Been a LEO for seventeen years now, shift supervisor currently.

I think you're missing the point. Citizens do not get randomly and without cause strapped down and subjected to blood draws.

First comes reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Most states have laws about Implied Consent. That means if you operate a vehicle in public on public roadways, you've therefore already given consent to BAC testing.


There is no reason to refuse field sobriety if you are not impaired.

The best way to avoid being asked to participate is to consume no alcohol prior to driving. It's that simple.

quote:

Originally posted by 18DAI:
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.

Funny you mention that. When I drove for Uber and Lyft, I had plenty of passengers who had suspended licenses for DUI. Plenty of those had drinks in their hand when they got into my car. Hell, they knew they weren't driving. Why not get drunk and stay that way? And plenty of them told me about their cases and plenty of those were so flimsy, I found it hard to believe a decent lawyer hadn't gotten them a deal. But they all said Phoenix courts no longer give any deals on DUI cases because Uber and Lyft have taken too big a bit out of the city's DUI industry revenue. That money is budgeted well in advance and the state will find it one way or another.

One guy I drove had had six DUIs and spent a year in prison on the last one. His last arrest was for falling asleep in the passenger seat of a running car while the driver went inside the gas station for some drinks and snacks. It was over 100 deg. outside, so he'd left the car and a/c running. Since my guy was drunk, the only adult in a running car, even though he had not been driving at all, they got him again. Total bullshit.

OP-

I've gone back to the start of this thread and re-read it... and need a clarification.

Are you saying that in the great State of Texas, DWI checkpoints are set up on weekends/holidays where every driver that encounters it is forced to submit a breath sample based solely on being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

And furthermore, that if said driver refuses to submit the breath sample, he/she will be compelled to give a blood sample, by force if necessary?

Do I have that right?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Total bullshit.

I have yet to arrest a guilty person. The blood on their hands is never from their victim’s. The stolen property in their car is never theirs. The gun in their waistband is always planted. That video? It isn’t them. Hell, these ain’t even their pants.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Yeah, it absolutely makes my blood boil. Strapping free Americans down and forcibly drawing their blood is egregious and indefensible.

And give me a break about probable cause. As if that judge will deny a single warrant that one of those police officers asks for. It's automatic.

They deny warrants all the time. And it is a pain in the ass to write one up, ESPECIALLY after hours and takes a couple hours. I am not gonna waste my time unless I am sure it is gonna be correct. And my Sgt. sure as shit isn't gonna let me waste time screwing around with unfounded warrant application... nor will the guys handling the calls in my assigned area while I screw around. If I am getting a search warrant, you better believe there is something there.

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Yeah, it absolutely makes my blood boil. Strapping free Americans down and forcibly drawing their blood is egregious and indefensible.

And give me a break about probable cause. As if that judge will deny a single warrant that one of those police officers asks for. It's automatic.

They deny warrants all the time. And it is a pain in the ass to write one up, ESPECIALLY after hours and takes a couple hours. I am not gonna waste my time unless I am sure it is gonna be correct. And my Sgt. sure as shit isn't gonna let me waste time screwing around with unfounded warrant application... nor will the guys handling the calls in my assigned area while I screw around. If I am getting a search warrant, you better believe there is something there.

If your blood warrant isn’t a template that takes 20 minutes to write, you’re doing it wrong.

Every search warrant I have ever gotten for chemical testing resulted in the person complying with the order and giving a sample without issue. People are not being held down and jabbed with a needle. I am generally giving folks the option to blow if they don’t want to get poked. My last two have taken that offer.

None of my search warrants have been on injury or fatality cases. They’ve all been on 3rd offense (felony) OWIs. In what case would we ever stop investigating a felony we know is being committed just because the person says “no?” If I knew you had a stolen car in your garage, and wouldn’t let me in, i would sure as hell get a warrant for your house. And when you tried to deny me entry, i would break the fuck out of your door to get in. That’s what we’re talking about here: the only people that are being forcibly stuck with a needle have 1) probably already refused testing with consent and without force, and 2) have refused to comply with the warrant. They made their bed. Don’t drive drunk.

Another cop in here said something about how if they can’t get enough evidence to convince someone without a test, they shouldn’t be making the arrest. What a load of crap. You mean to tell me you are ONLY making arrests when you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s not a thing.

One more thing, and I’ll speak specific to Iowa: if I have a warrant for a chemical test, and I get it, the only thing the defense can really attack is the reason for the stop. That’s it. They’re never going to win a suppression case on a warrant because they have to prove the warrant is defective. Not gonna happen.

Additionally, on SW cases without injury or fatality in Iowa, you cannot invoke implied consent and then get a warrant. So I get my sample, you keep your license, and then when you’re convicted (when, not if) you get revoked for 6 years instead of the 2 you would’ve gotten for a refusal.

quote:

Another cop in here said something about how if they can’t get enough evidence to convince someone without a test, they shouldn’t be making the arrest. What a load of crap. You mean to tell me you are ONLY making arrests when you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s not a thing.

I think you are misunderstanding I arrest on probable cause. Impairment is so very noticeable for operating a vehicle no matter the substance that one does not NEED a breathe, blood, or urine sample to articulate PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest. I said nothing about proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you cannot comfortably articulate that someone is impaired by the events that led to the stop, their actions, witness statements, their statements, and your observations on the scene and you must have the sample to feel comfortable in your arrest then you are doing it wrong. As said I already have enough to show that you are impaired without the test to make the arrest. The test is just icing on the cake backing up what I have already determined. If you don’t take it there is no skin off my back. You still go to jail and I have yet to lose a DUI case with our without a breathe or blood test.

Again this is for a standard DUI.

No extenuating circumstances, like collisions, injuries, etc. where one can’t fully asses the situation and the drivers impairment.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Another cop in here said something about how if they can’t get enough evidence to convince someone without a test, they shouldn’t be making the arrest. What a load of crap. You mean to tell me you are ONLY making arrests when you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s not a thing.

I think you are misunderstanding I arrest on probable cause. Impairment is so very noticeable for operating a vehicle no matter the substance that one does not NEED a breathe, blood, or urine sample to articulate PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest. I said nothing about proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you cannot comfortably articulate that someone is impaired by the events that led to the stop, their actions, witness statements, their statements, and your observations on the scene and you must have the sample to feel comfortable in your arrest then you are doing it wrong. As said I already have enough to show that you are impaired without the test to make the arrest. The test is just icing on the cake backing up what I have already determined. If you don’t take it there is no skin off my back. You still go to jail and I have yet to lose a DUI case with our without a breathe or blood test.

Again this is for a standard DUI.

No extenuating circumstances, like collisions, injuries, etc. where one can’t fully asses the situation and the drivers impairment.

I'm agreeing with you. Essentially, chemical testing is a verification of the articulable probable cause an officer uses for the stop, based on his or her knowledge, training and experience. It also serves as direct evidence of the statutorily defined excess amount of a substance in an offender's bloodstream.

Back in the early to mid 90s I was an intoxilyzer operator. The limit then was .10BAC. We (Austin) didn't run any DWI checkpoints that I can remember. Maybe DPS was the only agency doing it. In those years I probably ran 4-500 tests on other officer's arrests and my own. In those several hundred tests, I would say literally maybe 4-5 persons didn't blow over .10. The law could have changed to probably .14 and the same amount of people would have failed.
The only mandatory blood draws being done were from crashes where SBI or deaths occurred. We now have a DWI unit, as do most any of the big municipalities. DWI arrests take cops off the street for a long time, yeah most of the affidavits are checklists, but still a long time.
The courts don't have time to deal with cases with weak PC from bushy tailed cops, and the DWI unit eliminates most of that. And yeah, DWI is a big $$$ business for the counties and defense attorneys.
I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, and no offense intended but Jimineer, since you don't drink and drive, I suspect you are all a-fret about something that will never affect you. If a friend or one of your loved ones was using a ride share to get home safely and a drunk killed everybody in the car, I'm not sure you'd be so concerned that their blood was being taken and tested against their will.
Personally I'm okay with no refusal/mandatory blood draws if it keeps somebody from causing something like this. www.facesofdrunkdriving.com/jacqui

Here is a good description of what has the OP up in arms:

How Do No Refusal Weekends Work?
The terminology of No Refusal Weekends is somewhat misleading. Many people may interpret the name as meaning they cannot refuse an officer’s request to submit to BAC or drug testing. This is not the case.

What No Refusal means is that law enforcement takes steps to reduce the number of legal refusals of such tests. They accomplish this not by making it illegal to refuse to comply with BAC and drug testing, but by speeding up the process of obtaining warrants and conducting tests.

Local law enforcement agencies provide more resources to process DUI offenses by putting more officers on the road, keeping a magistrate readily available to review, sign, and approve search warrants, and having more blood-draw nurses available to speed up tests;

The intention is to both discourage individuals from driving drunk and to better handle the increased number of drunk drivers who will be on the road during high-risk periods.

With a warrant, a police officer may escort a driver to the office for additional breath and blood testing. In some cases, blood testing may even occur on site. The test results are evidence usable for the DUI/DWI case in court.

https://www.davidbreston.com/w...al-weekend-in-texas/

Checkpoints are a problem, in my view, but the courts don't agree.

Blood draws with a warrant issued upon probable cause are exactly what the 4th amendment contemplates. That is no loophole.

Driving being a privilege has nothing to do with this. We do not give up our constitutional protections while exercising a privilege. Saying it another way, the government cannot burden the exercise of a privilege (or any other legal act) unconstitutionally.

We just had a police officer killed by a piece of shit drunk.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/ne...ver-charged-with-dui

Interesting replies thanks.
When I get to my laptop I’ll respond since I started this discussion.

I had a jackass cop cost me thousands of dollars, $5k. I understand the people saying it's an infringement of rights, at the same time it's no different than a warrant for a bank account of someone committing fraud.

Cop pulls me over, I had two drinks, a tall beer and a shot (single, not double). Has me do all the field sobriety tests, then says if you blow in this machine I'll let you go. I blow just below the limit .079. He says I still think you are drunk, I'm arresting you anyways. Get to station it was .081. Charged with DUI.

I had stopped in the bar on the way home drank the two drinks in ten minutes, drove four miles, got pulled over. The alcohol was not in my system yet, your body can't process it that fast. Total of fifteen minutes from drinks to being pulled over.

Had to pay lawyer $5k to say I was not drunk and I would have been home before it even hit my system. Cop testified that I passed the field sobriety tests, but he *thought* I was under the influence.

Screwed me out of $5,000, impound fees, and a day of work over this stupid cops hunch. I passed all three roadside tests and the roadside breathalyzer. Later found out that cop does almost nothing but DUI arrests.

A hunch is not probable cause.

quote:

Originally posted by motor59:
OP-

I've gone back to the start of this thread and re-read it... and need a clarification.

Are you saying that in the great State of Texas, DWI checkpoints are set up on weekends/holidays where every driver that encounters it is forced to submit a breath sample based solely on being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

And furthermore, that if said driver refuses to submit the breath sample, he/she will be compelled to give a blood sample, by force if necessary?

Do I have that right?

No.

Some places do checkpoints, where they merely observe everyone passing a given point by stopping traffic and interacting with drivers. If you look like you might be intoxicated, they pull you aside for testing, breathalyzer, or a blood draw after they get a warrant.

I think the blanket checkpoints are a 4th amendment violation, because they are a search NOT based on probable cause. But the courts do not agree.

There would be an argument that a blood draw after a checkpoint stop should be excluded as the fruit of the poisonous tree IF the checkpoints were also 4th amendment violations. But they have been overwhelmingly held not to be violations, so the later blood draw is now permissible.

I can see this evolving into another law enforcement hating thread...

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
I can see this evolving into another law enforcement hating thread...

Most of them earn it. Not all but most.

(Driving is a privilege, not a right)

Jim: Here Mark, have some kool-aid
Mark: (turns around) Hey everyone! Mr Jones is handing out free Kool-Aid!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
I can see this evolving into another law enforcement hating thread...

Most of them earn it. Not all but most.

I respect your opinion but really don't think it is true nor applicable to this conversation.

Have a good day.

I bet it’d really burn your brisket to know that a warrant wasn’t even required across the board for blood draws as a general rule until a few years ago.

I’m not a big DWI guy, they are the single biggest pain in the ass arrest/prosecution, but keep in mind that a lot of impaired drivers are on pills or drugs, that don’t show up in a breath test. There are officers certified as “Drug Recognition Experts” that are legally experts that can interpret the driver’s conditions medically to testify as to what drug they were impaired on, but that’s one of the rarest certifications I know of. A blood test isn’t subjective.

I’m also not a fan of DWI checkpoints. But that’s another thread...