a rotting pile of bullshit. The argument that the constitution should be thrown out of the fucking window in the name of “public safety” has been used so many times before and yielded wonderful results (i.e. the Patriot Act). So here’s a suggestion. Stop calling those against this Blood law people who want to keep drunk drivers on the road and develop a fucking brain. Just because I may be against drunk driving (I am) doesn’t mean I’m willing to go to Big Brother lengths to get each and every one of them off of the road. That’s never going to happen. All thats really going to change is the DWI conviction rate. Those who really pose a threat to us with their habits probably don’t give a shit, but a few of us will have some explaining to do when we get busted for it to our school administrators, parents, or employers.

  30. John Thomas Says:

    Never, EVER cooperate with a COP for ANY reason. Period.


  31. amazed Says:

    I am positively amazed that there are people on here that are even remotely suggesting this may be acceptable practice. Just to start with the major issues…
    – Medical: Do you know how much training nurses and doctors go through to properly draw blood? Do you know how much practice they get every day? How much training do you think a police officer gets? A 2 hour course? What if a person has a blood disease that would seriously injure them if not done correctly?
    – Sanitation: Drawing blood on the side of a dark and dirty road with cars driving by and kicking up sand. Come on now.
    – Innocent until proven guilty? Does that still exist? So what if a cop ‘suspects’ somebody – you simply can’t tell the difference between a .07 vs a .08 from person to person. Forcing somebody to have a medical procedure done against their will and they were innocent the entire time?

    Simply amazing. Look – nobody is in favor of drunk driving. As mentioned in an earlier post – let’s get more preventative – install breathalysers in every bar. Require them to be equipped standard in all cars. Actually enforce laws about bartenders serving obviously drunk people. (You have to literally be falling off the chair for just about any bartender to not server you) Spend the police resources patrolling bar parking lots to dissuade stumbling people from driving their cars. So many better things to do than forcefully taking ones blood!

  32. RN Says:

    I’ve been an ER nurse for twelve years, and have seen first-hand what drunk driving does. Last night, I tried seven times to get a good “stick” on a normal, healthy, sober patient before letting another RN try. We eventually ended in an IV Therapist to help out. I’m not sure how many times he got stuck by the end of the night, but we put the poor guy through hell to run some standard tests that didn’t really impact his care plan.

    We are trained professionals who do this ALL the time, and this was in a modern clinical setting. Some people are simply “hard sticks”, under the best circumstances. The idea that a random police officer (I deal with cops every day in the ER) has the power to compell a blood draw is downright scary.

  33. Andrew Says:

    I’m from Michigan. In my state, if you refuse to take the breath test, you’re cuffed and taken to the county jail. There’s no rubber stamping. If you fail the sobriety test, or breath test, you also go to jail. The act that allows this was basically written with no tolerance. Prove you aren’t drunk, or you’re going to jail. Unfortunately, we had alot of drunks driving, and this was the only way to solve it. The percentage of fatalities did drop after this law was implemented. Sadly, If you are nieve enough to believe that we are not living in police states, you’re quite mistaken. There are plenty of examples on the web of police abuse, Michigan being no exception. (google search for warren police and you’ll find quite a few) Our problem as a society is people are apathetic.

  34. Lon Says:

    I completely agree with getting drunk drivers off the road. Where is the line drawn though. This is a very slippery slope.

    Is it ok if they take the blood and add it to the DNA database?
    Is it ok if they take the blood and check it for other things not related to the DWI?

    I am by no means a conspiracy theorist. I do however worry about my personal rights as an american and more over, as a human. Take hitler for example. A horrible example, but an example. They didnt start just killing the jews. First it was wear this star. Jews took it as pride, we are jewish and proudly display it. Then slowly over years their rights were stripped away leading to the unthinkable.

    Again, thats an extreme. None the less, its starts innocently. A comment said it best. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Once you start down a road, its near impossible to stop.

    So they start with no refusal blood testing. On your person. Nothing is more sacred than your body. Yet, they are saying that at any time they see fit, they can take your blood.

    This is not the right direction. I agree with taking the license. It still accomplishes the goal. Then, when you do get them for drunk driving, its now on a suspended license and the book can be thrown at them.

    More to the point. Its not catching the drunk drivers that is the problem. Its our legal system afterwards. I have a buddy that has 4 DUI’s. 4. Some slick lawyer didnt get him out of them either. Guilty on all 4. Not once has his license been taken. Not once has he spent a day in jail.

    If we make the punishment harsher, it would deter more people. As it is now, its looked upon as a minor hassle to pay the fine and show up in court.

    Make it harsher on the people that deserve it. Not on the ones that just dont want some cop with little to no training sticking them with needles.

  35. Edward Says:

    There is a VERY simple solution here. DONT DRINK AND DRIVE. If you have not been drinking or have had 1 or 2 drinks with dinner, then you WILL pass the field sobriety test, if you somehow fail that, take the breath test. If you really were obeying the law you will never get to the blood stage. If you weren’t you will have already been arrested. The issue here really is that people want to get away with driving drunk. It’s not going to happen any more so get over it.

  36. joe gunn Says:

    the thing to do is increase the penelties for dwi.mandatory alcohol counsling for a year.heavy fines.loss of driving for a year at least.need a car for work?bus it,bike it, next time dont drink and a free society you should never give up liberty for security.violating everyones rights to catch a bunch of drunks is not long island ny over 80 people were busted the other was becouse of increased police ,and zero dont need a blood test at the scene.eyes,speech,breath,field test ,breathelizer all reliable.refusel means max fines and penelties.get drunk,stay home.dont drink and drive.

  37. Lon Says:

    How can you say the issue is that we all want to get away with driving drunk. Are you serious? Go back to mary and your flock.

    Its about my rights. I worry every day that if I get stopped for a random traffic violation that I will be tazed. It happens daily. So if I stand up for my personal rights, that equals I am braking the law in your opinion.

    I cant believe this discussion even needs to be had. Its crazy that this is even being considered.

  38. D. Charles Shiderly Says:

    Hi Brian!

    It seems to me that the forced donation of blood is, on it’s face, a 5th Amendment violation, in the sense that the individual is being forced to self-incriminate. If you can refuse a breathalyzer and the field sobriety because of this protection, how in the world does the blood test warrant trump it?

    Further forcing the issue w/ mandated breathalyzers in bars is just as bad. I have the right to not self-incriminate, and by the highest law in the land no one can make me. Frankly, that the government as a whole has forgotten this is a sign of the times.

  39. Borvo Says:

    Has nothing to do with Drinking and Driving. If a Police Officer wishes to forcibly withdraw your blood he can, whether you have been drinking or not. Best Advice, move north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Actually, that’s good advice in general.

  40. D. Charles Shiderly Says:

    @ Drea:

    “point being if you have nothing to be guilty for (as in being drunk) you have nothing to worry about.”

    If I’m innocent, why do I have to forcibly self-incriminate? Furthermore, why am I self-incriminating in the first place once I’ve already taken the 5th?

    You see, in this country, you are not automagically guilty just because a supposed representative of justice says so. That officer is a person, an equally fallible human being, with his or her issues, hangups, bad days, and the like. The point of the law is to prevent that person from overstepping the bounds and oppressing the citizen. With the power you would give the officer, he could easily take your entire life apart by signing a few papers. Lose your house, lose your children, lose your freedom, lose every single thing you ever worked for, and maybe even lose your life.

    But that’s okay, you have nothing to fear, you’re not really guilty, right? That’s why we have all those evil rapists that we just let out because DNA evidence said they didn’t do it… oh, wait.

  41. George Washington (1 comments.) Says:

    They draw my blood and I will draw theirs. Let’s see who dies first – them or Liberty.

  42. Brian Cuban (120 comments.) Says:

    @D. Charles Shiderly:Charles,

    it is really no different than say if you shot someone. The police get a search warrant and recover the gun which incriminates you. They got the warrant because they had probable cause to believe you were in possession of the gun which is evidence of the crime.

    In the Dwi, scenario, they are getting a warrant because they have probable cause to believe you possess evidence of the commission of a crime would be your blood. All perfectly legal and constitutional on its face. The issue is not that but the opportunity for large scale abuse of the process to the level where warrants are just large scale rubber stamp procedures with no real probable cause inquiry. Magistrates become an arm of law enforcement rather than being independent and nuetral monitors of sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant.

    I am not saying that I agree with that but I understand the argument. On a personal level, I believe that you drink and drive at your peril. Don’t want your blood drawn, stay out of a car.

    As an attorney I am certainly sensitive to this: Police States just don’t suddenly pop into existence. They are created tiny bite by bite by bite by bite into our civil liberties. Bites so tiny and spread apart that we don’t really notice until we are jailed and waterboarded for spitting on the sidewalk.

  43. Daniel Luke (1 comments.) Says:

    We live in a police state. That’s all there is to it. This wouldn’t be the case if the state didn’t have the complicity of many or most of its citizens.

    42,000+ people die every year in car crashes. Most are actually not alcohol related. The fact is that driving is inherently dangerous, and nothing is ever going to change this. Groups like MADD are lackeys of the motor-industrial complex in making it seem like the dangers of driving are mainly related to alcohol. In the meantime, DUIs and the like serve as a huge cash cow for municipalities all across the nation and arguably ruin more lives than all the alcohol-related deaths combined. DUIs ruin so many lives. People who drink and drive are not the ones who made driving all but compulsory in the U.S. What’s sick is that only alcohol-related fatalities matter. For everyone else killed on the road (the majority) it’s just tough luck–nothing to be done–something to just be accepted as part of the cost of a car-mad society. Twisted if you ask me.

  44. Paradochs Says:

    This is illegal.

    I would defend myself if anyone, police included, tried to stab me with anything.

  45. Kookaburra Says:

    Peter T. said:
    “That reminds me… have any of you individuals (I’m speaking to those who posted under me all for this brilliant new law) ever considered that the BAC limit is absurdly low? Do you realize that a .08 limit is 1-2 drinks for most people? Are you so severely impaired after a couple brewskies that you become an immediate threat to yourself and everyone else on the road that it should be illegal for you to operate a motor vehicle? Common sense says no, MADD and those idiots at Ad Council say yes. Let me remind you that the most severe accidents that give drunk driving its notoriety are usually in the <.15 bracket. Wake the fuck up, people.”

    Well, you’re making an assumption here that all people have your level of alcohol tolerance. I know people who probably shouldn’t be on the road with a .04 alcohol level, and I know people who aren’t very impaired with a .12. I am probably more aware on the road after 4 beers than some people are sober, because they just aren’t paying attention. Does this mean I should be able to drive around after having 4 drinks? Probably not.

    Then there are the people such as those who are sleep-deprived, which impairs your ability to drive as well. “They found that people who drive after being awake for 17 to 19 hours performed worse than those with a blood alcohol level of .05 percent. That’s the legal limit for drunk driving in most western European countries, though most U.S. states set their blood alcohol limits at .1 percent and a few at .08 percent.” So, should it be illegal for me to drive to work if I didn’t go to bed by 10pm?

    For the record, I think this law is ridiculous, but then I’m a loon who thinks that roadside checkpoints should be illegal as well. What, do you think that when they wrote the bill of rights they didn’t know that there were bad things in the world? Hey, I’ve got an idea. I’ve got a nice soft padded room, and I can lock you inside. You’ll be totally safe, you’ll never be threatened by a drunk driver, you won’t have to worry about a thing. I’ll slide your meals in on a tray under the door. But it’ll all be pureed, because we wouldn’t want you to choke. In the mean time, I’ll be living my life on the outside dealing with a certain amount if risks that have to be endured in order to be free.

  46. JP Says:

    Forrest M. Thank you for stepping down to our level and really breaking it down so that all of us dumbasses could understand. Your ever so enlightening remark describing the legal system (complex dance, performed according to a very detailed set of evolving law that consistently gets better) almost made me forget that the legal system actually looks a little closer to this: One side, known as the defense, gets to lie with impunity, practice character assasination and introduce some of the wildest, most far out, bullshit, laughable theories as to why their ten time loser client really was on his way to take grandma to choir practice. But wait, this can only take place after the lawyer has convinced the court to delay the case two dozen times before being threatened with contempt (which never happens) if he doesn’t show up this time (not on time mind you, just this time, attorneys are never on time, this is apparently a known fact and an actual requirement of the job ingrained in law school). I used to hate defense attorneys, now I pity them. Most that I know are alcoholic or drug addicted, on their third or fourth marriage and in debt deep enough to make congress take an involuntary dump in their collective pants. These are the very respectable practitioners of the legal profession! They are what stands between us commoners and absolute tyranny! Pillars of the community!…Bullshit, try “dregs of society,” “drain on morality.” Oh, the other side….They are called the prosecution. They have to obey all the rules or the defense attorney is on Channel 4 at 10 asking the District Attorney when he quit beating his wife. Bear in mind that this is the same defense attorney that will invite the DA to all the lawyer parties and dutifully contribute to his campaign every four years or so. All part of the “complex dance.”

    About the original article…………bullshit. No cop is going to be drawing anybody’s damn blood on the side of the damn road. I swear you people will believe anything. In the first place, the cops just won’t do it. In the second place, the FOP lawyer (here we go with the damn lawyers again) would scream his lazy ass off because the cops would be getting sued for everything from assault to causing permenant erectile dysfunction in some fat lady.

    Last but not least, to Adam, I hate to be judgemental but you sir are what is wrong with the phrase, “there are no stupid ideas.” If some dumbass could make “wise choices”, his dumb ass wouldn’t be one the side of the road getting his tonsils transplanted, lasik surgery or his DUMBASS BLOOD DRAWN by some traffic cop, now would he? Ohhhh but he could if he had a breathalyser so that he could make an “informed decision” you say. Lets see…..Dude, look, I blew a .17!! Beat that shit! Go Adam go! Go Adam go! Go Adam go! .12???? That’s it??? That’s all you got??? Dude, your driving.

    Adam, I don’t mean to pick on you. You’re probably just a dumbass.

  47. Michael M. (19 comments.) Says:

    Paranoid: being disproportionately afraid of the boogie man is one of the reasons why we have such a hard time making any meaningful progress.

    Chaotic: There is a reason I haven’t been on the ‘receiving end’ of being in jail. If you dislike jail so much, then don’t behave contrary to your local laws.

    Mark: “understanding and sympathizing” about stopping drunk drivers is keen, but at some point somebody has to stop talking and start making meaningful change in the way drunk drivers are being treated. The recidivist rate is outrageous and again – innocent people are still dying. Drunk drivers forgo their rights when they get behind the wheel of a car and drive on the same street as the rest of us (that don’t drink and drive anyway). If it wasn’t so easy to do over and over and over again, then this measure wouldn’t be needed. It is your opinion that the police are motivated to end run the Constitution, but that is merely boogie man rhetoric. Did it perhaps occur to you that they want to stop people from driving drunk and killing innocent citizens?

    Forrest M.: Your condescending tone says so much about you. Arrogant and self righteous. To suggest that the solution to the world’s problems is law school illustrates how devoid of common sense you actually are. I suppose you are likely another one of those “famous and respectable DWI defense attorneys” which is why you responded with such rattled nerves and circled wagons to begin with.

    It is troublesome the amount of energy and focus that is being spent on protecting the rights of the drunk driver and in criticizing the very people that seek to remove these unlawful and dangerous people from our streets. Very few mention the rights of the innocent people that are impacted by the drunk driver, which is what this is – or should be – all about.

    Michael M.s last blog post..Bond of Valor

  48. Enzo Says:

    To Edward:

    I agree that we need to get drunks off the road, but the problem is that no one should be able to draw blood from you without your permission. Period. Drunk or not. This sets a precedent and the authorities will start using it for everything. Why not just drug test everyone walking around in the mall? After all we don’t want people on drugs walking around do we? I’m sick of these fat people causing our health care to spiral out of control. Why don’t we stop them and do a cholestorol check? It is ridiculous and should be illegal to take blood from someone. It violates your freedom.

    If the person is truly drunk, then it should be obvious so arrest them. If the person is not drunk beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are not drunk. Period.

  49. Kookaburra Says:

    Hey, JP (dumbass?)..
    I hope you move someplace nice like N Korea where you won’t have to worry about those damn defense lawyers.
    And sure, all prosecutors obey all the rules all of the time, no cop has ever abused his position of authority, and there has never been an innocent person convicted of a crime. So how is the weather in LaLa Land this time of year?

  50. Michael M. (19 comments.) Says:

    Rock on JP, rock on!

    Brian…you actually summarized it well in your recent comment better than in your article. This is not a roving band of pissed off cops with needles poking people that violate POP (Pissin’ Off the Police). There are procedures; and when properly executed, drunk drivers will go to jail and safe drivers will flourish.

    I don’t see this as a major step (or even a minor one) in reducing our civil liberties since the end game is a reduction of drunks not an increase of wrongly imprisoned peasants. But that is just a different spot on the spectrum of tolerance. Far different than some of the wild fringe arguments that have surfaced.

    Michael M.s last blog post..Bond of Valor

  51. tyler schneider Says:

    stocking liquor licensees w/ complimentary breath testers > stocking IV equipment in the Police cruiser.

    w/e the real issue is passing law allowing on-site tissue samples. next the canadian/usa Border Brothers will be confirming children are infact, children of the adult transporting them.

    hehe i liked that one above:
    they keep taking away rights in favor of some asshole feeling “safe”. oh but i’m a tinfoil hat wearing basement dweller for thinking the constitution should still have value.

  52. Chris Taylor Jr (1 comments.) Says:

    I am sorry but many of you people have issues and will regret your concepts of right and wrong down the line.

    If I were in this situation the officer would have to physical damage me to excercise that warrant. I would even consider deadly force to stop him from executing it. Because the consequences of permitting him to do this far outweigh the benefits of getting drunks off the road.

    If they want to issue a warrant for a breath test. FINE. I am ok with that. There is no lasting or permanent record of my biology or DNA in a breath sample short of alcohol content (with todays technology at least) If it RETAINS a biological sample then I would have a problem with it as well.

    The BLOOD is where I have a problem and NO warrant may trump legislature. The warrant is VIA legislature. The judge is a moron.

    They would have to kill me or render me unconscious to take my blood and if unconscious they would have a extraordinarily violent person on there hands when I woke up.

    Keep in mind. I do not drink. Literally I just do not drink. Period. I do not think the combined alcohol consumption by me in my 32 years would fill even a small wine glass. A small sip on new years of “something new” is about all for me. I just do not enjoy it.

    The point is they are NOT getting my blood. I simply do not trust them with that kind of record/information. Period.

  53. Rackett Ferracoon Says:

    You are aware the it’s not the POLICEMAN that draws the blood but a REGISTERED NURSE, right?
    All these comments about cops and needles! SHEESH! Give them some credit, their liability insurance would never allow that! ESP. considering the AIDS, HEP-C and etc. they ALREADY get exposed to daily!

  54. Alex Says:

    Peter T,

    you make a great argument about the constitutional right to.. well.. do what, exactly?

    Operate a motor vehicle on public roads? (you don’t have that. you need to secure permission to do it, and it has to be done on the governments terms. if you don’t like that, walk.)

    The BAC limit is low because they want to cover everybody. this includes the folks who can drink a 6 pack before they get buzzed AND folks like me who get drunk if they even smell alcohol. There is no reason to try and differ the two.

    What about the brilliant folks who mix their meds with alcohol? how many beers do you think it will take render them unable to drive properly?

    Have you ever been in an accident involving a drunk? Do you think anybody who has really cares exactly how much that guy had to drink?

    There are A LOT of laws that infringe on our personal rights, DWI law is NOT one of them. If you’ve been drinking and you get into your car then you are a direct threat to everyone else on the road. I don’t care what your tolerance is.

  55. Nick Says:

    I am a trained phlebotomist and work in a hospital that draws blood for officers when they need help. Every officer I have seen drawing blood was trained and well educated. They all will run through a phlebotomy training program designed for cops and will spend time in outpatient drawing stations to get practice. All of them had a high reguard for proper procedures such as only using clean sterile needles. Given what I have seen, I find the comments saying someone will get an infection or Hep C from a officer draw are laughable. I can honestly say the officers are better trained at drawing blood than most new nurses. Sometimes people are hard sticks or have phobias and the officers were trained to bring them to the hospital for assistance. I have no problems with the cops ability to draw blood.

    All that said, I think the jumping around the constitution is bad. Its a slippery slope and Americans are losing more and more civil liberties. While I want officers to have the tools needed to bust drunk drivers, a 24 hours dial-a-warrant is not it. This practice should be banned as unconstitutional.

  56. mike Says:

    I got one DWI and if I gave blood or not I still would have been given a DWI charge. I see no reason for cops needing the “blood”.

  57. H Man Says:


    This is different than proving you shot someone. In order to get a search warrant for a gun you have to have probable cause. That cause cannot be your assertion of your 5th amendment rights. This is where I see this Texas law breaking down. They are plainly saying that the reason they are taking a blood test is because you are asserting your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself. This totally goes against the reason the 5th amendment exists.

    In my not so humble opinion I believe Texas can simply do what some other states like Illinois has done. You make the refusal to blow a bigger penalty for driving. Since driving privileges are not a right the state can mandate a penalty for not complying to a sobriety test. Here both sides win. Any driver who feels the need to assert their 5th amendment right gets to do so. However, the state can still take that person off the road for more time and if the person had been convicted of DWI.

  58. Brian Cuban (120 comments.) Says:

    @Michael M.: Mike, my issue is that we always want to work backwards from the end game. “the crime was henious so we can therefore take this shortcut” The Texas polygamist kids are being abused so we can bypass the burden of proof and remove them all en masse”

  59. Michael M. (19 comments.) Says:

    Brian: fine, but to realize lasting achievement at anything, it has to be objective based. The objective here is to stop drunks that don’t stop themselves so that lawful citizens can realize greater safety on the road. Nobody is short of an opinion about why this a problem (including the threat of violence to law enforcement?), but how many people actually see the big picture enough to see how this measure will make a positive difference in the meeting the Objective? It’s called the ‘end game’ for a reason. When the drunks quit driving, the objective will have been met and measures such as this won’t need to be deployed.

    We have learned that the polygamist investigators didn’t meet the state’s burden of proof for the unprecedented case, but that is not the same as saying that the kids are actually safe, or that nothing should be done about the child sexual assault that is apparently occuring behind those walls.

    When common sense (no, not judicial activism) is forcibly removed from the practice of law, we’re all in trouble. Oh wait, we already are!

    You really got the natives goin’ on this one Brian!

    Michael M.s last blog post..Bond of Valor

  60. Brad Says:

    To chime in on the 5th amendment issues. I believe the area of discussion here is whether “non-testimonial exemplars” (IE: stuff that comes from you, but is not testimonial in nature, like DNA, blood, fingerprints)The USSC has been fairly consistant in saying that all of these are NOT considered “self-incriminating” in the sense understood by the 5th Amendment.

    As a Texan, I am well aware of the State’s habitual disregard of federal precedent.

    In this case, though; it would seem that removing the “right to (not)consent” for non-invasive tests would make a lot more practical sense than the idea of issuing what are essentially blanket warrents to give lip service to the notion of due process.

    This would be a win-win. Police can identify violators with Breathylizers, and nobody’s 5th Amendment or 4th Amendment rights are seriously abridged. (The USSC has also identified the point at which obtaining exemplars becomes a “search” in the legal sense… they generally stop at the skin.)

    This seems to be the most sensible solution. Along with tougher meaningful punishment for real offenders.

  61. Brad Says:

    I meant “whether non-testimonial exemplars are considered to be self-incrimination….

  62. John M Says:

    For those of you who think it is ok to arbitrarily acquire search warrants and draw blood from people, you need to wake up. As the article stated, tolerance of such policies will only lead to further erosion of our personal liberties, and everybody’s freedom. And sorry to say, our liberty and freedom is worth the thousands that die each year from drunk driving. We lost far more in every war we’ve fought to protect our liberty. Now we are going to give it all up so we can have the illusion of security when we drive at night?

    I am not saying it is ok to drink and drive, I am saying that an authoritarian government that can search us at will is far more dangerous to each and every one of us than anything else you can imagine.

    Please folks think about it for more than 5 seconds. Research it. Find out more. This is not a conspiracy, it is real. Our freedoms have already been eroded considerably in just the past 7 years. That is a fact. Do something about it. Talk about it. Find and elect people who support our Constitution. Then and only then can we stop things like this from happening.

  63. methylamine Says:

    No. The 4th amendment is very clear:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    As a doctor, I know that taking blood without permission is ASSAULT. This is far beyond any police permission; faxed warrant be damned, I will not submit.

    The immediate danger of one person *possibly* driving while intoxicated is less than the constant danger of overwrought storm troopers assaulting mostly innocent people.

  64. FlaCory Says:

    The answer is quite simple. “Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” Benjamin Franklin

  65. Jake Says:

    I like the more modern quotation from Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace by Lawrence Lessig: “The regulator has a range of means to effect the desired constraint, but the values that these means entail need not align with their efficiency. The efficient answer may well be unjust– that is, it may conflict with values inherent in the norms, or law (constitution), of the society.”

  66. WOW Says:

    I am appalled at the total lack of intelligence among many who have responded. What’s even scarier than the government forcibly sticking a needle in your body is the indifference and support, shown by many of you, of this unbelievable violation of basic rights.

    Those of you who think this practice is perfectly fine are among the least educated Americans I have ever witnessed and have not the slightest knowledge about common law, the constitution, the bill of rights, and why we fought for our independence from England.

    The ignorance and apathy shown here is insulting to those of us who actually studied and learned our history and constitution. The lose of liberty that we have experienced over the last few decades will only get worse. In the coming years, you should know that you and your children will be forced not only to give blood but to receive vaccines (you cant refuse),medication ( you can’t refuse) and a whole host of wonderful things the Government has planned for you.

    Let me be the first to thank all of you ignorant uneducated morons for helping bring an end to Freedom in America.

  67. Ricky (2 comments.) Says:

    The ignorance and apathy shown here is insulting to those of us who actually studied and learned our history and constitution. The lose of liberty that we have experienced over the last few decades will only get worse. In the coming years, you should know that you and your children will be forced not only to give blood but to receive vaccines (you cant refuse),medication ( you can’t refuse) and a whole host of wonderful things the Government has planned for you.

  68. One Time (1 comments.) Says:

    The one thing that people seem to forget is that driving is a privilege, not a right. If your driving presents a deadly threat to other motorists, your driving privilege needs to be suspended or revoked.

  69. WTPuck? Says:

    This is a lose situation for anyone involved. Drink at home, by yourself. Nowa days, even yelling at a loved one in your own home gets you in the pokey! Seriously, a lot of our ancestors were closet drunks, some how that is better than shrinks or prescribed meds that are now to blame for suicidal thoughts and tendencies. So sit at home and get drunk by yourself.

  70. Casey Says:

    The biggest problem with DUI is a large number of people have been conditioned to drink and drive.
    We watched are grandparent's and parent 's go down the road with a drank in thier hand in the sixties and seventies when it was no big deal, and they were all mostly pillars of the community.Even are drunkest uncle only got locked up for the night.Then the laws abruptly changed and this social norm was supposed to go away over night.The1980's came and all of the sudden everyone was in each others business about drinking and driving.Law makers are Idiots for thinking they can change a social norm over a few years when people had been drinking and driving without a care for 60 freakin years.

  71. natalie edwards Says:

    Leaning on your "car" yeah right! Indication of being intoxicated as stated that really could be untrue! They pull you over saying your "headlights were out" and were not, which you don't want to question and do what they ask "especially if you are not intoxicated" and " don't to get pepper sprayed ((as I heard happen to people when they were not not–intoxicated) over false accusations and false information . I was recently pulled over and accused of "driving without my head lights on when you know for a fact they were on. How can they then accuse me while being pulled over for not " real reason claim they "smell, eyes etc which is always the excuse be called a rightous act? Maybe the person was nervous / scared/ had wrong shoes/ this is wrong

  72. Matt Says:

    Ever try to fight a speeding ticket? This type of "justice" reeks of the kangaroo courts the founding father's of this nation fled. People have been duped into swallowing the lie that "all drunk driver's kill or maim innocent women and children." BS! I'll wager that there are more auto related deaths in this country at the hands of inatentive, rush, rush, lazy driver's than all of the drunks, and texters combined. For those who agree with yet another erosiuon to our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, move to a communist state somewhere in the Eastern Block. and oh…the comment that amused me the most was the one made by Drea who said: "I am of the majority when I say, that no matter how much I've had to drink I don't drink and drive". and then went on to tell us that she/he was under the age of 21. Wake up kiddo, should the cops now be allowed to bust in your door and take you into custody for your stupid admission? Drinking and driving is dumb, but our rights should not be walked on so that MADD can advancetheir pathetic junk-science laden political agenda.

  73. el chupanalgas Says:

    Terrible accidents happen all the time regardless of alcohol or just plain stupidity. The drunk driving rates are scary but no scarier than any other statistics we seem to see these days. I don't believe that the Gov has the right to take your blood from your body at any time no matter what the circumstances without your consent. period. Our blood belongs in our bodies and not to be collected or manipulated in any way by the state or gov. This surley must be one of the oldest laws ever as humans like for their blood to stay in their bodies as history shows it was a difficult thing to do at times. Any police officer that wants to draw my blood will have to knock me out to do it.

  74. Chris Says:

    I was paced for doing a 50 in a 35. Just came from a bar were I had 3 drinks in 4 hours. I tell the cop all that do the field sobriety test. Cop says I failed everything. Slurred speech red eyes couldn’t walk heel to toe. Gives me a breathalyzer 4 times in a row saying I couldn’t do it right. Finally it comes up .085. I’m arrested and they take me to a van where they ask me to take a blood test. I say no so they get a warrant. Then I took it. Blood test comes back .060 and the court drops all charges. The thing is the DMV says if you refuse a blood test your license is suspended for a year. Plus the DMV kept the .085 reading even after I had a civil hearing with them. In order to go to work I have to put a breathalyzer in my car even though I was not over the legal limit and the other court dropped all charges.

    How is this fair?

    The DMV is allowed to do as they please.

    The only reason I refused is cause I thought I was protected by the 4 th amendment.

    Can anyone make sense of this?

    How could they believe the cops field sobriety test after seeing me blood test?

    He lied his ass off!

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Field Sobriety Tests and Your Blood ~ The Ramblings of a College Student Says:

    […] Link  […]

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

google-site-verification: google17190a1b860a2726.html