-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Speed Limiters, Too?
December 28, 2012 | 70 comments
Car Guy
Goodbye, Number Five
Should police be allowed to draw the blood of drivers suspected of drunk driving?
Next time you get pulled over by a cop — or stopped at random in
a “sobriety checkpoint” — you might want to remember the
following laugh line: It’s called the Fifth Amendment to the Bill
of Rights, which reads, in part, that “No person… shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself.”
Ho ho ho!
It’s a laugh line, because, like, so many of the other amendments to the Bill of Rights, pleading the Fifth — that is, declining to assist the authorities in your own prosecution — is a sick joke.
Or like them, is about to become one.
Because cops may soon have the legal authority to forcibly extract blood from you in order to use that blood as evidence against you in DWI cases — which are criminal proceedings.
Refuse to take a Breathalyzer (for whatever reason) or perform the trained monkey act by the side of the road (perhaps because you’re not coordinated even if completely sober and probably a lot less so under pressure and in the glow of a policeman’s flashlight) and you could find yourself thrown down across the hood of a squad car while some cop jams your body with needles in order to get the blood that will then be used as evidence against you at your trail.
Oh, but they will be trained!
Well, sort of, kinda. A “compressed” version of the same program taken by blood techs — phlebotomists, in medical jargon — will be the curriculum vitae of these state-sanctioned thugs.
Feel better now?
It’s all part of a new federal program — yes, another one — the stated purpose of which will be to determine how effective a “tool” such tactics would be in the ongoing (and endless) crusade against drunk driving. If it is deemed “effective” (do you doubt it will be?), then it will become as commonly practiced across this formerly free land as all the other outrages against civility and basic legal due process we have already assented to.
The badge-lickers out there will see no trouble here, either. After all, if you’re not driving drunk, what have you got to be worried about? Those nice cops would never use force against an innocent person! They will be trained! The lab people don’t make mistakes, not even every now and then.
And, of course — drunk driving is a bad thing!
It makes me shiver with dread to see just how close to the abyss we really are. The Masses — or a great part of them — have become sickeningly compliant authority worshippers of the late-Soviet or 1920s Weimar Germany type who submit to anything demanded of them by the state. And who often bristle with righteous indignation when the occasional semi-sentient citizen dares to raise an objection. Such a person is either a soft-headed “liberal” (if the objector is a badge-licking “law and order” Republican type) or (if the objector is the liberal), the person raising pesky questions is smeared as being opposed to “safety” - or someone who favors (in this case) “drunk driving.”
Neither sees — or would give a damn about it, if they did — the point. Which is that empowering cops to physically hold you down and draw blood from your body against your will — to be used as evidence against you in a criminal proceeding — is to rape the Fifth Amendment and thus, another basic and ancient tenet of the late great tradition we used to call the rule of law.
All in a good cause?
Only if you’re a fool — or the government, which knows what the real payoff here is.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/15/goodbye-number-five
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Brubaker| 9.15.09 @ 6:49AM
As is so often the case, Mr. Peters once again misses a fundamental point: Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. When you accept a driver's license, you also accept the rules that accompany it. If submitting to a breathalyzer or blood test bothers you, don't drink and drive. Better yet, don't drive.
C. S. P. Schofield| 9.15.09 @ 7:08AM
No, Mr. Brubaker, YOU miss the point. Remember that all this is to be done in the absence of evidence that a crime has been committed; the police do not have to wait until you drive erratically, speed, or otherwise do something detectably wrong.
The issue isn't whether driving is a right. The issue is whether the agents of the State have to follow the Constitution, or whether they may wipe their bungs with it.
JP| 9.15.09 @ 7:41AM
"As is so often the case, Mr. Peters once again misses a fundamental point: Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. When you accept a driver's license, you also accept the rules that accompany it."
Brubaker,
I suppose, in your eyes, when one accepts the privlege of driving they must check thier rights at the door. Sorry pal, re-read the constitution. The government cannot confer . Niether can the government suspend rights when it confers a privlege; otherwise, one can argue that walking down a sidewalk or strolling through a park (both paid for by the government) is also a privlege. And for that privlege the citizen loses 1st Amendment Rights, or 5th Amendment Rights...take your pick.
Please, dispense with the cliches and do a little thinking.
PDN| 9.15.09 @ 7:52AM
Mr Brubaker,
Okay I'll give up the privilege of driving which means I'll also give up the privilege of being able to work. Then I can enjoy the privilege of being on welfare.
We've already lost this fight when the courts gave the ok to random stops in the name of "safety"
brat magusrsky| 9.15.09 @ 7:57AM
A case on point: I had a discussion with a DUI court coordinator a few days ago (yes DUI defendants are priviledged enough to have their own court) who told me that eventually this will be a mute argument as technology will allow the fixing of the brain (re-wired he called it) so you won't be compelled to drink and drive, or shoplift, or argue with the cops or a judge, or your wife...i can't say this enough God Help Us!
Motown Mike| 9.15.09 @ 7:59AM
Drunk driving is a terrible thing but do we want police doing medical procedures on the roadside?
Darrin | 9.15.09 @ 8:08AM
What next? Forced blood sample to test for illegal drugs, use of drugs without a prescription, illegal transfats by eating donuts from unlicensed shops? How about a hair sample?
Mandatory urine sample via catheter?
Stool sample?
nick| 9.15.09 @ 8:20AM
Mr. Brubaker - I think you miss the more fundamental point that driving is a privilege because the state declares it so - do you believe that the founders would have considered travel by horse a privilege?
Darrin - we have already gone down that road - school children are being tested for participation in school activities (sports) - of course all in the name of "protecting" the children.
Tim| 9.15.09 @ 8:35AM
As a retired state sponsored thug, I find it quite amusing to start my day with this insulting screed on the Spectator website. Mr. Peters, no badge licker you, you are clearly an asshole.
As a matter of fact though, I do agree with said asshole that police shouldn't be drawing blood-forcibly or not. The first few lawsuits should put a stop to this, as will the video of some poor wretch screaming as a pile of officers stabs him or her with a needle.
Mr. Peters, you could have made your points without coming off like some of the low rent posters here. Mostly I am surprised that the editors of this magazine, which I have been reading some twenty years, allowed you to run.
Assholes.
St Thor| 9.15.09 @ 8:36AM
The United States Supreme Court has even incorporated into itself the automatic Obey and Submit conditioning. It has spent so long licking the boots and bottoms of the federal executive and legislative branches that it was shocked to find it had killed the First Amendment by upholding McCain-Feingold. It is now trying to undo its damage, but don't bet your constitutional rights that it will restore the 1st Amendment. Or that it will stomp on this latest attempt to destroy the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Tim| 9.15.09 @ 8:47AM
And another thing, Has Ben Stein read that piece? I think he'd be ashamed of it.
Eric Damon| 9.15.09 @ 8:50AM
Re: Tim
You may not like the tone the author takes, but his article is right on point. The police should never be allowed to compel you to give evidence against yourself in a criminal trial, but they are already able to do that in drunk driving cases. I know here in North Carolina, refusing a sobriety test of any sort (blood, Breathalyzer, or field sobriety) means you automatically lose your driver's license; in essence you are treated as a guilty of the crime simply for having refused to provide evidence of your own guilt to the police!
And your tone could use some work as well; did your years as an officer erode your vocabulary to the point where only expletives can express how you feel? Is name calling your only rebuttal to an article that offended your tender, blue sensibilities?
Galen| 9.15.09 @ 9:09AM
and what happens when you get hepititus from the recycled needle that's used? In so far as driviing is a necessity for work and living, it is a right under the rubric freedom to travel
Curly Smith| 9.15.09 @ 9:30AM
According to the people behind the program we have a "Drunk Driving Crisis". We must act now to implement new measures to avert total catastrophe. Sound familiar?
The real root of "The Crisis" is government. There is no absence of drunk driving arrests, there are, however, no serious legal consequences for a big portion of those arrested and convicted. We've all seen the stories where the drunk driver who just killed 5 people had 7 prior drunk driving convictions. How was he convicted 7 prior times without this new tool?
Before we start a MADD crusade against the Constitution, shouldn't we at least first deal with those that our current laws have identified as problems? No, because it's not about removing drunk drivers from behind the wheel, we can already do that, it's about Power. Sound familiar?
Chuck| 9.15.09 @ 9:55AM
Tim, you are one sanctimonious prick. And good day to you sir. Drive safely now.
Tim| 9.15.09 @ 9:57AM
Eric.
I completely agree with you on the constitutional issues.
I carefully chose my expletive to make a point. At least if I am deleted or banned I will have the comfort of knowing that somebody read what I said.
As for my "tender blue" sensitivities...they never stopped me from entering burning buildings, wading through swamps, comforting the dying or taking a gun out of the hand of a maniac. But I'm a government sponsored thug, so what credit or sympathy do I deserve? I or thousands of other cops.
Will | 9.15.09 @ 10:03AM
Allowing a police officer with little medical training to extract blood in a DUI stop is ludicrous. There's no warrant, no checks and balances in this instance for what is most certainly a significant physical intrusion, categorically different than a breathalyzer. What is the government going to do with your blood? Can they put it in a criminal database? This seems to be not only a violation of the 5th Amendment, but also an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment. What happens when someone is harmed by a needle? For the guy who wrote earlier about driving not being a right, there's a doctrine that prevents government from attaching unconstitutional conditions to a discretionary privillege. This states the government can't force you to give up your rights in order to receive a privillage granted by government. This is simply nuts and sets a horrible precedent. Protecting law and order does not mean surrendering our rights.
Steve| 9.15.09 @ 10:04AM
Whoa, Tim.....Touchy, touchy. Try living life on the other side of the badge for a while, without a FOP sticker on your car. One speeding ticket my whole life.....that's it. But I've been put through dog and pony shows and nose touching sessions by TAX COLLECTORS (screw the law enforcement officer euphemism -- and whatever happened to "peace officer"?) for no reason other than revenue enhancement. And I'm a "free" citizen?
Try life as a mere civilian, Tim, the law-abiding TARGET of law enforcement..... the badge becomes tarnished real, real fast.
Tim| 9.15.09 @ 10:24AM
Putting aside my hurt feelings;
Of course once I have your blood, I might as well check your DNA and see what else you've been up to...If you're innocent you have no reason to object.
Steve| 9.15.09 @ 10:25AM
One last thing, Tim. On I-10 a number of years ago I pulled an elderly couple out of flipped truck which exploded as we scrambled away.....not an officer is sight. Say, does that qualify me for a pension? I mean, granted it's not the same as wading thru swamps, etc........
Tim| 9.15.09 @ 10:31AM
Steve that was an admirable act of courage, but my government handbook says that maybe you should have just offered them pain pills, as opposed to undertaking an operation that would only briefly extend their QUALY years.
KyMouse| 9.15.09 @ 10:35AM
I'm not clear, then...what are the constitutionally acceptable methods for determining whether a driver is impaired or not? Making note only of the vehicle's path and speed? I'm just trying to think this through. Thanks.
Conservative Bob| 9.15.09 @ 10:40AM
On July 4th I was stopped on the way home from a Tea Party. I was about 2 ½ miles from my home.
For reference I should point out I live in the country. I am 15 miles from the nearest gas station and almost 25 to the nearest grocery store. In an extremely low populated low traffic area.
The last country intersection was lit up like a major crime scene. There were 15 state patrolmen and they had the road blocked in every direction.
They search my wife and I and our vehicle; I asked politely several times what was going on no answer was given. I asked the officer if he had ever heard of the 4th amendment and suggested I could provide him a copy as I had one with me. We were further detained and our papers more closely examined.
Because I dared ask an uppity question my wife and I were detained further as they went over everything one more time just to make sure there was nothing they could cite us for.
Neither of us had had a drop to drink, nor were we violating any traffic laws or indeed laws of any kind. The whole thing was a fishing expedition.
I found the incident ironic. We had spent the day celebrating our founding we spent the day listening to inspiring and uplifting speeches about our God given liberties enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only to have those same rights trampled and cast aside.
I later found out that the state received some extra funding by stepping up “enforcement”. It was the projection of police power.
I have nothing to fear from Drunk Traps as I never drive under the influence, I rarely drink at all. I wish that we could remove all drunks from the road and punish them as they deserve. I have received that terrible phone call telling me a drunk has taken someone close to me.
I do fear however the constant erosion of liberty at every level. The Constitution does not grant our civil rights it recognizes them, they are our God given natural rights. It is one more short cut for law enforcement on the one hand and further intrusion into our life by the state on the other. The argument is always framed in some grand public interest; we are saving lives getting criminals off the road. Never mind how many it actually nets, or as someone so accurately pointed out earlier how little consequence actual drunks experience from the legal system.
Over time the cost of these short cuts are erosion of our civil liberties and erosion in our confidence in and respect for the law and the people who enforce it.
Just like we are being told now that the constitution is silent on compulsory health insurance, and besides how could you possibly not be in favor of covering the children? Never a good reason for not expanding the power of the state., maybe they can use those blood samples to help find illnesses we didn’t know we had when they cross reference our driving record with our government medical records. Think of all the lives we can save!
Curly Smith| 9.15.09 @ 10:47AM
KyMouse - it's called a "Search Warrant".
Rick| 9.15.09 @ 10:54AM
Tim: Why do police officers put decals or other markings with the horizontal blue stripe on a black background on their personel vehicles so that other law enforecement officers know that they or their family members are police officers?
Are they asking for special treatment not afforded to regular folks?
Of topic- Do you thnk pot should be legal?
DAC| 9.15.09 @ 11:07AM
Tim the former cop: Even if we all accept that you are (were) the most fair, least selfish, and most competent police officer in recorded history, your "argument" fails miserably. I and most other people I know have never, ever had a good or helpful experience with a policeman; in fact, quite the opposite. Most do not put their lives on the line every day for the public good. Most are, in fact, dead-eyed bureaucrats with guns, who take the path of least resistance, which is always to hassle, beat, harass, and otherwise muck up the days of law-abiding citizens. It's a lot easier than actually catching violent criminals or preventing violent crimes. And the more the State empowers petty bureaucrats to harass citizens, the more petty "crimes" will be addressed, at the expense of actually dangerous crimes. Is drunk driving a bad idea? Yes. Is it a crime? Maybe--if and when some harm is caused as a result. But should it be a pretext to gut the Bill of Rights? No, especially since the corollary is empowering jackbooted thugs like your former colleagues--if not yourself.
I go back to what my father once said, wisely: I've never met a cop I liked or a fireman I didn't like.
One final question, Timmy: please explain to the dumb masses what legal duty you have (had) to safeguard the general population? Putting it differently, if you show up at a private residence, and a rape & rob fest is in progress, do you have a legal duty to assist the victims, and if you don't assist them, what would be the consequences to the officer who chose to delay or abort the response? Educate us, please, on just how well you and your kind guard the public. Asshole.
Sean| 9.15.09 @ 11:11AM
Good article. Our state sponsored thugs have enough to do already, like writing some seatbelt tickets to keep us all safe.
Pete| 9.15.09 @ 11:17AM
This will end in the courts when the first black person with a Harvard education gets pulled over and has his blood forcibly taken.
With cops and DUI harassment, the best policy is to act like a liberal: lie and then insist upon that lie. I got pulled over 200yds from my house about 7 years ago...for not signaling in a turn lane with no one else around (cop was on side street). When he asked me if I had had anything to drink, I chose to be honest. I told him I had had one beer, 2 hours prior with a full meal...and that I am 6'5" and 270lbs. Well, that was the wrong thing to say, apparently, since after that I then waited 30 minutes for the county "DUI specialist" to show up. Long story short, I argued and told them to go do something useful for a change and wouldn't you know it, they cuffed and stuffed me and took me to the station where I blew a .00000000. They had to give me a ride home with me chirping in their ear the whole time. While this was happening, my wife WALKED down to grab our puppy out of the car...and they breathalized her!!! The officer asked afterwards with a suck smile on his face if she would like the plastic tube as a "momento of the evening." The kicker is that when I went in to get the police report so I could get these asses in trouble, it was wildly inaccurate/fabricated. What really struck me was the part that simply said "subject admitted to drinking" with no other details of our conversation. Nice folks.
I appreciate what cops do in general, but the tax collection aspect of things provides them with the wrong incentives. And many of them are drunk on power...this blood thing would only bring out the worst in those that are already bad.
dnha14| 9.15.09 @ 11:31AM
I really don't drink much, so the chances of me driving drunk is pretty slim. But, the only way a cop is getting blood from me is after he smacks me over the head with a billy club and scrapes my blood off the ground. How trained will they be? What assurance do we have that the equipment used is sterile? Will they outfit all cop cars with refrigeration units to keep the blood until it gets to the lab? Or will the tests actually be preformed in a nonsterile cop car? The questions are infinite.
Ray| 9.15.09 @ 11:41AM
Why is it that the police are required to obtain a search warrant in order to collect a DNA sample from a suspect in rape, murder, assault, and other cases but now the federal government believes that they should be allowed to collect a blood sample without a search warrant in the case of a suspected drunk driver? If you need a search warrant to collect a physical sample in ONE case or situation, you should need a search warrant to collect a physical sample in EVERY case or situation. There should be no exceptions to the evidence laws for anyone, for any reason, no matter how noble the cause.
George| 9.15.09 @ 11:50AM
Premise: it should be public policy not to use one's home as a base of terrorist operations.
Pursuant to that, any federally backed mortgage should have the proviso that if the borrower uses his house for terrorist operations, the mortgage will be - by law - called in by the lender.
However, the Fourth Amendment places an undue burden on law enforcement to effectively root out terrorist operations in one's home.
Therefore, anyone who signs for federally backed mortgage hereby waives his Fourth Amendment rights. If the police demand entrance absent a warrant, you have two choices:
a. Refuse entry as is your Constitutional right, whereas the bank will call in your loan for breaching the implied consent in the terms of your mortgage, or
b. Sit quietly as they ransack your home, a home which ownership is a privilege, not a right.
Solo| 9.15.09 @ 12:09PM
I think that allowing police to draw your blood against your will is a singularly bad idea. It is clearly a violation of your 5th Amendment rights.
But...the hostility I see towards police officers, in general, is quite the shock.
I'm sure that there are bad actors out there who wear the uniform- just as there are bad actors everywhere and in every profession. But..., and maybe I'm just lucky, I've never had a really bad experience with a police officer. I've come across some who were jerks but none have gotten out of hand.
Maybe some of the problems expressed here by others are not one-sided.
First...the police aren't the courts. They have no desire to interact with, or patience for, someone who wants to start litigating the Constitution on the side of the road.
Second...most of these confrontations can be defused before they get started if you just use a little common sense and park your hostility in your driveway.
Here's a helpful tip to avoiding problems when being stopped:
First, understand that a police officer stopping a car is in the most danger and is the most vulnerable then he or she is going to be on any given day. And they know it!
This raises their tension and anxiety level into over-drive before the first words are spoken. Multiply this by 10 for a traffic stop at night. Multiply it by another 10 for a night stop on some deserted stretch of highway miles from back-up.
Second..put yourself in their shoes for a second and try to start this encounter off on a good note.
Here's how (from someone who has been stopped many times and never had a problem with any officer).
1) Signal that you're turning off the road as soon as the lights come on. Don't ride along looking the mirror while discussing it with passengers.
2) Pull well off the road so as to minimize the officer's exposure to passing traffic.
3) Shut the engine off and turn on 4-way flashers.
4) Roll the window down BEFORE the officer gets there and, if at night, turn on the interior light.
5) Put your hands on top of the steering wheel and don't go digging in your back pocket or glove compartment until the officer requests your documentation.
6) Be polite and respectful and if you feel you're in the right, then decide the issue in court-where it belongs. Don't start lecturing about how important you are or try to dazzle them with your constitutional expertise. It never works!
It's amazing how few "jerks" you'll find wearing a badge if you just use a little empathy and respect.
That's not being a "badge licker". That's just being a decent human being and assuming first that they will be, also.
And no...I'm not a police officer nor have I ever been one. You couldn't pay me enough to put up with the scum and villainy and bulls**t that they endure on a "good" day!
Achilles| 9.15.09 @ 12:28PM
When a blood draw is performed by a less than skillful phlebotomist, it can really hurt. Especially if they have to dig around for the vein or try multiple times. You people who support this want to give Police yet another excuse to punish people who are just suspected of crimes? I do not want my blood drawn by anyone at the side of the road.
DAC| 9.15.09 @ 12:32PM
Solo, you're quite reasonable but you are assuming way, way too much:
"It's amazing how few "jerks" you'll find wearing a badge if you just use a little empathy and respect.
That's not being a "badge licker". That's just being a decent human being and assuming first that they will be, also. "
Never has any police office treated me or anyone I know with respect. Not once--the assumption is that no matter where you are or what you're doing, you're a filthy criminal; a housewife in a minivan is just as dangerous as a turbaned Koran-reciter with electronics in his passenger seat and a bad attitude. No profiling, remember? And so especially when our legislatures have empowered these petty bureaucrats to harass us at will with no corresponding obligation to actually prevent any crime (Timmy's silence in response to my earlier question is damning), we are fools to assume the decency of the badged bureaucrat. 99% of the time they know they should be elsewhere, dealing with hard things--real crime--rather than pushing the limits of their petty powers against easy prey. If more cops were like soldiers or firemen--properly trained to do hard things, as their sworn duty--we'd be more at liberty to make Solo's assumptions, and more at liberty, period.
Brat Magursky| 9.15.09 @ 12:35PM
in my many years of experience here is the formula.......badge+gun+state arrest powers+cops likeTim = the a-hole word he kept using over & over but yet claimed to be morally and intellectually superior typical button pushing cop (i.e. i want to help but you are getting agitated & I am going to have to arrest you)...sir please calm down...sir...sir...[insert sound of head bouncing off the trunk of police cruiser here] ahhhh progessive policing-problem solved!
cdc| 9.15.09 @ 1:21PM
The roads are designed to be too safe and easy. Put obstacles in the path and then laugh at the drunk and incompetent as they continuosly wreck their vehicles because they didn't read the signs.
Derek Leaberry| 9.15.09 @ 1:24PM
Police are more and more the agents of an authoritarian left-wing state. In fact, the policeman and the government rub each other's back. The government uses the police to keep the "citizens "in line. The policeman gets the power rush that he wouldn't normally achieve by his own merits. Ever notice how policemen love to ride on the bumpers of the car in front of them, thus intimidating traffic to pull right so that the cops' path may be parted like the Nile? That's part of the cop swagger just as their love of applying sobriety tests on anyone who might have had a beer or two.
With the nation's budget deficits exploding, one of the best things that may happen is the downsizing of police. America doesn't need half of the police force we now have.
PolishKnight| 9.15.09 @ 1:25PM
What I like about the "driving is a privilege" argument is how it flies in the face of the policy of the states, especially, to make driving into a necessity and taxpayer burden.
Roads are largely paid for via federal and state funds that come out of public coffers including property taxes (although a gasoline and driver fees are a significant contribution.) In addition, people are required to present their DRIVER'S LICENSES as a form of ID although most states now have a non-motorist "driver's license."
Many roadways now even prohibit pedestrian use either via not having sidewalks or biking paths or expressly forbidding pedestrian access for public safety reasons.
Now regarding the constitutionality of forced blood tests. The police probably do have a right to extract, say, fingerprints to identify someone or other evidence if they have reasonable belief that a crime has occurred. The problem with roadway stops, along with most drug testing, is precisely the argument that such individuals drive and work normally making it difficult to establish that suspician. This seemingly undermines the argument that such individuals represent a threat in the first place!
But then again, the whole 0.08 limit is BS. I was watching a mythbusters episode and the guys were at the 0.08 limit and drunk and messing up their cognition tests. Sheesh! Give them a placebo and tell them they're drunk and they'll probably fall over. But then again, they're in the liberal bay area and believe in global warming.
Louis Jenkins| 9.15.09 @ 2:02PM
Argue if you may, but it is already law in various states. Other states require an ambulance be summoned to the "crime's location" and the EMTs be required to do the blood draw. What if the law breaker who has been drinking(also a diabetic) is experiencing a bout of hypoglycemia, or maybe he's just a medication non-compliant diabetic patient? The EMT's draw the blood and then continue on their merry way, just another drunk, and fail to note a low blood glucose value, in fact, fail to do a patient exam as should always be done prior to any procedure? Now go backwards, Super Trooper draws the blood, the law breaker goes to the magistrate, and some where in the experience he goes completely unconscious, and possibly dies. Survivors are gonna sue the pants off of everybody in these scenarios. The law has created another liability for the guys in the field. Incarcerated people often do not get adquate medical care as required. Sometimes prisoners take advantage of their medical problems, other times it's the real thing. It is a fine line when dealing with medical conditions and driving while impaired.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.15.09 @ 2:12PM
Well, an interesting discussion.
Reminds me of the old story that a "liberal" has not been mugged yet.
I look forward to taking this blood test deal to the Supreme Court....or at least the one we have now.
I will simply refuse the blood test, resist the blood test with all my mite, and then sue the crap out of all involved, once my attorney gets involved.
Hey, Teddy Kennedy had the chance to sober up after the bridge incident.
Tim,
No disrespect intended. Local cops are the only alternative to Obama's thugs.
Thank you for your service to America.
sestamibi| 9.15.09 @ 2:29PM
One aspect of this not so far addressed is what kind of people are we hiring to be police officers these days? It wasn't too long ago that most cops were of the conservative persuasion themselves and believed in only the minimum force necessary to get the job done and preserve order. Today it seems that being a big tough guy with a left-wing agenda is part of the job description. Where DO we get these people??!
L. Ross| 9.15.09 @ 3:29PM
What boggles my mind is the cavalier attitude the government has to the profession of phlebotomy. In California, it is at least a 4 month course of instruction to become licensed. I doubt that our police would receive even four hours of instruction. And there would be no telling how current they would be in this procedure. Overall, this is a very, very bad idea.
Flel| 9.15.09 @ 3:55PM
Can anyone here tell me if it's okay to refuse all requests for tests by the officers? That was my impression was that you should not give any assistance other than license and registration. We all have the right to remain silent in a cooperative manner. Why should we do their job for them? I have not been pulled over for drunk driving or subjected to a random road block stop but I have had a few tickets over the years and not once has the peace officer been what I would call helpful. I support them and know they have a tough job but they need to respect the limits on their power and let a court of law determine our guilt.
Brother John| 9.15.09 @ 4:00PM
The reason I don't trust police officers is quite simple: They do not have MY own best interests in mind, and use the police power of the state to compel me to do things I may not wish to do, that in no way imperil the life, liberty, or property of another (i.e. speed limit laws, seat belt laws, etc). Pure "revenue enhancement" and nothing more, at great risk to myself. I do not and will not trust them.
gene hauber| 9.15.09 @ 4:09PM
I WILL NEVER SUBMIT!!
Bruce | 9.15.09 @ 4:21PM
Tim, Just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart for doing your part in making the rest of us retired cops look good. Don't know what agency you worked for, but I did 25 in the NYPD, and I would never consider working with a partner who thinks like you do.
We took an OATH, pal. It means something. Did then - still does. Of course being retired for almost 15 years now I have probebly seen more crap-weasel cops than you have - cops who apparently have never studied the Constitution. I now understand fully why so many people neither trust nor appreciate cops. Even honest cops. You embarrass me to have been in the same profession.
Trained, you say? Sure. We are ostensibly trained in firearms too, yet I have seen more cops than I can count who I wouldn't let get anywhere near me witha loaded gun. And you think allowing these guys to take blood on the street - in mostly unsanitary conditions, with negligable training - a good thing? Never mind the Constitutionality of the process.
Wow. Just ... wow. Hint - look up the "Oath Keepers." Might do you some good. And thank God you're no longer active.
Tim| 9.15.09 @ 4:28PM
Bruce
There is no good way to say this, you didn't read what I wrote. I am against taking blood and the whole thing. I only take exception at being called a thug by the author, although several posters here consider us all thugs.
Pingback| 9.15.09 @ 4:29PM
Chicago DUI Lawyers » Blog Archive » Goodbye, Number Five links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bruce | 9.15.09 @ 4:30PM
QUOTE: : sestamibi| 9.15.09 @ 2:29PM
One aspect of this not so far addressed is what kind of people are we hiring to be police officers these days? It wasn't too long ago that most cops were of the conservative persuasion themselves and believed in only the minimum force necessary to get the job done and preserve order. Today it seems that being a big tough guy with a left-wing agenda is part of the job description. Where DO we get these people??!"
Sir - you are absolutely correct. I went on the job in late 1968. Most cops then had just returned from the service and were well aware of what "duty" and "honor" meant. The type individuals I saw coming on the job before I retired in 1994 made me literally cringe. Misdemeanor arrest record? NO problem! Multiple vehicle infractions? Hey - it's life! 5 foot tall with major attitude problems? A little counseling is all.
When I was investigated I had my balls broken because I had gotten suspended from JUNIOR high school - 9 years earlier - for playing cards during a movie. I had 1 parking ticket for an overtime meter and my investigating Sergeant accused me of being a "lawbreaker who wanted to be a cop." The only thing that appeased him was that I had already been cleared for Top Secret by the FBI for a govt job I had.
It's a JOKE.
Bruce | 9.15.09 @ 4:42PM
QUOTE: " Tim| 9.15.09 @ 4:28PM
Bruce
There is no good way to say this, you didn't read what I wrote. I am against taking blood and the whole thing. I only take exception at being called a thug by the author, although several posters here consider us all thugs."
Tim - if that is the worst you've been called during your career - my heart goes out to you. You brush it off and go do your job as a professional. Words don't take away your self respect - actions do. If you wanted to be loved you should have joined the fire department, so you could walk around and play hero all day. Being a cop carries baggage - mostly that created by rotten cops that preceded us. It's our responsibility to help remove that tarnish from those that follow us.
Do you see the kind of responses your post elicited? And you wonder why you were called a thug? It's possible to be an effective police officer without being a brutal, ticket punching moron. I always joked that until such time as i got a percentage for every ticket I wrote ... I'll issue a warning whenever possible. And I did 18 years in some of the worst precincts you can imagine without so much as a single civilian complaint - while at the same time being in the top 10 in arrests.
Marc Jeric| 9.15.09 @ 4:52PM
Well - it seems to me that after a drunken driver has committed a crime ( a death or injury) the police have every right to investigate the crime, including the blood test. But not before the crime.
Frank Natoli| 9.15.09 @ 5:58PM
DWI laws, and all that follows from them, breathalyzers, blood draws, etc., are pre-emptive. As a matter of fact, most of the time, nobody has been hurt and nothing has been damaged at the time of the breathalyzer or blood draw. In other words, nothing has happened.
That is the profound difference between the Liberal and the Conservative. The Liberal wants to pre-empt you from being "bad". Curiously, once you've been "bad", the Liberal is less concerned about punishing you in a manner that fits the crime. The Conservative cares not to pre-empt you, but is going to escalate the punishment to a possibly ultimate degree once you've done it.
That's the difference between a culture of irresponsibility and one of responsibility. The Liberal believes everyone is irresponsible and builds his government on that basis. Hence DWI, hence gun control laws, hence the welfare state, hence "universal" health care, hence abortion [the ultimate act of irresponsibility...what a shock...sex actually causes pregnancy]. The Conservative builds his government on the assumption of responsibility, and when you're not, there is then a serious problem [for you], but up to that point, you are free, Foxtrot Romeo Echo Echo, free.
I'll take the Conservative world, thank you.
Pete| 9.15.09 @ 6:04PM
Very well put, Frank.
AJN| 9.15.09 @ 6:38PM
AmSpec, please dump this Peters dope. He makes grand and generalized assertions without a shred of detail or attributed fact. A complete waste of your column inches and my bandwidth.
Send him back to Lewrockwell.com where the rest of the mindless anarchists live.
Curtis| 9.15.09 @ 7:16PM
I ponder how long the warranted and even warrantless bloodtests will be confined to merely traffic stops?
I'm willing to bet, not long.
Roy| 9.15.09 @ 7:37PM
Bruce:
You still didn't read what he wrote, and neither did half the people who posted the "responses" he "elicited".
I pretty much don't see anyone here other than Tim that lives in the same world I do. If being a conservative means spewing this kind of crap at the police, I'll still be a conservative; only hope of ending the arbitrary slaughter of unborn infants. But I feel a lot less good about it than I used to.
Rick| 9.15.09 @ 8:03PM
Tim, lets face it you are a gutless coward. Folks asked you simple questions, and you ran and hid. So you called everyone an Asshole, so what, Man up girl. I guess you used to watch your mom run from her pimp, and that is why you have to hide too.
The Big E| 9.15.09 @ 8:14PM
Why should we worry about some new police practice to fight drunk driving being unconstitutional when we have no concern about the constitutionality of current police practices?
The fact is that DWI enforcement is driven by two primary forces - MADD and MONEY. Any idiot knows that when organizations and governments start giving grants to assist in the enforcement of particular types of crime that the existence of such grants creates a strong incentive among those who receive them to insure the problem NEVER appears to get anything but worse. This is a principle that ALL conservatives are familiar with when applies to any other self-sustaining, self-perpetuating, turf hungry government program. And I assure you, MADD has no concern - NO CONCERN - for your Constitutional rights. They pose (or posed, until the ascendancy of ACORN) the single greatest threat to our rights in our society today for in their world there is no right - none - that should stand in the way of drunk driving enforcement. All one has to do is read the recent amendment to the DWI law in NC to see the impact of their influence.
And Tim, while I am deeply appreciative for every honest, hard working, underpaid cop I have ever known, I must remind you that law enforcement is the first mechanism by which the will of the State is imposed upon the citizenry. In every country where the people labor under an oppressive regime, it is law enforcement that they fear the most (i.e. the Gestapo, the KGB, etc.)
Kyle Varner| 9.16.09 @ 1:33PM
I don't understand why people take issue with the tone of the author. He has hit the nail so squarely on the head that the "badge lickers" are squealing like stuck pigs.
Hopefully, one day, sometime in the distant future, America will stop and realize that freedom is too precious to give up in the name of marginally increased safety. But, as the author said, right now we've got to pay attention to John and Kate plus Eight!
DaveS| 9.16.09 @ 7:16PM
Think of the mischief you could wreak upon former lovers, neighbors you can't stand, and men-of-the cloth! And re-use the needles, too!
Anybody who seriously contemplates this tack is not worth anybody's further time.
Kurt| 9.17.09 @ 10:05AM
I asked my attorney if I could plead the fifth on this one-he said yes but that it wouldn't do any good!
B| 9.21.09 @ 3:28PM
Hey Eric Peters, Although you make very good points, perhaps you should try writing with something called citations. It makes your writing seem less elementary. Did you write this in 2 minutes?
Trackback| 9.23.09 @ 12:59AM
Homeowners Insurance Rate, on Homeowners Insurance Rate, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 4:12PM
Politickles » Blog Archive » Driving While Intelligent links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 9.26.09 @ 2:07AM
Home Insurance Quote, on Home Insurance Quote, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: