You know what’s crazy? I’ll tel you what’s crazy!
Police officers withdrawing blood from DUI suspects.
I am totally against drinking and driving.
I’d like to shove olives up the nose of the idiot who can’t call a cab. But my distaste for drunk driving doesn’t mean we throw good sense into the buzz saw.
There’s a pilot program being tested right now that arms cops with needles and rubber gloves, and allows them to take blood from DUI suspects at the scene of a Drunk Driving stop.
That’s not only unusually unorthodox, I think it’s flat out crazy!
According to the AP: Drivers in Texas and Idaho are part of a federal pilot program to determine if blood drawn by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.
If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.
The idea behind this pilot program is laudable. Roughly 20 percent of drunk driving suspects refuse state mandated breath-a-lyzer tests. That means 80% of drunk driving suspects actually submit. I like those odds.
So why rock the boat? The state has dash cam footage of drunks being drunks. The officer’s offer testimony in court which judges weigh more heavilly than an anchor in a stormy sea. Most states have strict laws that punish DUI suspects harshly for refusing mandated breath tests. In Tennessee, you automatically lose your license for a year, regardless if you were drunk or just high on life. So do you really think a cop with a syringe is a good idea? We’re talking 20% people.
Would you want Officer Johnson high on sugar withdrawing your blood, in the middle of a street or the back of a police cruiser?
Think about it. You’re on the side of the road. Trucks are blowing by. Helicopters are tracking dirt bags through glass lined alleys. Wind is howling, scanners are screeching, Hookers are hooking, Junkies are jonesing and vagrants are wandering aimlessly through a vast wasteland of hopelessness. And in the middle of it all, the Man in Blue, the Law, the man with the badge, taking blood samples. Really? It’s a bizarre world where Terminators roam the Earth when Johnny Law Man is also a vampire certified Phlebotomist. No sir buddy; I wouldn’t trust a cop on the side of this road with a donut no less a syringe.
I mean what about the possibility of contamination? A cop car filled with vials of blood? What about keeping them the right temperature? What if one vial gets mixed up with another vial?
That cop back seat is all ready contaminated with sperm, fecal matter, urine and tears of despair. Now you add drunk blood to the mix.
What if the suspect has AIDS? What if the blood is soiled with powdered sugar?
The what ifs are so plentiful, I just can’t sign off on this fast food attempt to stop drinking and driving with a cop and a needle.
As far as I’m concerned; cops have enough on their plate. They are all ready the baby sitter’s of society. They are the traffic cops, the peace keepers, everyone’s neighborhood daddy. Do they really need to wear a nurse hat as well?
I don’t know what my civil rights are on this one, but I have to think that a police officer taking my blood on the side of an interstate is going to eventually face a serious court challenge.
I say the system has enough flaws all ready. What else can we ask the man in blue to do?
They go to domestics. Does that mean they should they be marriage counselors? They deal with crime victims. Should they be grief counselors? They deal with unwanted pregnancies. Should they be responsible for handing out condoms in the school yard?
According to the AP: Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study.
Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nation’s highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.
You can’t hold down a suspect and force them to take a breath-a-lyzer? But you can hold them down and shove a needle into their arm? What the hell kind of Supreme Court ruling is that? I’d rather see my cops packing lead than pushing hypodermics.
I have one word that should make any community considering this stop and take notice.
L I A B I L I T Y
What if?
What if the cop screws the pooch and contaminates a sample or causes a medical situation in a DUI suspect? What then? Hello law suit. Goodbye taxpayer dollars.
Cops administering roadside Blood alcohol tests.
That’s crazy.