quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
14 years and NEVER have requested a search warrant for blood when they refused.
Have yet to loose a DUI case.

How do you get it? Just take them to the hospital and ask a nurse? What if they are flailing about?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
14 years and NEVER have requested a search warrant for blood when they refused.
Have yet to loose a DUI case.

How do you get it? Just take them to the hospital and ask a nurse? What if they are flailing about?

Certainly not! Talk about a huge rights violation right there.

I don’t need it. If I can’t articulate enough on the scene their level of intoxication and I have to rely that much on a breathe or blood test that is not enough evidence in my book to make the arrest.

Sure, having breathe, blood, or urine (never requested that) helps but I will certainly have plenty of other articulable observations and evidence on why I determined they were intoxicated to the point they were under the influence enough to be arrested.
If they submit to the tests that is just an added bonus.

This only goes for a simple traffic stop type DUI arrest. I won’t work check points.

Collisions with injuries or loss of life is a different story. I leave those to our collision reconstruction or super DUI folks.

OK, I completely misunderstood what you were saying.

Over 10,000 Americans die from DUI related collisions every year. Add maybe 2-3x that amount that are injured.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

Goddamn my blood is boiling. Okay, so they found a loophole around the 4th amendment but f*^% them.

It's not a "loophole around the 4th amendment", it's a SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE. The exact thing that the 4th amendment explicitly requires. If you want to go off on exceptions (consent, exigency, hot pursuit, emergency aid, etc.), fine, but you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Put it this way: the cops have probable cause to believe you killed somebody. A judge issues a warrant to come in your house and search for the murder weapon. Is that an end run around the 4th amendment? No, it's a search warrant issued based on probable cause.

But something tells me you just won't agree...

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
Is it ok to strap a rape or murder suspect down to draw blood for DNA testing?

If they get a warrent from a judge, i guess so.
It has been a long while since i have done that kind of work, but on refusal we could obtain a warrent. However the case gets more complicated to prosecute and easier to defend., just becauze they have a court ordered sample, does not mean it will be admited at trial. Prosecutors tend to be lazy, and hate losing.

Following the Constitution is now a "loophole".

I thought we were big fans of the police following the Constitution.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
I don’t need it. If I can’t articulate enough on the scene their level of intoxication and I have to rely that much on a breathe or blood test that is not enough evidence in my book to make the arrest.

You are a reasonable officer and I applaud you.

I guess we should also stop random testing of truck drivers for drugs and alcohol. This testing involves NO probable cause and is simply part of DOT regulations.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I guess we should also stop random testing of truck drivers for drugs and alcohol. This testing involves NO probable cause and is simply part of DOT regulations.

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

In New Jersey, police will often rely on BAC readings provided from the Alcotest to prove a defendant was in fact “over the limit” or under the influence at the time they operated the motor vehicle. However, in certain scenarios, police will sometimes seek to draw the defendant’s blood to test the blood alcohol concentration.

These scenarios often occur when the defendant is physically unable to give a breath sample. A common example is when there has been a car accident involving injury. Instead of taking the defendant back to the police station to do the testing, police will rely on a certified nurse to draw the blood in a medically acceptable manner while at the hospital.

Other examples can be when the defendant is non-responsive because of a high intoxication level, or the defendant refuses to give a breath sample.

Refusal applies only to breath testing cases in New Jersey, and not blood or urine testing. There is no law in New Jersey that requires submission to blood or urine testing.

Most departments have their own blood kits that they use in these special circumstances. However, if no police blood kit is available then officers will normally request that a certified nurse draw the blood and then hand it over to the police so that it can be sent to the state lab to be analyzed and tested.

Blood draw cases are currently undergoing a debate in New Jersey because new case law holds that a blood draw is an invasion of privacy and therefore requires that the defendant either consent to the drawing of their blood or that the police first obtain a warrant.

However, many critics seem to think that the exigent circumstances and possibility of losing evidence negate the need for a search warrant and justify a warrantless search.

Moreover, because most blood draw cases involve an accident and no Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, it makes the State’s case much weaker and harder to prove if the blood readings are successfully challenged because they are left with little to no basis for proving intoxication.

Finally, in New Jersey, you can be charged (and convicted) of both DWI and Refusal, with the penalties stacked on top of each other.

quote:

Originally posted by motor59:
....

Finally, in New Jersey, you can be charged (and convicted) of both DWI and Refusal, with the penalties stacked on top of each other.

You forgot to mention that DWI in New Jersey is not a crime; it is a traffic offense. As such, one does not go to trial in front of a jury. He or she faces a judge. One almost never beats a DWI rap in New Jersey as a result.

If sticking a needle in another person against their will isn't an unreasonable intrusion, then nothing is.

Such kooky ideas should have been laughed out of the room, each and every time someone said them.

That it ever got to this point at all is crazy as hell. Talk about egregious Government Overreach... wtf

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I guess we should also stop random testing of truck drivers for drugs and alcohol. This testing involves NO probable cause and is simply part of DOT regulations.

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So WTF does this have to do with any states you guys are in? When did the fed make a fucking call that states had to abide by the same rule? Texas can be rude but I fucking guarantee everything they do to criminals has been validated by the US supreme court, too tough, move along, most polite place I've ever lived.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
If sticking a needle in another person against their will isn't an unreasonable intrusion, then nothing is.

Such kooky ideas should have been laughed out of the room, each and every time someone said them.

That it ever got to this point at all is crazy as hell. Talk about egregious Government Overreach... wtf

Agree, same as allowing cops and EMT to poke a taxpayer provided NARCAN needle into the body of a proven leach on society that has no positive influence on society.

EH?

Iowa suspends licenses and the State can get convictions for ANY amount of a controlled substance in your blood or urine, including inactive metabolites. Legally smoke pot in Colorado and get pulled over in Iowa 3 days later on I-80 and an officer believes there are reasonable grounds to invoke Implied Consent and take your urine, he will likely get a test result of inactive THC metabolites and you are SOL. I tried a 3 day OWI jury trial on this, lost, the Supreme Court took it up on appeal and it was upheld. I had an expert testify how urine only shows presence, not intoxication and also covers a much larger window than blood. The State's lab expert agreed, they used urine instead of blood though because its cheaper for local law enforcement and the State labs. I don't smoke pot, but the whole affair still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

In 18 years as a cop, I got a search warrant for blood once.

If you refuse, you refuse. No skin off my nose. You just lost your license. I can testify to all of your failures of the SFSTs or to your walking about during the traffic stop. And my opinion of your impairment.

When I got the warrant, it was for a guy who got airlifted before I could get his blood. I got the warrant for his medical records when he got admitted locally and before they flew him out. He was found guilty after a year of dragging the case out. He even showed up in a wheelchair. The judge heard testimony and read the records out loud in court (0.30BAC an hour after the stop). The guy didn’t appeal it to superior court.

I’ve taken blood when the driver refused the breath test or I offered them the choice and they chose blood. But I’ve never had to get a warrant for drawing blood for a Dwi beside the aforementioned case. Nor would I. You either have the probable cause or you don’t.

I had many many case with a BAC of 0.08 or 0.09 at the test and those are really not that difficult to prove. 0.08 or 0.09 is pretty easy to observe. Anything higher is super easy to prove. I once had a 0.40 BAC and that time and the device printed out the result and told us to request medical help.....he was a known drunk and 0.40 was not unknown for him,

Anyway, I don’t have a problem with getting a blood sample via warrant or not, I don’t like drunk drivers, but I caution any officer to depend on it. I always told other officers to observe and be really good at documenting the encounter...when yo go to court, don’t worry about winning, just do your job, report the truth and the judge will make a decision.

Having been almost killed by a drunk driver back in 1991 - the 1st officer on scene thought I was dead and threw a sheet over me - and my accident was the drunk drivers 7th offense in 8 years - and now being employed as one of "those Judges" who approve OR DENY search warrants for blood, I will opine.

First off, I think that anyone who lost a loved one to a drunk driver might have a very different opinion from some of those I have read here in this thread. Let me say up front, I have no sympathy for those who drive drunk and are apprehended. None at all. And checkpoints catch many of them, keeping other innocent motorists safe. So I am OK with that too.

People choose to drive drunk. Today, there are too many other inexpensive options to avoid doing so. Taxi, Uber, Designated Delivery or similar FREE services paid for by cities, states and counties that an intoxicated person need only call to get a ride - GRATIS.

Now as far as the myths surrounding "probable cause" that I have read in this thread, in real life, by people actually determining probable cause, it is "not a given" or "a certainty". Far from it.

An officer bringing a suspected drunk before me has to be sworn and demonstrate a reason for the stop and the behaviour observed that led to the arrest. Failure to do so results in me denying probable cause. And it happens far more often than what has been fantasized here in this thread.

Don't want to submit to a breathalyzer test? Be my guest! It is your right to refuse if you wish! And it is the States right, in NC to suspend your driving priveledges for a year for refusing. Nobody is declaring you "automatically guilty". You just can't operate a motorvehicle, legally, for a year. Think that stops a drunk from driving? Then you are either naive or an idiot.

One thing the multiple DUI offenders ALL have in common, is driving while their license is revoked. I see it every night and between 12 and 20 times a night on weekends. And when they refuse the analyzer, it is my DUTY to consider ALL THE EVIDENCE and determine whether I will issue a search warrant for blood. Which I will often do because there is very rarely any reason not to.

Drunk driving is an offense that often results in loss of life. It is a simple task to avoid being charged and having your blood drawn against your will. Just don't do it. Free will.

So all of the armchair lawyers and Monday morning quaterbacks out there should think about all the misery and carnage these drunks driving on the roads cause. Think about them killing your wife, child or family member - for no reason. None! Other than they were too cheap, stupid or lazy to get a ride. Inexcusable. Don't waste pity on them. Regards 18DAI

quote:

So all of the armchair lawyers and Monday morning quaterbacks out there should think about all the misery and carnage these drunks driving on the roads cause. Think about them killing your wife, child or family member - for no reason. None! Other than they were too cheap, stupid or lazy to get a ride. Inexcusable. Don't waste pity on them. Regards 18DAI

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you for your post. I agree completely.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by motor59:
....

Finally, in New Jersey, you can be charged (and convicted) of both DWI and Refusal, with the penalties stacked on top of each other.

You forgot to mention that DWI in New Jersey is not a crime; it is a traffic offense. As such, one does not go to trial in front of a jury. He or she faces a judge. One almost never beats a DWI rap in New Jersey as a result.

Good point.

In my defense, other than my first 2.5 years in a law enforcement role at Ft Bragg NC, all of my enforcing was in NJ... the concept of a jury trial for DWI is completely foreign to me.
That 2.5 years in the beginning was in the late 70's - and those DWI cases would have been heard in Federal (US Magistrate) District Court. I don't actually remember one going to trial.