# Blood Warrants



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

:brew2: I passed the big Amber Alert, and Evacuation sign, On I-45 N @ F.m. 242, and the sign says no refusal Blood Warrants. So, here we are, we all knew it would happen. No special Holiday, no long weekend, or sporting event planned, just an ever day weekend, and they're using this illegal search method, to rake in the money, and steal one more right, from us. I don't believe in drinking and driving, nor do I. Slowly but :hairout: surely, one by one, we're losing, our rights. We roam around like sheep, led to slaughter. An Attorney can't help you if they forcibly take evidence, from you!


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

tbone2374 said:


> :brew2: I passed the big Amber Alert, and Evacuation sign, On I-45 N @ F.m. 242, and the sign says no refusal Blood Warrants. So, here we are, we all knew it would happen. No special Holiday, no long weekend, or sporting event planned, just an ever day weekend, and they're using this illegal search method, to rake in the money, and steal one more right, from us. I don't believe in drinking and driving, nor do I. Slowly but :hairout: surely, one by one, we're losing, our rights. We roam around like sheep, led to slaughter. An Attorney can't help you if they forcibly take evidence, from you!


State Legislators are making use of our laws that have been in place for a long time.

The Code of Criminal Procedure says a warrant can be issued where there is a belief that evidence of a crime exists.

These warrants are different than other evidentiary search warrants. Probable cause already exists for arrest for one of these "blood search warrants".

It isn't like people are being stopped at random, getting hauled in to have their blood examined and then being charged with DWI depending on the blood result.

They do serve their purpose. I bet if one of your family members were killed or maimed by a repeat offender that knew how to "play the game", you'd want the prosecutors to have that valuable piece of evidence (blood results) to convict him/her.

I've been to trial twice as the arresting officer and I've performed well more than 100 arrests for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while someone had been operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. One conviction, and one not guilty. The not guilty guy was well over the limit. Still not sure how the jury found him not guilty. The video was obvious. Since a jury can't see the person's as the officer can, and can't see the horizontal gaze nystagmus (eye test), it's hard for a jury to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Not all intoxicated persons are falling down drunk. And most drunks just over .08 are very hard to tell from a video that they're intoxicated.
I got a guy the other night that was a .107 on the breath test. If he wouldn't have blown, I'm sure a jury would have had a hard time convicting him. Although I knew what I knew.

My dept. has been to ONE trial involving a search warrant. He was twice the legal limit, but knew how to play the game. He gets out of the car and stares at the officer. He won't answer any questions and will keep asking if he's free to go. I arrested him for his first offense a long time ago, but Harris Co. dismissed it because of a lack of evidence. So his next one (if it happens) should be a felony, but will instead still be a misdemeanor.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Also, Harris Co. leads the US in alcohol related fatalities. Since you can't stop someone from drinking and driving (we do like our rights don't we?) someone that makes more than we do has decided that locking up repeat offenders for a long time and getting the ones convicted that need to be convicted is the only real solution.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm sure much greater care is taken with the blood samples than there has been in the past with DNA samples... :spineyes:


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

teeroy said:


> Also, Harris Co. leads the US in alcohol related fatalities. Since you can't stop someone from drinking and driving (we do like our rights don't we?) someone that makes more than we do has decided that *locking up repeat offenders for a long time and getting the ones convicted that need to be convicted is the only real solution.*


I don't think there is any evidence on that statement. The "Blood Warrants" were used to reduce the court dockets and trial juries.
http://www.yourhonor.com/dwi/featured/Blood-Warrants-Do-They-Reduce-Court-Dockets

I also know of one case a repeat offender continued his reckless actions and the courts had almost zero effect on him. If you make or have enough money, you will never see any long term jail.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I'm sure much greater care is taken with the blood samples than there has been in the past with DNA samples... :spineyes:


I don't think Harris County DA"s Office has ever been to trial yet...they continue to refuse to answer questions that they knew the equipment was faulty and take the 5th on the Grand Jury.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8468695


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

bill said:


> I don't think there is any evidence on that statement. The "Blood Warrants" were used to reduce the court dockets and trial juries.
> http://www.yourhonor.com/dwi/featured/Blood-Warrants-Do-They-Reduce-Court-Dockets
> 
> I also know of one case a repeat offender continued his reckless actions and the courts had almost zero effect on him. If you make or have enough money, you will never see any long term jail.


Um ok.

That also leads to more convictions.


----------



## jmachou (Aug 31, 2011)

teeroy said:


> They do serve their purpose. I bet if one of your family members were killed or maimed by a repeat offender that knew how to "play the game", you'd want the prosecutors to have that valuable piece of evidence (blood results) to convict him/her..


Sounds like a nice example of using fear to get people to give up their rights.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

jmachou said:


> Sounds like a nice example of using fear to get people to give up their rights.


I beg you to clarify exactly what you mean.

If you get stopped or detain by police, it was either because of Probable Cause (Likely for a traffic offense) or by reasonable suspicion. More than likely it was probable cause.

Then, an officer who is certified to make arrests for DWI determines that enough probable cause for an arrest exists, and effects that arrest. Still, I don't think any rights have been "given up."

THEN, depending on the circumstance (there are many on where a search warrant will be issued) your blood is seized after a judge has signed the search warrant (which has been a legal act for a long time now). Still, don't see where any rights have been "given up."

Clarify.


----------



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

jmachou said:


> Sounds like a nice example of using fear to get people to give up their rights.


 It was always a "Sales Pitch" to get you to take the breatalyzer. I'm sure it's the same if you blow on the roadside. I can hear it now, "if you don't blow, we will get the fancy blood wagon out to take your blood. Has anyone see these new trucks? They must cost $100,00, or more. I think what the LEO is saying, is that it has never been your right to refuse, an on the side of the road, breathtest. I'm sorry, I still have a real problem with that!


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

tbone2374 said:


> It was always a "Sales Pitch" to get you to take the breatalyzer. I'm sure it's the same if you blow on the roadside. I can hear it now, "if you don't blow, we will get the fancy blood wagon out to take your blood. Has anyone see these new trucks? They must cost $100,00, or more. I think what the LEO is saying, is that it has never been your right to refuse, an on the side of the road, breathtest. I'm sorry, I still have a real problem with that!


Not exactly.

The DIC-24 was very recently revised. There's one sentence in there that says, "If you refuse to give the specimen, the officer may apply for a warrant authorizing the specimen to be taken from you."

Before that was added in there a few months ago, an officer was not allowed to tell you they _may_ get a warrant.

If you're out there on PUBLIC roadways that MY tax dollars helped build, shared by MY family, and YOU'RE INTOXICATED, get ARRESTED for DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED and wind up getting your blood taken from you, sorry for your luck.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

It's simply a violation of a human rights. The government has no right to take something out of my body with a needle. Stick to the other laws in place. Complete bs


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

teeroy said:


> I beg you to clarify exactly what you mean.
> 
> If you get stopped or detain by police, it was either because of Probable Cause (Likely for a traffic offense) or by reasonable suspicion. More than likely it was probable cause.
> 
> ...


Well I think that you are wrong and no I don't even drink...But the law on the street takes away your right to: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," A judge can't even take your rights away in a court room yet for some reason on your word alone it can happen on the streets!!!!

I'm 100% for getting drunks off of the roads, but don't take away some ones civil right to do it!


----------



## ralph7 (Apr 28, 2009)

> The DIC-24 was very recently revised. There's one sentence in there that says, "If you refuse to give the specimen, the officer may apply for a warrant authorizing the specimen to be taken from you."


how utterly ironic.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

teeroy said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> The DIC-24 was very recently revised. There's one sentence in there that says, "If you refuse to give the specimen, the officer may apply for a warrant authorizing the specimen to be taken from you."
> 
> ...


You remind me of the days that the police could knock down some ones front door for no reason at all.....And it happened all of the time to people that had done nothing!!!!


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

If you cops are so much into getting drunks off of the roads why aren't you sitting outside of where they are drinking and picking them up by the hands full when they drive off???

Is there a reason you don't do that???


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

Pasadena1944 said:


> If you cops are so much into getting drunks off of the roads why aren't you sitting outside of where they are drinking and picking them up by the hands full when they drive off???
> 
> Is there a reason you don't do that???


Simply put, exiting an establishment where alcohol is served, getting into a vehicle, and driving away is not automatic probable cause for a traffic stop. There still has to be a violation of some law by the vehicle operator in order to generate probable cause for a traffic stop, then there must be reasonable suspicion present of the occupant operating a vehicle, in a public place, while under the influence of some substance.

As far as obtaining a search warrant for blood collection for evidence, this is no different than an officer going to a judge and presenting a probable cause affidavit for a search warrant to collect evidence in any other investigation. There is no violation of any civil rights. You have no right, government or God given, to violate the law and expect to not be subject to the practices and penalties that are widely accepted in criminal investigations.

Next someone will say that getting their driver's license suspended automatically for refusing to blow, even though they signed a statement to get their license that it would happen, is a violation of their rights.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Actually medic a drivers licsense isn't a right its a privilege. And searching someone's house is a tad bit different then getting something out of their body. Sorry but that logic makes no sense.


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

I respect your stance, but in the eyes of the law it's no different. Collection of evidence is collection of evidence, no matter what it the evidence is.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Still doesn't make it right. What next mandatory blood test for overweight kids?


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

It's not mandatory unless probable cause exists and is presented to a judge which signs a search warrant based on said probable cause....the arresting officer still has to articulate probable cause in order for the judge to sign the search warrant for the blood to be drawn. If he has probable cause to draw blood, then he already had probable cause to arrest, and he would have had probable cause to search your person and your vehicle without a warrant. It is the same as the officer going to a judge and showing documented probable cause that a person is using a house to store/deal drugs and obtain a search warrant for said house....


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Understood, but he is still getting my blood from my body under his belief or perception. Clear violation of civil rights.


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

Under that thought process, any on sight arrest, citation, or search warrant that was made or produced with adequate probable cause would be an automatic violation of the offender's civil rights. It is not "hey, I _think _this guy is drunk," it is not "belief" or "perception" as you call it, it is probable cause based on extensive training and experience in the testing and evaluation of intoxicated subjects. There are nationally recognized, standardized tests, that you must be properly trained and certified to administer, that develop probable cause, not a whim or hunch


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

I'm fine with that. Why not use those test and procedures to find someone guilty or not. dont take something from my body without permission. Those test and procedures do not violate my body. 

I'm all for getting drunks off the road but this is not an acceptable way to do it. There are ways that were working without invasion of the body.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

The biggest problems is it don't work (if you got the money or a job) and the history of questionable activity from the DA's Office.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Then the government should do a better job of educating their DA and law enforcement on preparing for a simple dwi case. Their errors or inept doesn't constitute violating others body or civil liberties.


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

Rudy- The whole purpose of collecting the blood for evidence is in furtherance of obtaining a conviction. The arrest is made based on the probable cause and evidence (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, operator's driving at the time, demeanor, open containers, smells, etc) performed at the time of the arrest. These circumstances are often complicated by the fact that it has become very public knowledge that there are certain things you can do as a violator (I don't want to broadcast them on a public board) that make it difficult for the officer to effect a probable cause, on sight arrest, and even more difficult to obtain a later conviction because of lack of evidence. This knowledge has been made public by unscrupulous defense attorneys that are "training" people to beat the police and work the system. The blood evidence does not provide am immediate result as it must be processed, but is intended to be used as evidence at trial to further prosecution. As is the case with breath or urine samples, the collection of blood can not be delayed as, obviously, the blood alcohol content will change as the alcohol is metabolized by the body.

Bill- I will admit that it is not a perfect system, but it is FAR better than what you would get in other countries


----------



## Tucsonred (Jun 9, 2007)

Just curious, how do you feel about the forced draw when the driver is involved in an accident and cannot be taken to the jailhouse to blow?


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Then why not make the breathalizer or urine samples mandatory instead of drawing blood. Solves both arguments in my opinion. Or what about a simple swab test. Far less intrusive and violent.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

mercenarymedic2105 said:


> Bill- I will admit that it is not a perfect system, but it is FAR better than what you would get in other countries


That's because America is better than most Countries...but we are slowly heading in their direction.


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

Which do you think would be the least complicated: a) force someone to blow hard enough for an intoxalyzer to register (this is difficult enough just dealing with a cooperative drunk); b) making someone pee in a cup that has no interest in cooperating; c) have them sit in a chair cuffed while a nurse or tech does a 30 second blood draw? I'll take "c" anytime, of course, I guess we could really violate them and have the nurse do a urine cath....

And I agree Bill, sadly we are headed that way at a much too rapid pace


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

mercenarymedic2105 said:


> Which do you think would be the least complicated: a) force someone to blow hard enough for an intoxalyzer to register (this is difficult enough just dealing with a cooperative drunk); b) making someone pee in a cup that has no interest in cooperating; c) have them sit in a chair cuffed while a nurse or tech does a 30 second blood draw? I'll take "c" anytime, of course, I guess we could really violate them and have the nurse do a urine cath....
> 
> And I agree Bill, sadly we are headed that way at a much too rapid pace


no offense to law eforcnement but there is nothing in a dwi investigation that is too "complicated" that warrants taking blood from an individual. Perhaps there ahould be less complicated used in the process without violation of someone's body.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Harris county will not arrest illegals because it gives them sanctuary, yet they will take your blood by force like the Gestapo.

F'ed up system.


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

rudy99 said:


> no offense to law eforcnement but there is nothing in a dwi investigation that is too "complicated" that warrants taking blood from an individual. Perhaps there ahould be less complicated used in the process without violation of someone's body.


You've obviously never done a DWI arrest


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

mercenarymedic2105 said:


> I respect your stance, but in the eyes of the law it's no different. Collection of evidence is collection of evidence, no matter what it the evidence is.


there's a HUGE difference between observing behavior, videotaping or having someone blow and drawing blood from a person... forcibly taking blood from someone is over the line... you've got the suspect off the road with breathylizers, video, etc... the threat has been removed. You guys just have to accept the fact that you will never have a 100% conviction rate...


----------



## drfishalot (Sep 9, 2004)

I wonder how many people get to the stage of having their blood drawn, and it turns out to be under the legal limit?


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

drfishalot said:


> I wonder how many people get to the stage of having their blood drawn, and it turns out to be under the legal limit?


that is the problem..Harris County WAS still conducting the warrants when they KNEW the equipment was faulty..when the Technician (senior Officer) Blew the whistle on them...he was fired.


----------



## Reel-tor (May 21, 2004)

Part of the problem is the "reason" for a lot of traffic stops is not legit, i.e. "your tire barely touched the white line ONCE but I saw it, so I have PC to stop you because you are weaving all over the road". BOGUS!

Once stopped, if you are asked if you have anything to drink tonight, you truthfully say "I had one beer about a hour ago". Immediately you are accused of being a liar because no officer believes you had ONE BEER. So, let's draw your blood, impound your car, tow it to outer Slobovia. Weeks later after your blood sample comes back as below .08 BECAUSE YOU REALLY didn't have but ONE BEER, Sorry, but you're still out the tow charge, impound charge, bond fee, attorney fee. But, you were totally innocent. How's that for a rip? But officer had PC!

My brother was stopped several times a month while driving to work at IAH from LaMarque (where he lived) at 3AM (because he went to work at 4AM). "Sir, you were weaving (he wasn't)". Finally he told one deputy "don't you recognize me, you've stopped me four times this month for driving to work at 3AM on the Gulf Freeway in the same truck each time and each time there was no real excuse" (not speeding, not weaving, etc). Finally the guy stopped stopping him because he now knew he wasn't a possible drunk driving down the Gulf Fwy at 3AM. 

There are so many laws that someone wrote a book saying that everyone of us commits a felony each day. Its a well known fact that if you follow a vehicle the driver will violate at least one law every few minutes or miles (touch a white line, etc). Hence, obtaining PC to stop a car is not very hard, just follow for miles and soon or later some law will be violated.


----------



## Reel-tor (May 21, 2004)

bill said:


> that is the problem..Harris County WAS still conducting the warrants when they KNEW the equipment was faulty..when the Technician (senior Officer) Blew the whistle on them...he was fired.


I don't think that is correct. I believe it was found that evidence collected was NOT tainted by the BAT VAN being exposed to heat and that's why the Grand Jury did not indict anyone. It appears to me that the whole Grand Jury investigation was bogus and politically inspired (but that's just my opinion).


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> Harris county will not arrest illegals because it gives them sanctuary, yet they will take your blood by force like the Gestapo.
> 
> F'ed up system.


Wurd!


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Reel-tor said:


> I don't think that is correct. I believe it was found that evidence collected was NOT tainted by the BAT VAN being exposed to heat and that's why the Grand Jury did not indict anyone. It appears to me that the whole Grand Jury investigation was bogus and politically inspired (but that's just my opinion).


I'm only going by what is public information.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-prompt-new-DWI-testing-procedure-2421397.php

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-refuses-to-testify-in-grand-jury-2405482.php

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...jury-may-question-another-asst-DA-2419735.php

Here is a timeline
http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/10/houston-dwi-bat-vans—a-timeline.html

Got approved to spend $250,000 and spent $600,000 for the BAT Vans.

The last I heard was Feb 2012 was set for more Grand Jury questions. Why all this stalling is a sign to me there are some shady ongoing activity. If the DA"s take the 5th on answering Grand Jury questions, there is a problem.

It comes down to this for me. If they are fighting between each other and the Courts...what chance does a citizen have?


----------



## fwoodwader (Jul 18, 2008)

Don't you have the right to have counsel present when they draw blood? Wouldn't that be a violation of your civil rights, don't you have the right to have counsel review a warrant like this.

I have a huge problem with the government taking blood out of my body....


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

I don't believe you have that right wader. That's my biggest issue with it. They just take it. Albiet with a warrant from a judge on 24 hour duty to ensure the warrant is issued.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

rudy99 said:


> I don't believe you have that right wader. That's my biggest issue with it. They just take it. Albiet with a warrant from a judge on 24 hour duty to ensure the warrant is issued.


Here's a question. How many are not allowed/issued? If a Judge just signs off on everyone, why even bother having a Judge to review facts.

I'm all for removing Drunk Drivers but I don't like this action. There are much better options to deal with repeat offenders. If the laws had teeth, it would help. But if anyone read my first link, these BAT vans were not to help remove drunk drivers...it was to help remove the court dockets. It got abused in Houston by the DA's Office. 5 or 6 years now in Court over the questionable activity.


----------



## rwnitro (Feb 11, 2010)

If you are arrested for Sexual Assault, the LEO will ask for samples of your hair, blood, saliva and or semen. You have the right to refuse and if you do refuse the officer will get a search warrant and take the samples from your body. The LEO won't take them, a qualified medical technican or doctor will take them. This is no
different than a blood draw on a DWI and officers have been doing this for many, many years. There is no public outcry on the sexual assault search warrant so why is there public outcry on the DWI charge?


----------



## FISHROADIE (Apr 2, 2010)

Whats wrong with just a breathalyzer test, I think that should be sufficient. Whats next are they going to want a stool sample.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Pasadena1944 said:


> If you cops are so much into getting drunks off of the roads why aren't you sitting outside of where they are drinking and picking them up by the hands full when they drive off???
> 
> Is there a reason you don't do that???


Who says cops don't do this? I do it often. Although, I get bored sitting in one spot too long.



rudy99 said:


> I'm fine with that. Why not use those test and procedures to find someone guilty or not. dont take something from my body without permission. Those test and procedures do not violate my body.
> 
> I'm all for getting drunks off the road but this is not an acceptable way to do it. There are ways that were working without invasion of the body.


There are people that know how to beat the system. You can't truly hide being intoxicated, when you're intoxicated. But a jury can't tell someone is drunk who gets out of the car and just stares at you. A blood test can.



rudy99 said:


> Then the government should do a better job of educating their DA and law enforcement on preparing for a simple dwi case. Their errors or inept doesn't constitute violating others body or civil liberties.


So how is it being in your world?



rudy99 said:


> Then why not make the breathalizer or urine samples mandatory instead of drawing blood. Solves both arguments in my opinion. Or what about a simple swab test. Far less intrusive and violent.


"I said pee in THAT CUP! NOW!!!"

I wish I had it all figured out like you do.



rudy99 said:


> no offense to law eforcnement but there is nothing in a dwi investigation that is too "complicated" that warrants taking blood from an individual. Perhaps there ahould be less complicated used in the process without violation of someone's body.


As has been stated, not everything is black and white. If you'd use your imagination, you could probably think of some instances where an officer isn't able to get someone on video (becauss that's what convicts people, good video) stumbling around. As I stated earlier, I had a guy Thursday night that blew a .107. Had he not blown, someone like you in a jury wouldn't be able to convict him likely, since he wasn't stumbling around. I knew he was over the limit, and I had 13 out of 18 clues in the SFSTs. Out of those 18, maybe 4 or 5 at max would be obvious to you.



fwoodwader said:


> Don't you have the right to have counsel present when they draw blood? Wouldn't that be a violation of your civil rights, don't you have the right to have counsel review a warrant like this.
> 
> I have a huge problem with the government taking blood out of my body....


You're aren't giving any testimonial evidence. You can call your counsel when you arrive at the jail (just the way it is, not me being rude).



bill said:


> Here's a question. How many are not allowed/issued? If a Judge just signs off on everyone, why even bother having a Judge to review facts.
> 
> I'm all for removing Drunk Drivers but I don't like this action. There are much better options to deal with repeat offenders. If the laws had teeth, it would help. But if anyone read my first link, these BAT vans were not to help remove drunk drivers...it was to help remove the court dockets. It got abused in Houston by the DA's Office. 5 or 6 years now in Court over the questionable activity.


IF THERE WAS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST, THERE ISN'T PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE WARRANT. If a judge looks at your affidavit and doesn't think there's PC for a warrant, you had better let your guy out of the holding cell, take him to get his car out of impound and hope he doesn't take you to civil court. These warrants are different than other warrants, which has been stated.



rwnitro said:


> If you are arrested for Sexual Assault, the LEO will ask for samples of your hair, blood, saliva and or semen. You have the right to refuse and if you do refuse the officer will get a search warrant and take the samples from your body. The LEO won't take them, a qualified medical technican or doctor will take them. This is no
> different than a blood draw on a DWI and officers have been doing this for many, many years. There is no public outcry on the sexual assault search warrant so why is there public outcry on the DWI charge?


I was about to go into details about this, until I saw your post, which by the way is a breath of fresh air!

Our detectives get DNA search warrants all the time to clear burglaries, sexual assaults, etc. Is this different that a search warrant for your blood. Someone enlighten me.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

FISHROADIE said:


> Whats wrong with just a breathalyzer test, I think that should be sufficient. Whats next are they going to want a stool sample.


Once they figured out how to get the air out of someone's lungs, we'll be good.


----------



## southtexasreds (Jun 8, 2009)

Good points Teeroy, thanks for providing another point of view.


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

I wish Mont could just put all the threads about blood warrants in one folder and then we just link them together.

Tee Roy makes a ton of great points, and until you have been on the streets and see what happens first hand, you wouldn't understand.

This will continue to be a hot topic until we (the public) find a way to get intoxicated drivers off the street, I don't know what the answer is. The federal court of appeals has held that when there is probable cause for the issuance of a blood warrant, it doesn't violate your constitutional rights (and I loved who said it violated human rights, that made me laugh...).

I agree that putting a needle in someone when they say "no" will make you say ***, but I don't know how else to get drunks off the road. Urine does no good if they are on alcohol, (and actually does no good for drugs either - you can't quantify urine). Good luck getting someone to blow hard....

I'm not one of those for banning alcohol, and these days if I do drink I call a cab or just stay on my couch. 

This is one of those topics where everyone already has their mind made up and no matter what is said that view isn't changing. So, I thought I would show some pictures of what drunk drivers in the Harris County area have done.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Those pictures are bad but do nothing to add to your argument. I'm sure there are other pictures out there that are just as bad caused by people that are not drunk. I could post pictures of my truck from 10 years ago that I rolled at 11 pm completely sober. I guess that night they should have taken my blood? I was questioned and asked to take a field sobrity test I had not been drinking nor had i in the previous weeks. But the time of night a mangled truck and quizative officer knew w that I had. I would have given the breathylizer test had i been asked to do so but in todays rules I would have refused to do so just to prove a point.


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

rudy99 said:


> Those pictures are bad but do nothing to add to your argument. I'm sure there are other pictures out there that are just as bad caused by people that are not drunk. I could post pictures of my truck from 10 years ago that I rolled at 11 pm completely sober. I guess that night they should have taken my blood? I was questioned and asked to take a field sobrity test I had not been drinking nor had i in the previous weeks. But the time of night a mangled truck and quizative officer knew w that I had. I would have given the breathylizer test had i been asked to do so but in todays rules I would have refused to do so just to prove a point.


If you had NO signs of intoxication? Then the answer is no, they wouldn't have taken your blood, but that is assuming you had an honest officer. You would be surprised at how many people get pulled over, have only legitimately had 1 or 2 and officers let go because they aren't intoxicated.

And if you would have blown, they wouldn't have taken your blood. I think that's a large misconception about the blood warrants. If you blow, no blood warrant. I even know some high profile dwi attorneys who are now telling people to blow, it's easier to beat the intox 5000 than blood.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

I guess being completely sober I would not show any signs of being drunk? That's my point even though I was completely sober I was questioned repeatly by an officer. He had no probable cause other then a wreck and time of night.


----------



## txjoker (Jun 21, 2005)

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. I am inclined to think that once someone gets behind the wheel, and is over the limit, everything should be done to get them off the streets permanently. I had to look up the Miranda Rights because I do not know them. In looking, I do not see anything about having the right to keep bodily fluids...



> You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#cite_note-3


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#cite_note-3



jmachou said:


> Sounds like a nice example of using fear to get people to give up their rights.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Txjoker there is a big differnce in the Miranda rights and the bill of rights.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

rudy99 said:


> It's simply a violation of a human rights. The government has no right to take something out of my body with a needle. Stick to the other laws in place. Complete bs


Please post up court cases, laws or any evidence to prove your point. Simple cannot just take your word on this point.



rudy99 said:


> Still doesn't make it right. What next mandatory blood test for overweight kids?


Now you are just reaching for straws.



rudy99 said:


> Understood, but he is still getting my blood from my body under his belief or perception. Clear violation of civil rights.


Again, please show any case law, pending cases or any laws that show a "clear violation of your right."

Without any case law, your posts are meaningless.



rudy99 said:


> Those pictures are bad but do nothing to add to your argument. I'm sure there are other pictures out there that are just as bad caused by people that are not drunk. I could post pictures of my truck from 10 years ago that I rolled at 11 pm completely sober. I guess that night they should have taken my blood? I was questioned and asked to take a field sobrity test I had not been drinking nor had i in the previous weeks. But the time of night a mangled truck and quizative officer knew w that I had. I would have given the breathylizer test had i been asked to do so but in todays rules I would have refused to do so just to prove a point.


I'm pretty sure even with today's laws, since you passed a firld sobriety test, and would have passed a breath test, then it would not have gotten as far as a blood test. No probable cause for the judge since you passed the tests.

Bottom line, there is no case law out there to back up your claims that you are being violated. As stated before, these laws have been on the books, but are now being utilized.

Cry all you want about the blood samples, they are here to stay and be utilized to try and slow down drinking and driving. Hopefully they are catching a bunch of drunk drivers and hopefully they are making a ton of money off of it.

No freedoms are being taken away as you know, if any were a ton of lawyers would already be all over the blood sample cases. As you know, lawyers go after money and not your rights.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Amendment 4.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

And I'm not reaching for straws. The fact is there where already ways to convict a dwi case. Rubber stamping a warrant in a no refusal weekend is not the way to stop dwi.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

rudy99 said:


> Amendment 4.


And?

I fail to see any case law that you posted violating that Amendment.

What I do see is this. What are your chances of being popped on a blood warrant?

What are your chances of even being pulled over for being suspected of drinking and driving?


----------



## 6.5 shooter dude (Jan 8, 2008)

rudy99 said:


> And I'm not reaching for straws. The fact is there where already ways to convict a dwi case. Rubber stamping a warrant in a no refusal weekend is not the way to stop dwi.


It's a good way to stop them from getting out of a DWI. If it keeps a drunk from killing me I'm all for it.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Lastly this house bill was recently passed by the state. There are hundreds of cases that are forth coming regarding the violation of civil liberties. Just because it hasn't been tried yet is not a reflection of legality it is a reflection of infancy of the bill. To say we are just enforcing an already enforcable law is quite a strech


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

rudy99 said:


> Rubber stamping a warrant in a no refusal weekend is not the way to stop dwi.


Rubber stamping huh?

So I see you picturing a stop this way.

Rudy, I pulled you over for running the stop sign. I'm going to contact the judge and get him to rubber stamp a blood draw since I believe you ran the stop sign from being intoxicated.

Instead of picturing it the real way.

Rudy, I pulled you over for running the stop. Would you please step out of the car. I suspect you are intoxicated and ask you to do a filed sobriety test.

Rudy fails test.

Now Rudy, would you blow into this meter?

Rudy fails test.

Now the officer wants to concrete his case that you are intoxicated. You failed the two previous tests, so he can justify that to the judge for the blood draw.

The judge weighs said evidence that you failed the two previous tests. So he issues a warrant. Which by the way is not rubber stamped because of said previous evidence.

Now at this point Rudy, I have to ask. Why are you so worried about the rights of drunk drivers? Ones that have and can kill others on the road?

Any skeletons in your closet?


----------



## BIG JIMMIE (May 21, 2004)

FireEater said:


> Rubber stamping huh?
> 
> So I see you picturing a stop this way.
> 
> ...


very good point


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

there is a line between reasonable and unreasonable and it has to be drawn SOMEWHERE

I think involuntary taking of someone's blood crosses that line

once an officer has pulled someone over and decided they are intoxicated, THE THREAT has been removed. Not only have you taken the driver off the road, you have burdened him/her with a lot of time and legal fees. That plus the added punishment does nothing to stop the chronic offender. The really drunk guy gets the conviction with, or without the blood draw. 

The "partially" guilty folks occasionally walk away with no conviction. I think this is something we can live with. It is not evidence of LEOs not performing their job duty. It is evidence that we live in a free society. 

I can live without 100% conviction rate if field sobriety, video, breathilyzer can't nail a conviction. Maybe if our CJ system as a whole could suck it up and abandon their ego they could too?


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

There are no skeletons in my closet in this matter but thanks for the ineuindo. 

I'm all for getting drunks off the road but I'm not for doing it by violating basic civil liberties under the disguise of helping protect people.


----------



## Folsetth (Jan 18, 2007)

FireEater said:


> Please post up court cases, laws or any evidence to prove your point. Simple cannot just take your word on this point.
> 
> Now you are just reaching for straws.
> 
> ...


I changed it for you, after all its not really about money, or is it?


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

when are you LEO's going to tell everyone that "passing" a breath test does not necessarily mean you still won't be arrested for DUI?


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

jc said:


> there is a line between reasonable and unreasonable and it has to be drawn SOMEWHERE
> 
> I think involuntary taking of someone's blood crosses that line
> 
> ...


You know what I have a problem with? When a drunk causes someone to get hurt and then tells the officer(s) I'm not doing any of your tests, and I haven't been drinking (and then stands in one spot with his arms crossed). Luckily, if you injure someone, you don't even need a warrant to take someone's blood.

BLOOD WARRANTS SERVE THEIR PURPOSE: Let me explain why, AGAIN.

It isn't possible to get PROBABLE CAUSE for a DWI on every person an officer comes into contact with (at least for the camera). An officer can get PC for his affidavit, but it isn't always obvious on camera. These warrants are enforcing what officers already know. I have a problem with someone who has messed up and doesn't want to face reality.

There needs to be a clear message sent to people who like to drink and drive. You know, the people who listen to Gary Tricter's radio commercial, the one that says you shouldn't do the "roadside gymnastics". And that message is; You get caught for Driving While Intoxicated, you're not going to get out of it on a technicality, or by your lack of cooperation.


----------



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

And these are the guys, you're forced to have take blood from you... 
*Houston District Attorney Faces Grand Jury As Truth About Inaccuracy in Tests for Drunk Driving Is Exposed in BAT Van Scandal*

Here in Texas, 
*Houston District Attorney Faces Grand Jury As Truth About Inaccuracy in Tests for Drunk Driving Is Exposed in BAT Van Scandal*

Here in Texas, law enforcement's excitement over their Drunk Driving campaigns has already become pretty darn scary what with the threat to due process rights of every citizen on the road with the current 24/7 No Refusal campaigns. To read more about them, and growing national concern over their threats to our constitutional rights, check out our earlier post for details.
_*Breath Tests for DWI Aren't Reliable; BAT Vans Compound the Likelihood of Error*_
However, the use of roaming mobile breath test labs on Texas roadways is taking things to a higher level of threat. These "BAT Vans" look like recreational vehicles with police department logos on the outside; on the inside, they are set up as laboratories with seats for medical technicians, cops, or nurses - as well as the lab equipment to perform drunk driving tests on the road. To learn all about these vehicles, just visit the website for Brown Specialty Vehicles which makes and sells these things around the country.
It's well known that these vans are conducting tests that can be flat out wrong. Breath tests aren't all that reliable, no matter how law enforcement pretends that they are. However, the BAT Vans add another level of error to the whole thing: seems the vans themselves can mess with the test results, because of electrical issues and such. For more on how these BAT Vans can taint test results, read this post by Grits for Breakfast.
*HPD Crime Lab Tech Supervisors Quit Over BAT Van Problems*
Or read the testimony from this past summer, when former Houston Police Department Crime Lab worker Amanda Culbertson testified under oath that she - along with TWO OTHER technical supervisors quit their jobs (in THIS ECONOMY) because no one was respecting their complaints about serious problems with the BAT vans and their Breathalyzer results. Culbertson explained that there were electrical, mechanical and temperature issues which might influence the test results.
Back then, Harris County District Attorney Patricia Lykos issued a media statement in response to Culbertson's testimony: "We sponsor the crime laboratory's scientific evidence in our prosecutions. Accordingly, we have a responsibility to ensure that the evidence was collected and analyzed properly."
So did the Houston Police Department: "At this time, HPD is not aware of any tests being compromised due to temperatures within the BAT vans. We were alerted to past air conditioning problems within the BAT vans and have worked to correct the issue by installing rear air conditioning units in the vans. Additionally, all officers operating the BAT vans have been trained on the proper procedures to allow for air conditioners to work properly. Vans not kept at the proper temperature settings do not cause the instruments to give false readings. Instead, the instruments would not give a reading at all, thus preventing any invalid tests."​*The BAT Vans Controversy in DWI Cases - Harris County District Attorney in the Hot Seat as DA's Office May Face Criminal Charges
*
Those statements may come back to haunt them now. First, a Harris County judge heard a challenge to a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) conviction and agreed with the defense attorney. The judge overturned the DWI conviction because it had been based upon a BAT van lab result - and the judge found that both the Houston Police Department and the Harris County District Attorney did not reveal information about these BAT Vans to the defense.
Seems that the District Attorney's Office and the Houston cops knew about the problems with these BAT vans and they didn't bother telling anyone. Like the defendant in the drunk driving case where the BAT Van was being used to convict him of driving drunk.
What made the Houston criminal court judge think there was a secret about the BAT Vans that the police and the prosecutors both knew about? Well, seems there were emails. And apparently other legal documents.
_*Grand Jury Probe Into Harris County District Attorney and HPD*_
A grand jury investigation began. A special prosecutor was appointed. And yes, the grand jury is investigating possible criminal acts by the District Attorney's Office of Harris County.
Things got messy fast. By November, two of the top deputies in the DA's Office and two court reporters were subpoenaed before the Grand Jury to explain how secret grand jury testimony transcripts somehow got into their hands.
_Here's the deal: instead of hiding all this stuff, if there is a problem with the BAT Vans then the District Attorney's Office is legally required to reveal the problem. Their goal is suppose to be justice after all, not a winning conviction record. _​The question soon became not IF there was a shared secret, but when did the police and the DA know about the BAT Van problems. Which is why this week, Houston District Attorney Pat Lycos had to appear before the Harris County Grand Jury to testify about when she knew and what she knew about these BAT vans.
There's more than one serious issue here. Sneaky circumvention of a defendant's right to a fair trial, sure. Ignoring the oath to seek justice, sure. However, there's one more thing that should be important to all of us: law enforcement has RVs roaming around, pulling people over for breath tests that are known to give flaky results &#8230; and that's been okay over in Houston, apparently. Couple that with the growing popularity of the 24/7 No Refusal campaigns, and you have to wonder about how endangered our due process rights are these days.
Posted by Michael Lowe at 3:01 pm
No Comments
Labels: Cop Watch, DA Watch, Orwellian Threats to Rights

*Leave a Reply*

Click here to cancel reply. 
Name (required) law enforcement


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

rudy99 said:


> I guess being completely sober I would not show any signs of being drunk? That's my point even though I was completely sober I was questioned repeatly by an officer. *He had no probable cause* other then a wreck and time of night.


Of course he didn't have PC...you didn't go to jail right? Officers don't need PC to ask questions...even repeatedly. They need PC when making an arrest.


----------



## Folsetth (Jan 18, 2007)

They do need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been commited or is about to be commited to detain a person, correct?


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

ATX 4x4 said:


> Of course he didn't have PC...you didn't go to jail right? Officers don't need PC to ask questions...even repeatedly. They need PC when making an arrest.


At what point does a wrecked truck and time of night not necome probable cause? When tje officer feels it is enough.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

teeroy said:


> You know what I have a problem with? When a drunk causes someone to get hurt and then tells the officer(s) I'm not doing any of your tests, and I haven't been drinking (and then stands in one spot with his arms crossed). Luckily, if you injure someone, you don't even need a warrant to take someone's blood.
> 
> BLOOD WARRANTS SERVE THEIR PURPOSE: Let me explain why, AGAIN.
> 
> ...


You have responded to a number of these kinds of threads, always with the same point, that you want the conviction, not necessarily to get the possible drunk off of the road. Drawing blood at the scene of a fatal accident does nothing more then aid in conviction, it does NOTHING to bring back the injured or dead in the wreck.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

rudy99 said:


> At what point does a wrecked truck and time of night not necome probable cause? When tje officer feels it is enough.


I would assume when you fail the field sobriety test and a breath test?

I mean he did ask you questions about drinking right? He most likely tried to see if you had alcohol on your breath, maybe beer cans in your wrecked truck?

I'm pretty sure at this point you are clueless about the steps it takes to get to the blood draw, right?

Since I'm pretty sure you missed this: 


FireEater said:


> Rubber stamping huh?
> 
> So I see you picturing a stop this way.
> 
> ...





HydraSports said:


> You have responded to a number of these kinds of threads, always with the same point, that you want the conviction, not necessarily to get the possible drunk off of the road. Drawing blood at the scene of a fatal accident does nothing more then aid in conviction, it does NOTHING to bring back the injured or dead in the wreck.


And your point is? Because any of us reading this would know that.


----------



## JED (Nov 14, 2004)

teeroy said:


> You know what I have a problem with? When a drunk causes someone to get hurt and then tells the officer(s) I'm not doing any of your tests, and I haven't been drinking (and then stands in one spot with his arms crossed). Luckily, if you injure someone, you don't even need a warrant to take someone's blood.
> 
> BLOOD WARRANTS SERVE THEIR PURPOSE: Let me explain why, AGAIN.
> 
> ...


In your example the crime would be a felony (intox assault) where a blood draw is entirely justified, but what I don't understand is why a DWI is still a misdemeanor. I would think that the idea of a blood draw would be an easier pill to swallow if the offense was taken a bit more seriously by our legistlators. But for an A-misdemeanor it seems to be a waste of resources.

In my opinion, video + audio/interview + breathalizer+field sobriety tests+ Officer's observation/experience= should be a concrete enough case for any conviction. If you have enough PC for a blood draw , then you have enough PC for the arrest. Anything more is just excessive and a waste of resources for a misdemeanor offender, because unfortunately at this point that is all they are. And I hate drunk drivers more than anyone, but the punishment need to be adjusted to fit the crime before such invasive and constitutionally offensive techniques could be used erroneously, creating case law that hinders an LEO's duties.


----------



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

rudy99;4005037.
I'm all for getting drunks off the road but I'm not for doing it by violating basic civil liberties under the disguise of helping protect people.[/QUOTE said:


> The definition of Socialism! Just what we need, is more Gubment.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

JED said:


> In my opinion, video + audio/interview + breathalizer+field sobriety tests+ Officer's observation/experience= should be a concrete enough case for any conviction. If you have enough PC for a blood draw , then you have enough PC for the arrest. Anything more is just excessive and a waste of resources for a misdemeanor offender, because unfortunately at this point that is all they are.


I'm thinking that with just the video + audio/interview + breathalizer+field sobriety tests+ Officer's observation/experience is not enough as plenty of lawyers have already found ways to beat a DUI based on those tests.

Now the blood test is as concrete as it can get and that is probably what has everyone upset right now, especially the lawyers. They have not figured out a way to beat that rap and keep their drinking and driving clients on the roads.

So all they have now is to cry that their 4th Amendment is being violated, which has not been proven to be.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Fireeater your insinuation that I was either guilty of being a drunk driver or a convicted stuck driver tells us everything we need to know how you would or do handle a dwi stop; guilty until proven innocent. Violating someone's civil liberties doesn't matter to you if it may help your stance. Use the current set of rules to convict. Get smarter at prosecuting dwis. Don't just start taking privacies away.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

The problem is not about People vs LEO's. We all understand there needs to be something done about drinking and driving. Your not going to find someone who will openly support drunk driving (I hope not anyways).

The problem is LEO's (and everyone who works in public service including the military) want the best and most tools to help make their job better and safer.

People want to know they and their family are safe on the roads (as much as possible).

The problem is when we start going down roads and hurting people and not helping people.

Harris County has failed. It's just something everyone must accept. The DA's office has hurt good people for their own reasons. They wanted convictions period.

Now the problem is what happens to the offenders. Do they go right back on doing what they have been doing? Sure, they paid a fine, been to court. But it has not addressed the problem. The repeat offenders (when caught) keep going down the road. It should make LEO's sick to see the same people over and over. I know it makes me sick when I see someone cause a fatal wreck and they are a repeat offender.

My problem is once this type of activity is accepted and even when problems like the Harris County DA's office is shown, we never get off that road. 

Everyone should fight tooth and nail to stop this type of activity. It always leads to more activity.

Just because people don't agree with the current activity does not mean the majority don't support LEO's, Firefighters and Medics.

BAT Vans do nothing to stop or even prevent drinking and driving.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

JED said:


> In your example the crime would be a felony (intox assault) where a blood draw is entirely justified, but what I don't understand is why a DWI is still a misdemeanor. I would think that the idea of a blood draw would be an easier pill to swallow if the offense was taken a bit more seriously by our legistlators. But for an A-misdemeanor it seems to be a waste of resources.
> 
> In my opinion, video + audio/interview + breathalizer+field sobriety tests+ Officer's observation/experience= should be a concrete enough case for any conviction. *If you have enough PC for a blood draw , then you have enough PC for the arrest*. Anything more is just excessive and a waste of resources for a misdemeanor offender, because unfortunately at this point that is all they are. And I hate drunk drivers more than anyone, but the punishment need to be adjusted to fit the crime before such invasive and constitutionally offensive techniques could be used erroneously, creating case law that hinders an LEO's duties.


That is true and I agree 100%. The problem with this issue lies in the justice system. People & their attorneys will fight a Class B DWI harder than say, a Class A assault with injury - family violence or even a felony drug charge. Why is that? I'm not sure but I'm willing to bet it's the belief system that says a DWI is a victimless crime and the fact that drivers license penalties come in to play. People, every day, get off DWI's on technicalities. The blood draw is one more tool used to keep the case from being dismissed on a technicality.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

When will the bleeding stop!


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

rudy99 said:


> Fireeater your insinuation that I was either guilty of being a drunk driver or a convicted stuck driver tells us everything we need to know how you would or do handle a dwi stop; guilty until proven innocent. Violating someone's civil liberties doesn't matter to you if it may help your stance. Use the current set of rules to convict. Get smarter at prosecuting dwis. Don't just start taking privacies away.


You are wrong on all accounts and simply fail to comprehend my posts.

Have a good one and watch our for your rights. lol


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Oh and your stance on rubberstamping warrants, if it was such a righteous system why are judges on standby for 24 hrs with the only purpose of stamping warrants during no refusal weekends only?


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

FireEater said:


> I'm thinking that with just the video + audio/interview + breathalizer+field sobriety tests+ Officer's observation/experience is not enough as plenty of lawyers have already found ways to beat a DUI based on those tests.
> 
> Now the blood test is as concrete as it can get and that is probably what has everyone upset right now, *especially the lawyers*. They have not figured out a way to beat that rap and keep their drinking and driving clients on the roads.
> 
> So all they have now is to cry that their 4th Amendment is being violated, which has not been proven to be.


I checked the stats a couple years ago and more lawyers were getting their clients cases tossed out. So in effect, it had a worse conviction rate than other methods (this was a National study and it should be online someplace)


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Here is another problem. The guy was clearly intoxicated...slam dunk but the police wanted that blood. So they beat him, they broke his legs then stomped them some more just so they could stick that needle in his arm.
http://www.paduiblog.com/pa-dui/police-brutality-and-dui-forcibly-blood-draws/

only watch that video is you do not understand the problem...this is the video from inside the jail


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

rudy99 said:


> Lastly this house bill was recently passed by the state. There are hundreds of cases that are forth coming regarding the violation of civil liberties. Just because it hasn't been tried yet is not a reflection of legality it is a reflection of infancy of the bill. To say we are just enforcing an already enforcable law is quite a strech


What law? The change in the DIC-24 about if your refuse a blood sw could be done? Yes, that is new. Blood search warrants in Texas are not new. They were first done in the 90's and gained steam about 2005. They are getting more attention now because major cities in TX are running no refusal every weekend (San Antonio, Austin, Dallas).

And TX is acutally way behind other states dealing with blood draws. I will see if I can find some info and post it later after doing some fact checking.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

Yea, I stopped watching as soon as he defense attorney said, "He has been afraid of needles since childhood." lol Classic defense.


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

rudy99 said:


> Oh and your stance on rubberstamping warrants, if it was such a righteous system why are judges on standby for 24 hrs with the only purpose of stamping warrants during no refusal weekends only?


Not in Harris County. They use the probable cause magistrates that are on duty at the courthouse hearing pc. So yes, the Judges are available, but no0-they aren't on duty just for blood warrants.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

FireEater said:


> Yea, I stopped watching as soon as he defense attorney said, "He has been afraid of needles since childhood." lol Classic defense.


So breaking his legs, stomping them, others punching him and kneeing him is justified? Classic for 1930's raise to power


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

I'm sorry I don't see where I justified the beating or hinted at justifying the beating. 

Now I would suspect that if he didn't try to take all of them on, though most likely alcohol induced, then he wouldn't have gotten an *** whipping. 

These types of videos on everywhere on the News, in the papers, talked about at the workplace, homes, bars ect.. and on the internet and yet dumbasses still try to take on the cops. 

I guess their mentality is along the lines of "Hey I would never get caught robbing this bank, killing that person, stealing others blind."


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

GMTK said:


> What law? The change in the DIC-24 about if your refuse a blood sw could be done? Yes, that is new. Blood search warrants in Texas are not new. They were first done in the 90's and gained steam about 2005. They are getting more attention now because major cities in TX are running no refusal every weekend (San Antonio, Austin, Dallas).
> 
> And TX is acutally way behind other states dealing with blood draws. I will see if I can find some info and post it later after doing some fact checking.


I was referring to bill 291 which was started in 2009.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

HydraSports said:


> You have responded to a number of these kinds of threads, always with the same point, that you want the conviction, not necessarily to get the possible drunk off of the road. Drawing blood at the scene of a fatal accident does nothing more then aid in conviction, it does NOTHING to bring back the injured or dead in the wreck.


So murderers don't need to be locked away? Gotcha.



FireEater said:


> Now the blood test is as concrete as it can get and that is probably what has everyone upset right now, especially the lawyers. They have not figured out a way to beat that rap and keep their drinking and driving clients on the roads.
> 
> So all they have now is to cry that their 4th Amendment is being violated, which has not been proven to be.


Like I said, our dept, has gone to ONE trial for a search warrant. The defense tried to suppress the PC for the stop. FAIL. They tried to suppress the BAC results saying they had to hold him down and forcefully take his blood, which they did hold him down. FAIL.

He had deep pockets, and had a high $$$ counsel. The prosecutors say, "If it bleeds, it pleas." Saves time/money going to trial and gets more convictions.



rudy99 said:


> Fireeater your insinuation that I was either guilty of being a drunk driver or a convicted stuck driver tells us everything we need to know how you would or do handle a dwi stop; guilty until proven innocent. Violating someone's civil liberties doesn't matter to you if it may help your stance. Use the current set of rules to convict. Get smarter at prosecuting dwis. Don't just start taking privacies away.


You're quite a ways behind, and late to the party I see.

Getting blood IS GETTING SMARTER ABOUT PROSECUTING DWIs. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Is it any different than getting a search warrant for someone's DNA to solve a rape case or burglary? PLEASE TELL ME THAT. Which by the way, has been going on for YEARS.



JED said:


> In your example the crime would be a felony (intox assault) where a blood draw is entirely justified, but what I don't understand is why a DWI is still a misdemeanor. I would think that the idea of a blood draw would be an easier pill to swallow if the offense was taken a bit more seriously by our legistlators. But for an A-misdemeanor it seems to be a waste of resources.
> 
> *In my opinion, video + audio/interview + breathalizer+field sobriety tests+ Officer's observation/experience= should be a concrete enough case for any conviction.* If you have enough PC for a blood draw , then you have enough PC for the arrest. Anything more is just excessive and a waste of resources for a misdemeanor offender, because unfortunately at this point that is all they are. And I hate drunk drivers more than anyone, but the punishment need to be adjusted to fit the crime before such invasive and constitutionally offensive techniques could be used erroneously, creating case law that hinders an LEO's duties.


You do understand that you don't get all of that on video, right? Not every DWI does the defendant get out of the car stumbling and slurring his speech, perform poorly on the tests and then go blow 3x the legal limit. It sure would be nice.

A video doesn't see what an officer sees. I tend to think I'm very good at determining someone's BAC just by dealing with them for a few minutes, when a jury watching the video wouldn't think they have had anything to drink. It seems as only the officers on these boards understand that. It isn't a difficult concept.

My former co-worker had a defense attorney stopped a while back. The guy was in his driveway (just kept driving a short distance instead of stopping immediately). He immediately gets out of his car, walks out of view of the camera and says "I've had nothing to drink." He knew (or so he thought) exactly what to do. Luckily it was his third DWI (hadn't had one since the 80s) so it was a mandatory blood draw, which came back well over the limit.

*HOW IS A JURY SUPPOSED TO FIND HIM GUILTY WITHOUT BLOOD RESULTS? PLEASE TELL ME THAT. *

I could go on and on with examples, but I won't.



rudy99 said:


> Oh and your stance on rubberstamping warrants, if it was such a righteous system why are judges on standby for 24 hrs with the only purpose of stamping warrants during no refusal weekends only?


We have judges on call 24/7/365.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I just hope everyone does the right thing and either hires a tow truck or a cab. I can't count the times I rode shotgun in a tow truck, with my truck behind it. It sure beats a back seat ride from any LEO. I am sure they would agree. Bennigans used to have a hook for my keys and when last call came, a hook for my truck. It's just not worth it to risk it.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

Mont said:


> I just hope everyone does the right thing and either hires a tow truck or a cab. I can't count the times I rode shotgun in a tow truck, with my truck behind it. It sure beats a back seat ride from any LEO. I am sure they would agree. *Bennigans* used to have a hook for my keys and when last call came, a hook for my truck. It's just not worth it to risk it.


Their Monte Cristo is still the best sandwich I've ever eaten. I miss that place.


----------



## LandPirate (Jun 5, 2009)

A man rapes a young lady. She picks him out of a photo line up effectively establishing PC. Cops write a search warrant for the mans blood, hair, semen and DNA. A judge signs it. They take the man to a doctor where the specimens are collected from the man. Specimens are then transferred to a crime lab and compared to samples collected from the victim. A match is confirmed. A warrant for the man's arrest is obtained and he is formally charged. 

Happens every day and nobody is crying about this one. Why? Because it's generally accepted that men do not have the right to rape women. 

How is this any different when it comes to DWI? The same procedures are followed. PC was established by the officer's observations of a vehicle's operation. The driver was contacted by the officer where further evidence and observations are obtained. The driver is given the choice to blow or give blood but declines. A warrant, based upon PC, is obtained and the specimen is collected and analyzed. 

So why are these two scenarios different? My opinion is that some people have not yet accepted the fact that they cannot drink and drive. They cannot accept the fact that do not have the right to drink and drive. Even despite the fact that drinking and driving potentially may have far worse consequences and by far more damaging than raping another person.


----------



## JED (Nov 14, 2004)

teeroy said:


> You do understand that you don't get all of that on video, right? Not every DWI does the defendant get out of the car stumbling and slurring his speech, perform poorly on the tests and then go blow 3x the legal limit. It sure would be nice.
> 
> A video doesn't see what an officer sees. I tend to think I'm very good at determining someone's BAC just by dealing with them for a few minutes, when a jury watching the video wouldn't think they have had anything to drink. It seems as only the officers on these boards understand that. It isn't a difficult concept.
> 
> ...


Your "co-worker" should have controlled the situation, brought him into view of the camera and conducted the interview there, just like they taught him at the academy. If he well over the limit, a short videoed interview and FST should have established PC for the arrest, and given his record an enhanced felony conviction or plea would be likely. 
If you can't establish a person's level of intoxication in a 5 minute videoed interview then your interview skills need mucho trabajo. 
The needle is just for cops that make **** poor cases that can be torn apart by a first year law student.

Here is a question for you.

Would you seek a BDW for a guy who has been thoroughly compliant, passed all FST, submits to a breathalyzer but blows a .09?


----------



## billclemens (Jan 31, 2012)

rudy99 said:


> It's simply a violation of a human rights. The government has no right to take something out of my body with a needle. Stick to the other laws in place. Complete bs


If you're not out on the roads drunk on your ***, then you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

The decision will be made whether or not he's lost the normal use of his mental and physical faculties (arrested and charged) long before he wraps his lips around the intox. machine.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

JED said:


> Your "co-worker" should have controlled the situation, brought him into view of the camera and conducted the interview there, just like they taught him at the academy. If he well over the limit, a short videoed interview and FST should have established PC for the arrest, and given his record an enhanced felony conviction or plea would be likely.
> If you can't establish a person's level of intoxication in a 5 minute videoed interview then your interview skills need mucho trabajo.
> The needle is just for cops that make **** poor cases that can be torn apart by a first year law student.
> 
> ...


For the record...SFST is not pass or fail. Subjects either exhibit clues or not. There are certain clues even "functional" drunks cannot avoid. According to the nationally recognized studies performed (hence STANDARDIZED field sobriety tests) it would be nearly impossible for someone to "pass" or exhibit zero clues but still blow .09


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

teeroy said:


> So murderers don't need to be locked away? Gotcha.


I never said that, you keep talking about it getting DWIs off of the road, when the real reason for this has nothing whatsoever to do 
with that, rather convicting the guy who blows/blood is .085 because you can't make a case any other way.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

HydraSports said:


> I never said that, you keep talking about it getting DWIs off of the road, when the real reason for this has nothing whatsoever to do
> with that, rather convicting the guy who blows/blood is .085 because you can't make a case any other way.


Lol @ your location


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

billclemens said:


> If you're not out on the roads drunk on your ***, then you have nothing to worry about.


That's the issue. I'm not on the roads drunk off my ***. I refuse to do it. It doesn't make it right to be able to draw blood from an individual based on an officers opinion. Sorry.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Teeroy how many judges are on duty tonight?


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

rudy99 said:


> That's the issue. I'm not on the roads drunk off my ***. I refuse to do it. It doesn't make it right to be able to draw blood from an individual based on an officers opinion. Sorry.


Are you just that hardheaded dude?

If you are out driving and have not been drinking, then what in the hell are you worried about.

Do you not read any of the posts here or at least not comprehend them?

To get to the step where they will draw blood, you have to have failed the first two steps, field sobriety and breath test. Unless you are so wasted they just jump to the blood draw, but I have seen guys so wasted, and the officer still goes through the first two steps.

I'm seriously beginning to think you are a paranoid retard at this point. Maybe a few reddies your way to make you happy? I dunno. Jeez



rudy99 said:


> Teeroy how many judges are on duty tonight?


Oh yea, this question has been answered already a few times. Yes, there are Judges on "duty" 24 hours and does it really matter how many? Dang


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Fireeater it appears you haven't read my post. Im not arguing the fact that we should get drunks off the road. Not at all. My issue is the fact that the government/law enforcement can take blood from an individual based soley on one individuals thoughts and beliefs. Just because and individual doesn't want to partake in silly road side games where the only winner is who the officer chooses nor want to submit to a proven less then accurate blow test doesn't give anyone the right to blood. I say this again and none of you will give me an answer:find a way to enforce the current law or find a way to do it without intruding on a persons body. We can convict murder based on hair skin and fingerprints yet we can't solve a simple dwi case without blood? 

It's not a big deal until someone comes after YOU when you are completly innocent forcing you to go against your will. The more civil freedoms we give up in the disguise of more protection is the less we have to give our kids. You might not care because of your belief you always do right by people and the law. Guess what I have the se belief 

Now go back and read what I wrote. We are talking the same stuff. I would rather you convict people without making them bleed.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Sorry on my phone. I'm sure we have just as many judges working tonight then we do on no refusal weekend. Just in case we find a clue in a murder or find an illegal needing a way home.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

JED said:


> Your "co-worker" should have controlled the situation, brought him into view of the camera and conducted the interview there, just like they taught him at the academy. If he well over the limit, a short videoed interview and FST should have established PC for the arrest, and given his record an enhanced felony conviction or plea would be likely.
> If you can't establish a person's level of intoxication in a 5 minute videoed interview then your interview skills need mucho trabajo.
> The needle is just for cops that make **** poor cases that can be torn apart by a first year law student.


Sounds like you've got it all figured out.



rudy99 said:


> Fireeater it appears you haven't read my post. Im not arguing the fact that we should get drunks off the road. Not at all. My issue is the fact that the government/law enforcement can take blood from an individual based soley on one individuals thoughts and beliefs. Just because and individual doesn't want to partake in silly road side games where the only winner is who the officer chooses nor want to submit to a proven less then accurate blow test doesn't give anyone the right to blood. I say this again and none of you will give me an answer:find a way to enforce the current law or find a way to do it without intruding on a persons body. We can convict murder based on hair skin and fingerprints yet we can't solve a simple dwi case without blood?
> 
> It's not a big deal until someone comes after YOU when you are completly innocent forcing you to go against your will. The more civil freedoms we give up in the disguise of more protection is the less we have to give our kids. You might not care because of your belief you always do right by people and the law. Guess what I have the se belief
> 
> Now go back and read what I wrote. We are talking the same stuff. I would rather you convict people without making them bleed.


You have this image of a guy that has legitimately had one beer being dragged in a hospital by his arm by an over aggressive cop as he keeps trying to pull away, getting his blood forcibly taken. '

I as well as others have tried to explain to you reasons and situations where blood draws are necessary when the other facts in the case are weak, i.e. lack of suspect cooperation.

You either aren't reading what we're posting, not comprehending what's being posted or you don't want to even try to understand it. I'm tired of seeing the same old response from you. Therefore, I'm done acknowledging you.


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

A good read.......the police do not have the authority to make laws.....As much as I respect them.....well at least the job.....they do not have the right to do so.....

All you cops want are convictions.....thats what your searching for.....thats not your job.....your job was done when you finished the paperwork......so what do you care if Joe No Blow gets convicted or not????/

read below.......Texas law says you cant even do it......all you have to do is arrest the wrong person.......

http://www.russellfrostlaw.com/no-refusal-weekends/

The right to refuse to blow derives from Chapter 724 of the Texas Transportation Code, entitled "Implied Consent," which outlines the rules on implied consent and the procedure for obtaining specimens for alcohol content analysis.[27] In general, a person who is "arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating a motor vehicle . . . while intoxicated . . . is deemed to have consented . . . to the taking of one or more specimens of the person's breath or blood for analysis . . . ."[28] Upon a suspect's arrest, blood or breath specimens "_may_ be taken" if an officer has "reasonable grounds" to believe the person was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.[29]
The right to refuse falls under section 724.013. It states that, "[e]xcept as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen _may not_ be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer."[30] The 724.012(b) exception states that an officer "shall _require_ the taking of a specimen of the person's breath or blood" when four conditions are met: (1) the suspect is arrested for DWI; (2) the officer "reasonably believes" that the suspect caused an accident; (3) the officer "reasonably believes" that someone has died or will die or that someone besides the suspect has suffered serious bodily injury; _and_ (4) the person refuses to give the specimen voluntarily.[31] Thus, in cases that do not involve some sort of auto accident, a person has an unfettered right to refuse. Even in cases where there is an accident, a person still has an unfettered right to refuse where either (1) he is not arrested for DWI, (2) there is no reasonable indication that he is at fault,[32] _or _(3) there is no reasonable indication that someone died or was seriously injured.
*A. Beeman: Putting the Cart Before the Horse*

Because Texas statutory law does not allow for blood draws to be administered to those who refuse (except as provided by section 724.012(b)), the "No Refusal" program purports to derive its authority to draw blood by way of search warrants issued by neutral and detached magistrates. The question, then, is whether the statute granting motorists the right to refuse precludes the taking of a defendant's blood pursuant to a constitutionally firm search warrant. In 2002, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed this very issue in _Beeman v. State_.[33] In that case, Knowel Beeman was rear-ended while driving.[34] There were no injuries, and the officer cited the other driver for following too closely; however, the officer also arrested Beeman for DWI.[35] Beeman refused a breath test, so the officer obtained a search warrant for his blood.[36] Over Beeman's objection, his blood was drawn at the local hospital.[37] The test later revealed his BAC to be 0.21, well over the legal limit.[38] Citing section 724.013 of the Transportation Code, Beemen moved unsuccessfully to suppress the results.[39] The intermediate court upheld the suppression based on the "broader powers" of the search warrant over that of the statutory right to refuse.[40]
Before the Court of Criminal Appeals, Beeman argued that "despite the existence of a search warrant, this search was invalid because it violated our state's implied consent statute," and that that statute, "by implication, excludes the taking of blood without consent under any other circumstances, including by the authority of a search warrant."[41] The State countered that "construing the law in this manner results in giving DWI suspects more protection than other criminal suspects-an absurd result contrary to the statute's intent."[42] The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State and held that "once a valid search warrant is obtained by presenting facts establishing probable cause to a neutral and detached magistrate, consent, implied or explicit, becomes moot."[43]
The _Beeman_ decision was not unanimous. Judge Johnson filed the lone dissent, noting that article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that "[n]o evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas . . . shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case."[44] Judge Johnson also noted that the "plain language of [the 724.012(b) exception] sets out four requirements which must be satisfied in order for the involuntary taking of a blood specimen to be authorized."[45] In the instant case, she pointed out, only two of the four requirements were satisfied, and therefore, "[t]he taking of blood . . . was obtained in violation of section 724.013," and "should have been suppressed under Article 38.23."[46] She then explained:
The Legislature has chosen to give DWI arrestees the right to refuse to submit a breath or blood specimen unless the rather restrictive requirements of section 724.012(b) are met. The state would have us condone broad application by permitting use of a search warrant to circumvent the legislated prohibition. It is not unreasonable or absurd for the Legislature to decline to give _carte blanche_ to officers to demand and forcibly obtain blood samples from all persons arrested for DWI. The Legislature could quite reasonably decide to permit officers to require the taking of a specimen only in those situations in which the officer reasonably believes a life-threatening accident had been caused by the DWI offense.
. . . .
It is axiomatic that, while our constitutions limit the powers of government and provide protection for the rights of the people, the Legislature can pass laws that provide even greater protection. The Legislature has clearly and explicitly provided a statutory right for a DWI arrestee to refuse a request for a specimen, with one specific, limited exception. I do not acquiesce to the state's request that we disregard and judicially repeal the Legislature's clear and explicit statutory right to refuse to provide a specimen.[47]​


----------



## paslaw0311 (Apr 19, 2011)

So if you're vehicle ever gets Creamed by a drunk driver, who then refuses to admit anything or take any tests, you're gonna tell the responding officer that you do not want him to take blood from the at fault driver?


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

paslaw0311 said:


> So if you're vehicle ever gets Creamed by a drunk driver, who then refuses to admit anything or take any tests, you're gonna tell the responding officer that you do not want him to take blood from the at fault driver?


That is correct sir.......That is a violation of your constitutional rights.......

Read the above.......*The 724.012(b) exception states that an officer "shall require the taking of a specimen of the person's breath or blood" when four conditions are met: (1) the suspect is arrested for DWI; (2) the officer "reasonably believes" that the suspect caused an accident; (3) the officer "reasonably believes" that someone has died or will die or that someone besides the suspect has suffered serious bodily injury; and (4) the person refuses to give the specimen voluntarily.**[31]** Thus, in cases that do not involve some sort of auto accident, a person has an unfettered right to refuse. Even in cases where there is an accident, a person still has an unfettered right to refuse where either (1) he is not arrested for DWI, (2) there is no reasonable indication that he is at fault,**[32]** or (3) there is no reasonable indication that someone died or was seriously injured.
*

You guys are talking about our fundamental rights afforded us through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....I am sure that if some a-hoole creams my car then he will get whats coming to him...ie a DWI.....

Im just not real quick to jump on bandwagons where DAs, cops and Judges are making laws that directly effect my constitutional rights....

notice I said making laws.....they are not legislators.......thats like Chuck Rosenthal and a few other Ahoole DAs making the statement, after the 07 law of carrying weapons laws in your vehicle was changed, that you were going downtown if you got caught....Really.....who the F do you think you are......


----------



## paslaw0311 (Apr 19, 2011)

So are Croaker still an acceptable means of catching big trout?


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

paslaw0311 said:


> So are Croaker still an acceptable means of catching big trout?


Figures youd be a craoker soaker:biggrin:


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

teeroy said:


> Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
> 
> You have this image of a guy that has legitimately had one beer being dragged in a hospital by his arm by an over aggressive cop as he keeps trying to pull away, getting his blood forcibly taken. '
> 
> ...


Im not here for you acknowledgment but you are **** right I do picture an aggressive cop doing that. That is why I'm against it.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

teeroy said:


> You have this image of a guy that has legitimately had one beer being dragged in a hospital by his arm by an over aggressive cop as he keeps trying to pull away, getting his blood forcibly taken. '
> 
> I as well as others have tried to explain to you reasons and situations where blood draws are necessary when the other facts in the case are weak, i.e. lack of suspect cooperation.
> 
> You either aren't reading what we're posting, not comprehending what's being posted or you don't want to even try to understand it. I'm tired of seeing the same old response from you. Therefore, I'm done acknowledging you.





rudy99 said:


> I do picture an aggressive cop doing that. That is why I'm against it.


We have been trying to beat into your head that there are steps to be taken first. But with that mentality, I can see why it looked as if you can't comprehend our posts.

Good luck out there paranoid dude and I am so glad I am not in your shoes.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Fireeater you have a hard time with people that don't agree with you. I'm not a paranoid freak I can promise you that. Sorry if you and I are on opposite sides on this. Have a great, safe, and drama free day.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

Fireeater, et. al,- I know you're a proponent of this no refusal nonsense, but if you cannot acknowledge that it will be abused, you are mistaken.

if you think that the law helps to do anything but increase revenue (at a ridiculous expense no less) for the state, you are mistaken. 

If we really cared about drunk driving, the penalties would be stiff. As it stands, they are not, ergo it isn't corrected. Same with the "war on drugs" (or war on terror for that issue) We don't care truly care to fix the issue. We like to make money from the "adventure" of attempting to solve the problem..we also like the power over others.

Plain and simple, no refusal is 100% wrong, regardless of steps taken. You have zero right to forcibly take my bodily fluids. That right there, screwed up.


----------



## bubbas kenner (Sep 4, 2010)

I would rather see a person cry about the new law to pull over and get checked for ANY alcohol than to see another innocent person killed and maimed or hurt.It happens too often drink drive go to jail what else is there to discuss.What do you have to see to get the point a coffin a hearst a cremation what does, it take this drinking and driving has to stop, it ain't fair for the victims.There is a place for drinking and it is not on the roads that we all use ok.Arrest me or ticket me for having Gods words a Bible on me than we have a problem but a beer ,marinate a chicken in it .


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

rudy99 said:


> I was referring to bill 291 which was started in 2009.


What the heck are you talking about? HB 291 is a "Bill introduced by the Texas Senate relating to hepatitis B vaccination for students enrolled in certain health-related courses of study at an institution of higher education."

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth149628/


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

tbone2374 said:


> :brew2: I passed the big Amber Alert, and Evacuation sign, On I-45 N @ F.m. 242, and the sign says no refusal Blood Warrants. So, here we are, we all knew it would happen. No special Holiday, no long weekend, or sporting event planned, just an ever day weekend, and they're using this illegal search method, to rake in the money, and steal one more right, from us. I don't believe in drinking and driving, nor do I. Slowly but :hairout: surely, one by one, we're losing, our rights. We roam around like sheep, led to slaughter. An Attorney can't help you if they forcibly take evidence, from you!


It gets better. The TSA has been trying to find ways to make roadside random searches legal.



> Arrest me or ticket me for having Gods words a Bible on me than we have a problem


First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unioninst
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a jew
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

It may not be in your lifetime, but they will come for your bible one day.

The more rights we willingly give, the more they take. Isn't Post-America fun?


----------



## GMTK (Sep 8, 2008)

teeroy said:


> Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
> 
> You have this image of a guy that has legitimately had one beer being dragged in a hospital by his arm by an over aggressive cop as he keeps trying to pull away, getting his blood forcibly taken. '
> 
> ...


Teeroy - you are wasting your time trying to convince people about blood draws. You could spend all day explaining the logic behind it, the case law that supports it, and the real world examples that justify it; but most people are not going to change their mind until they or a loved one are harmed by a drunk driver. This issue is similar (but not yet near the same level) as arguing the 2nd amendment or self defense. People have their minds made up and they won't change it. Just keep doing your job the best you can and thanks for getting the drunks off the road and saving lives. I'm going to move on to a new thread.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

GMTK said:


> *...**but most people are not going to change their mind until they or a loved one are harmed by a drunk driver*. This issue is similar (but not yet near the same level) as arguing the 2nd amendment or self defense. People have their minds made up and they won't change it. Just keep doing your job the best you can and thanks for getting the drunks off the road and saving lives. I'm going to move on to a new thread.


You are sorely mistaken. I have multiple lost to drunk drivers and know some that have been arrested. TAKING BLOOD IS WRONG and serves little purpose. Justify it however you want in your head, but keep your needles out of others' arms.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

GMTK said:


> What the heck are you talking about? HB 291 is a "Bill introduced by the Texas Senate relating to hepatitis B vaccination for students enrolled in certain health-related courses of study at an institution of higher education."
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth149628/


My bad, SB 261

http://www.deuell.senate.state.tx.us/pr09/p031909a.htm


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> Plain and simple, no refusal is 100% wrong, regardless of steps taken. You have zero right to forcibly take my bodily fluids. That right there, screwed up.


Sorry, but until I see a law, court case ruling against it or case law on the topic, they do have the right to draw your blood.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk 2012


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

FireEater said:


> Sorry, but until I see a law, court case ruling against it or case law on the topic, they do have the right to draw your blood.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk 2012


Sorry, a court case has already been cited within this thread...


----------



## jebatu (May 22, 2006)

Don't Drink and Drive and you have Nothing to Worry About.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Reel-tor said:


> Part of the problem is the "reason" for a lot of traffic stops is not legit, i.e. "your tire barely touched the white line ONCE but I saw it, so I have PC to stop you because you are weaving all over the road". BOGUS!
> 
> Once stopped, if you are asked if you have anything to drink tonight, you truthfully say "I had one beer about a hour ago". Immediately you are accused of being a liar because no officer believes you had ONE BEER. So, let's draw your blood, impound your car, tow it to outer Slobovia. Weeks later after your blood sample comes back as below .08 BECAUSE YOU REALLY didn't have but ONE BEER, Sorry, but you're still out the tow charge, impound charge, bond fee, attorney fee. But, you were totally innocent. How's that for a rip? But officer had PC!
> 
> ...


Ding Ding Ding...

we are subject to a police officers discretion.. none are the same, they all think differently... if they want to pull you over, they can do it anytime, with the least of excuses.



jebatu said:


> Don't Drink and Drive and you have Nothing to Worry About.


so just let them pull your over, figure out if you are OK to be alive or drive on their roads, and waste your time.. yeah, I like to be randomly pulled over and asked questions..

Personally, I'm more worried about the thug gangsters on the streets breaking into cars, homes, mugging, car jacking, etc. Patrol our neighborhoods more and look for out of place vehicles and occupants and pull them over randomly for touching a white line or something.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

jebatu said:


> Don't Drink and Drive and you have Nothing to Worry About.


Don't kill anyone and noone will try to take your guns away...opps, that's already happening.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

InfamousJ said:


> Ding Ding Ding...
> 
> we are subject to a police officers discretion.. none are the same, they all think differently... *if they want to pull you over, they can do it anytime, with the least of excuses.*
> 
> ...


To stop and detain a vehicle, an officer needs reasonable suspicion.

"randomly pulled over and asked questions" - Has that ever happened to you or someone you know? Boy, I hope not! That is very illegal, you'd be a rich man if that happened to you.

I'm curious to know how many officers actually seek a BDW in Houston. I know here in Austin, on a no refusal HOLIDAY weekend, maybe 15-30 folks get hit with a mandatory blood draw stemming from traffic stops and collisions together. There are HUNDREDS of traffic stops that occur in Austin on a weekend. Seems like people on this board act like it is a pandemic and officers are on the brink of going door to door with needles and restraint chairs.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

ATX 4x4 said:


> To stop and detain a vehicle, an officer needs reasonable suspicion.
> 
> "randomly pulled over and asked questions" - Has that ever happened to you or someone you know? Boy, I hope not! That is very illegal, you'd be a rich man if that happened to you.


Can't they pull you over to ensure you have insurance or are driving with a valid DL? What about random DWI check points outside of Texas?


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

ATX 4x4 said:


> To stop and detain a vehicle, an officer needs reasonable suspicion.
> 
> "randomly pulled over and asked questions" - Has that ever happened to you or someone you know? Boy, I hope not! That is very illegal, you'd be a rich man if that happened to you.
> 
> I'm curious to know how many officers actually seek a BDW in Houston. I know here in Austin, on a no refusal HOLIDAY weekend, maybe 15-30 folks get hit with a mandatory blood draw stemming from traffic stops and collisions together. There are HUNDREDS of traffic stops that occur in Austin on a weekend. Seems like people on this board act like it is a pandemic and officers are on the brink of going door to door with needles and restraint chairs.


Yes, I know people in the past who said they've been pulled over leaving the gate of their deer lease. Ask the ranchers, hunters, etc. down south as the DPS was randomly pulling people over.. reasons given similar to "because of the drug wars and violence so we're checking you out and make sure you are alright or if you've seen anything suspicious we should check out".

But it isn't a random pull over for doing nothing I was talking about.. it is pulled over for barely touching that white line, for swerving slightly in your lane, etc... they can find anything to pull you over for, anything... and it won't be random, it was justified... whatever. Police officers discretion, which is different in all of them because they are not robots with the same program.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

rudy99 said:


> Can't they pull you over to ensure you have insurance or are driving with a valid DL? What about random DWI check points outside of Texas?


Allow me to rephrase...at the *VERY LEAST*, an officer needs _*reasonable suspicion*_ to stop and detain a vehicle.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

Trust in us, your government! We will never lead you astray, harm you, or try to control you. We are looking out for YOUR best interest. We only want to help you. Pinky swear!

How TF can anyone be for this law?


----------



## zombiedrifter (Aug 26, 2010)

Those that give up liberty for safety, deserve neither.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

zombiedrifter said:


> Those that give up liberty for safety, deserve neither.


x1000000000

might as well be on welfare too


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

The actual quote is: *Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.*

What I may deem essential to me, may or may not seem essential to someone else. My family not being killed by a drunk is essential to me. Just a thought....As you were..


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

Jim Martin said:


> What I may deem essential to me, may or may not seem essential to someone else. My family not being killed by a drunk is essential to me. Just a thought....As you were..


And drawing of blood will bring said family member back? Or prevent said family member from being taken or injured?

No. It will not.


----------



## 6.5 shooter dude (Jan 8, 2008)

SaltyTX said:


> And drawing of blood will bring said family member back? Or prevent said family member from being taken or injured?
> 
> No. It will not.


No, but it will be hard for it to happen again while he/she is in jail.


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

I think we can all agree that death is somewhat a permanent state. I never mentioned bringing any one back from the dead. You must have somehow extrapolated that to further your argument. If a law deters even one person from driving drunk, I am all for it. That's one less I have to take concern with. No amount of rhetoric can change my mind on that point, so it's pointless for me to continue with this. I am not trying to change your mind, just stating my mind is firm in that if you have been drinking, and you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, you left your "rights" outside when you endangered all the rest of us.


----------



## HunterGirl (Jan 24, 2011)

Now, to me, this is a pretty stupid quote:

"If a law deters even one person from driving drunk, I am all for it."


So, in saying the above, you are saying that you will give up a right, or rights, to prevent one drunk driver. That is pretty silly considering how many good Americans have given up their lives over the last two centuries to preserve the rights you enjoy now. 
Most laws chip away at your rights, you never get them back.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

well, it's probably best just to smoke some dope and not worry about it.. dope will not show up on a breath test or blood test for alcohol. lots of allergies right now to, eyes are red.


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

Give up what right ? The right to drive drunk ?


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Jim Martin said:


> Give up what right ? The right to drive drunk ?


**sigh**


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

somehow this all reminds me of TSA and the wonderful job they are doing


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

Jim Martin said:


> Give up what right ? The right to drive drunk ?


5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

does the blood test check for all drugs or just alcohol? if only alcohol, will they implement one for all drugs so we make sure the person having their rights violated is not let go if they are impaired by something other other than alcohol?


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

In all due respect Mike, everyone pretty much knows what implied consent is, they should by now anyway. It became pretty popular when ALR started about 10 or so years ago and it's been consistently upheld for even longer. No one is taking your rights away; they are just holding you accountable for doing what you said you would do as a condition to obtain a license to drive. In my view, you waived that right when you agreed to give a sample of your breath/blood as a condition to drive.


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

I think that every police officer should submit to a blood test once per month. Something about those without sin casting the first stone.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

Mike77015 said:


> 5th Amendment:
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]


So far no court ruling on this huh? It is just your opinion that one can use this to cry about a blood draw right?

Until there is a court ruling on blood draws, none of you have a leg to stand on.

Would any of you consider this to be correct?



Mike77015 said:


> I think that every police officer should submit to a blood test once per month. Something about those without sin casting the first stone.


Why? Are you being submitted to one?

I know they are drug tested, are you?

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk 2012


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

FireEater said:


> So far no court ruling on this huh? It is just your opinion that one can use this to cry about a blood draw right?
> 
> Until there is a court ruling on blood draws, none of you have a leg to stand on.
> 
> ...


I would submit to one anytime my job asked for it. I would even allow a hair test to be done since they go back for years. I do not do drugs of any kind, so I am not worried about test. But you are a dam fool if you beleive that the same cops that are out arresting people have never drank and then drove home. I am not saying falling down drunk, but legally drunk. I have seen it on numerous occasions, some of my friends are officers and they go out drinking with their coworkers all the time.


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

Mike77015 said:


> I would submit to one anytime my job asked for it. I would even allow a hair test to be done since they go back for years. I do not do drugs of any kind, so I am not worried about test. But you are a dam fool if you beleive that the same cops that are out arresting people have never drank and then drove home. I am not saying falling down drunk, but legally drunk. I have seen it on numerous occasions, some of my friends are officers and they go out drinking with their coworkers all the time.


They also get arrested and are also under the same implied consent law as everyone else. A friend of mine who was an officer and got arrested for DWI off duty last year. He took his own life as part of the aftermath. Something about for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

Jim Martin said:


> They also get arrested and are also under the same implied consent law as everyone else. A friend of mine who was an officer and got arrested for DWI off duty last year. He took his own life as part of the aftermath. Something about for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.


How many times is it overlooked also? Unless the officer is way over the limit or involved in an accident it will be overlooked by another officer.


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

I dont know how many times its overlooked, do you ? Or is that speculation ?


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

Jim Martin said:


> I dont know how many times its overlooked, do you ? Or is that speculation ?


Are you seriously asking that? Are you saying that beyond the shadow of doubt that Police Officers are not more forgiving toward other off duty officers?


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

Uh, no, I didnt say that at all. Where did you get that from ? I asked you for the answer to your question.


----------



## lean2 (May 26, 2009)

it wont be long and you guys can argue whether we should have been forced to buy gubment health care.:biggrin: thats prolly gonna happen too


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

InfamousJ said:


> Ding Ding Ding...
> 
> we are subject to a police officers discretion.. none are the same, they all think differently... if they want to pull you over, they can do it anytime, with the least of excuses.
> 
> ...


You're responsible for your own property and life. When the cops are minutes away, seconds count!



SaltyTX said:


> And drawing of blood will bring said family member back? Or prevent said family member from being taken or injured?
> 
> No. It will not.


We just need to quit locking them murderers up! It's pointless!



HunterGirl said:


> Now, to me, this is a pretty stupid quote:
> 
> "If a law deters even one person from driving drunk, I am all for it."
> 
> ...


I know this is crazy, but if you don't DWI, then you'll never have to worry about it.

I know that's a lot to think about.



InfamousJ said:


> well, it's probably best just to smoke some dope and not worry about it.. dope will not show up on a breath test or blood test for alcohol. lots of allergies right now to, eyes are red.


No, but it will show up on a run of the mill toxicology exam.



Mike77015 said:


> But you are a dam fool if you believe that the same cops that are out arresting people have never drank and then drove home. I am not saying falling down drunk, but legally drunk. I have seen it on numerous occasions, some of my friends are officers and they go out drinking with their coworkers all the time.


And they get dealt with accordingly, all the time.

Remember last year a DPS officer arrested a Gal Co. Sheriff's Ofc. and the Gal Co. vehicular crimes prosecutor in the same night?


----------



## Sounding_7th (Dec 20, 2011)

:spineyes:


----------



## "The Marshall" (Jan 12, 2005)

Pasadena1944 said:


> I'm 100% for getting drunks off of the roads, but don't take away some ones civil right to do it!


its about $$$ not getting drunks off the road. when $$$ is involved your rights dont mean chit


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

Mike77015 said:


> How many times is it overlooked also? Unless the officer is way over the limit or involved in an accident it will be overlooked by another officer.


So Mike what you are saying is that as long as the law just sticks to a field sobriety test and a breath analyzer test, then the overlooking part on each other is ok?

But as soon as the law requires the officers to do a blood draw, then since the overlooking is going on they should overlook everyone?

Or are you saying that they should overlook all drunks since they drink and drive also, matter what tests are done?

Because I am confused on why you threw something so unrelated to the blood draws into this mix. Looking to just spice the thread up a bit? lol!

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk 2012


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

For the LEO's

Would you deport this dude before or after you forcefully draw blood.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ken-driving-wreck-that-killed-boy-3435745.php


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

FireEater said:


> So far no court ruling on this huh? It is just your opinion that one can use this to cry about a blood draw right?
> 
> Until there is a court ruling on blood draws, none of you have a leg to stand on.
> 
> ...


I direct your attention to post 108.....read it......black and white


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

this was pretty pathetic and incredibly sad for the loss of loved ones

http://instantnewskaty.com/2012/01/13/31832


----------



## Reel-tor (May 21, 2004)

ATX 4x4 said:


> To stop and detain a vehicle, an officer needs reasonable suspicion.
> 
> "randomly pulled over and asked questions" - Has that ever happened to you or someone you know? Boy, I hope not! That is very illegal, you'd be a rich man if that happened to you.
> 
> I'm curious to know how many officers actually seek a BDW in Houston. I know here in Austin, on a no refusal HOLIDAY weekend, maybe 15-30 folks get hit with a mandatory blood draw stemming from traffic stops and collisions together. There are HUNDREDS of traffic stops that occur in Austin on a weekend. Seems like people on this board act like it is a pandemic and officers are on the brink of going door to door with needles and restraint chairs.


Actually in Harris County (Houston) EVERY WEEKEND is a blood warrant weekend as is every holiday. Some road sections are virtually declared "free fire zones" when it comes to blood warrants (i.e. FM 1960 from I-45 to FM 249) with mobile blood draw vans parked in shopping center lots just waiting for "customers". That may not be the case in Austin area, but it is here thus the reason for some of the opinions expressed on this website.

Further we recently had a Asst DA from Harris County move to Montgomery County where he now practices as Asst DA. It seems he kept his same attitude that he rather get convictions than serve justice so blood warrants are "big" in Montgomery County now. I have no doubt he will run for high elective office at some time in the future and proclaim his "bad ***** prosecutor" persona as a qualification.

This is a complex problem and while DWI's must be reduced we must be careful how it is done. It's the age old question "does the end justify the means".


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

troutslayer said:


> I direct your attention to post 108.....read it......black and white


Thanks, I missed that and read it.

While the case came out in his favor, it seems with the end ruling the blood draws will go on just as they are now.

And from what it looks like, they will be stepped up. You can bet that all bases are being covered before it come to a blood draw.

But Officers and Judges are only human, so if one of them screws up, the case will be thrown out if it gets that far.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk 2012


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

To the exact situation in the OP, I was on I45 N Saturday night, and between the Woodlands and Conroe, there were a minimum of 6 LEOs, including DPS, county, etc. all on the North bound side, right in the middle of the posted message in the OP. So call it what you want, money grab, DWI prevention, etc. but I have been around a long time, seen a lot and I know a set up when I see one. They were aggressively stopping people, much more than most other times. I can see the stop going like this, If they "stopped" you with whatever probably cause, then they would continue their "investigation" to determine if you had been drinking. This is where it gets sticky, if you had been drinking..........at all......and then refused to blow, then you are getting stuck, that simple. Like I said before, makes a solid case for a blood alcohol content of .081 costing some guy possibly his job and thousands of dollars. To me the end does not justify the means. 
And Teeroy, for you to keep making the statement about letting murderers go is disingenuous, you know as well as I do, in fatal accidents, the investigation is automatic.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

Good post reel tor


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

HydraSports said:


> And Teeroy, for you to keep making the statement about letting murderers go is disingenuous, you know as well as I do, in fatal accidents, the investigation is automatic.


Well some peope here seem to really dislike when someone gets behind the wheel intoxicated. This is America. We can't stop people from drinking and driving. We can't go into bars and start checking on everyone, making people call for cabs.

So what do we do? Just make sure they go to jail for the night, regardless of how weak the case is? We want to go forward with the strongest case possible using all legal means possible.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

teeroy said:


> Well some peope here seem to really dislike when someone gets behind the wheel intoxicated. This is America. We can't stop people from drinking and driving. We can't go into bars and start checking on everyone, making people call for cabs.
> 
> So what do we do? Just make sure they go to jail for the night, regardless of how weak the case is? We want to go forward with the strongest case possible using all legal means possible.


That is exactly what you do, you get them off the road if their is reasonable suspicion that they are impaired enough to cause a problem. Beyond that it is not the duty or responsibility of LEO to "convict" anybody. Gather the information available and make the best case possible. I don't have the statistics, but I would bet a sizable sum that there are considerably more convictions than acquittals on DWI cases, even without the blood evidence. After all, the intent of all of this is to remove the threat, i.e. DWI. Whatever happens after that, jail time, conviction, etc. etc. does nothing to reach that goal, remove the threat. The fines and penalties are stiff enough to make the people who care pay attention, to the rest it doesn't matter anyway.

On a completely different note, as I am sure everyone knows, this whole DWI witch hunt started with MADD. Anyone happen to talk to them lately??? I have and their position is that this pendulum has swung WAY too far toward the bad, and this blood evidence deal is the main point in their concerns.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

HydraSports said:


> That is exactly what you do, you get them off the road if their is reasonable suspicion that they are impaired enough to cause a problem. Beyond that it is not the duty or responsibility of LEO to "convict" anybody. Gather the information available and make the best case possible. I don't have the statistics, but I would bet a sizable sum that there are considerably more convictions than acquittals on DWI cases, even without the blood evidence. After all, the intent of all of this is to remove the threat, i.e. DWI. Whatever happens after that, jail time, conviction, etc. etc. does nothing to reach that goal, remove the threat. The fines and penalties are stiff enough to make the people who care pay attention, to the rest it doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> .


Ok, I'll type it AGAIN. I'll give another scenario, AGAIN.

I stop Tommy Tecate for speeding. I get up to Tommy's window and it's obvious he's intoxicated which I can see just by looking at him (jury can't see this). I observe that his speech is thick and slurred (Jury won't convict on this, been there done that). I smell an overwhelming of an unknown alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath and/or person (Again, that doesn't mean he's drunk).

I ask Tommy out of the car. Tommy says, "I haven't been drinking and I'm not doing any of your tests." Tommy also won't stop leaning on the car, even when asked to get off of it. I know that Tommy is intoxicated just based on our short interaction (again, a jury can't see this as I can, but I've observed articulatable facts that I can portray through writing). I go ahead and arrest him and get a warrant for his blood, which comes back well over the limit and he's charged accordingly.

HOW ARE OFFICERS SUPPOSED TO GATHER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN A CASE IN A SCENARIO AS MENTIONED?

There seems to be a lot of experts here. I'd like some help here.


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

teeroy said:


> Ok, I'll type it AGAIN. I'll give another scenario, AGAIN.
> 
> I stop Tommy Tecate for speeding. I get up to Tommy's window and it's obvious he's intoxicated which I can see just by looking at him (jury can't see this). I observe that his speech is thick and slurred (Jury won't convict on this, been there done that). I smell an overwhelming of an unknown alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath and/or person (Again, that doesn't mean he's drunk).
> 
> ...


Anyway they can without violating someones constitutional rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But thats never good enough for you is it........I do not live in F-in Germany, where your Gestapo tactics would be welcomed....you sir are part of the problem in America......you think your high and mighty and can take what you want......well its f-in BS

How old are your kids??????
lets say......Ill throw a scenerio at you.........

Your 17 yr old son is coming home from a party
hes had about 4 beers
he gets pulled over in LaPorte.....A dept with a reputation.......
cop thinks hes been drinking and asks him to step out side the truck
your son does.....he leans up against the truck....even after the officer asks him not to.
cop ask him to submit to a FST......your son refuses
Cop thinks hes seen enough to secure a rubberstamp from 24 hr up all night judge.....
Sooooooo.....fastforward to LaPorte City Jail..... where your son is explained how the removal of his sacred blood.....the stuff you gave him is about to be taken.....
Your son explains to the officer that he does not want his blood taken....the officer tells the young man that he has no choice due the search warrant being rubberstamped by a 24 hr up all night judge
the boy still refuses.......
then the officer trys to sit the young man down in a restraint chair
the boy further resists........a fight breaks out.....
your son tells you what happened.......he has a broke nose....two busted ribs....a broke pinky finger.......and two black eyes
how do you feel???
Are you mad at your son???
Mad at the cops????
then Wayne Dotrefino(sp) gets ahold a tape that shows the arse whoopin put on your son by 9 F-in cops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and puts it all over channel 13
All in the name of the *conviction....*
we need a conviction baby!!!!!
we dont give a chit about your rights....your sons rights.....your mommas rights.........we want yo blood fool!!!!!

they nick name him Tommy Tecate

Now is the shoe snug on your pompus arse foot


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

troutslayer said:


> Anyway they can without violating someones constitutional rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But thats never good enough for you is it........I do not live in F-in Germany, where your Gestapo tactics would be welcomed....you sir are part of the problem in America......you think your high and mighty and can take what you want......well its f-in BS
> 
> ...


*I'm the problem? I'm the low man on the totem pole. I ENFORCE THE LAWS YOUR LEGISLATORS HAVE PUT INTO ACT. I ENFORCE THE BLOOD WARRANT PROCEDURES OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND LOCAL JUDGES HAVE PUT TOGETHER. I've never created or proposed the creation of ONE LAW, EVER. I merely do my job, not create laws and procedures. Crazy huh?*

Until a judge makes a ruling on the issue and there is some sort of case law being created, no one's rights are being violated. People are getting convicted EVERYDAY that have had their blood forcibly taken. EVERY SINGLE DAY. *The WAY OUR LAWS ARE WRITTEN, IT'S PERMISSIBLE. *

I'm not even going to dignify your "son gets beat" scenario with an answer because you wouldn't believe me anyways...

*I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ANSWER THIS QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN AVOIDED FOR TWO DAYS NOW:*

Bobby Butronic rapes your wife (or daughter, or neice, or grandchild). She is scarred for life and is now pregnant with a rapist's unwanted child. 

The detective(s) in the case get their suspect narrowed down, but Bobby invokes his 5th amendment right (WHICH DOESN'T APPLY IN A BLOOD WARRANT CASE, SINCE YOU AREN'T GIVING TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, WE LOVE OUR RIGHT'S DON'T WE?) and he says he hasn't done anything wrong. Bobby said he doesn't even know your daughter (wife, neice).

The detectives get a warrant for a biological specimen from Bobby. When Bobby is told he's giving a specimen he says "No one is getting a DNA sample from me!!!" With the judges warrant in hand, the detectives use the minimum amount of force necessary to effect the seizure on Bobby's body and gather some of his DNA (WHICH HAPPENS, EVERY, SINGLE DAY IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY).

*IS THIS VIOLATING BOBBY'S RIGHTS?*

*IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAT A BLOOD WARRANT? *

In both instances (DNA, or blood warrant), PC must be established that evidence of a crime exists in a known location. *This is according to the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, WHICH OUTLINES HOW SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS TO BE DONE.*

Troutslayer, I'm eagerly awaiting your response.


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

teeroy said:


> *I'm the problem? I'm the low man on the totem pole. I ENFORCE THE LAWS YOUR LEGISLATORS HAVE PUT INTO ACT. I ENFORCE THE BLOOD WARRANT PROCEDURES OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND LOCAL JUDGES HAVE PUT TOGETHER. I've never created or proposed the creation of ONE LAW, EVER. I merely do my job, not create laws and procedures. Crazy huh?*
> 
> Until a judge makes a ruling on the issue and there is some sort of case law being created, no one's rights are being violated. People are getting convicted EVERYDAY that have had their blood forcibly taken. EVERY SINGLE DAY. *The WAY OUR LAWS ARE WRITTEN, IT'S PERMISSIBLE. *
> 
> ...


Who put together.......thats why I am very surprised that its going on......its not a law......meanwhile there is a constitution that forbids it
this

and on your scenerio that you gave is comparing apples to oranges......i.e. felony to misdemeanor.....and DNA does not have to come from blood

And why wont you respond to mine.......will it show us all the desynthesized nature which all or most LEOs go through
too bad so sad attitude
do you have kids?
is this a possibility for you in the future?
has it happened before???

You will never get me convinced that you or anyother police goon has the authority to take something out of my body......

All this makes me beleive that if the SHTF in this country......there will be LEOS that will turn on the very people that they swore to protect

sad2sm


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

troutslayer said:


> Who put together.......thats why I am very surprised that its going on......its not a law......meanwhile there is a constitution that forbids it
> this
> 
> *You can't even construct a comprehensible sentence. You've failed to respond appropriately on this part.*
> ...


In red


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

teeroy said:


> In red


What did you not understand?????...the constitution states that you cant do it....hello!!!!

you are inforcing a law that goes against what the constitution says

And I know that some are felonies......the constitution also has very strict exceptions dealing with felony DWIs
we are not talking about that are we???

*If he's been beat without cause, that's another situation.*

So the beating of TT in your opinion was warranted???
You would allow the beating of your child...and chaulk it up to... 
"He had it coming....I told him"...
I can tell that you dont have kids

On the lost part.........SHTF stands for chit hits the fan....It is supposed to be when the Potus declares martial law in the states....when banks shut down.....when the Goverment finally goes broke and cant pay our bills....basically SHTF..........local goverments all the way up to State will be null and void......people will be put into concentration camps that are all over the US...look it up if you want....FEMA is behind it.....thats when you as a LEO will be asked to make a decision as to where you stand on the present state of the US and whom you will serve......

you sound like the very one that would enjoy it.......

SAD


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

Ill post it again in case you did not read it.....

The right to refuse to blow derives from Chapter 724 of the Texas Transportation Code, entitled "Implied Consent," which outlines the rules on implied consent and the procedure for obtaining specimens for alcohol content analysis.[27] In general, a person who is "arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was operating a motor vehicle . . . while intoxicated . . . is deemed to have consented . . . to the taking of one or more specimens of the person's breath or blood for analysis . . . ."[28] Upon a suspect's arrest, blood or breath specimens "_may_ be taken" if an officer has "reasonable grounds" to believe the person was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.[29]
The right to refuse falls under section 724.013. It states that, "[e]xcept as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen _may not_ be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer."[30] The 724.012(b) exception states that an officer "shall _require_ the taking of a specimen of the person's breath or blood" when four conditions are met: (1) the suspect is arrested for DWI; (2) the officer "reasonably believes" that the suspect caused an accident; (3) the officer "reasonably believes" that someone has died or will die or that someone besides the suspect has suffered serious bodily injury; _and_ (4) the person refuses to give the specimen voluntarily.[31] Thus, in cases that do not involve some sort of auto accident, a person has an unfettered right to refuse. Even in cases where there is an accident, a person still has an unfettered right to refuse where either (1) he is not arrested for DWI, (2) there is no reasonable indication that he is at fault,[32] _or _(3) there is no reasonable indication that someone died or was seriously injured.
*A. Beeman: Putting the Cart Before the Horse*

Because Texas statutory law does not allow for blood draws to be administered to those who refuse (except as provided by section 724.012(b)), the "No Refusal" program purports to derive its authority to draw blood by way of search warrants issued by neutral and detached magistrates. The question, then, is whether the statute granting motorists the right to refuse precludes the taking of a defendant's blood pursuant to a constitutionally firm search warrant. In 2002, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed this very issue in _Beeman v. State_.[33] In that case, Knowel Beeman was rear-ended while driving.[34] There were no injuries, and the officer cited the other driver for following too closely; however, the officer also arrested Beeman for DWI.[35] Beeman refused a breath test, so the officer obtained a search warrant for his blood.[36] Over Beeman's objection, his blood was drawn at the local hospital.[37] The test later revealed his BAC to be 0.21, well over the legal limit.[38] Citing section 724.013 of the Transportation Code, Beemen moved unsuccessfully to suppress the results.[39] The intermediate court upheld the suppression based on the "broader powers" of the search warrant over that of the statutory right to refuse.[40]
Before the Court of Criminal Appeals, Beeman argued that "despite the existence of a search warrant, this search was invalid because it violated our state's implied consent statute," and that that statute, "by implication, excludes the taking of blood without consent under any other circumstances, including by the authority of a search warrant."[41] The State countered that "construing the law in this manner results in giving DWI suspects more protection than other criminal suspects-an absurd result contrary to the statute's intent."[42] The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State and held that "once a valid search warrant is obtained by presenting facts establishing probable cause to a neutral and detached magistrate, consent, implied or explicit, becomes moot."[43]
The _Beeman_ decision was not unanimous. Judge Johnson filed the lone dissent, noting that article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that "[n]o evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas . . . shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case."[44] Judge Johnson also noted that the "plain language of [the 724.012(b) exception] sets out four requirements which must be satisfied in order for the involuntary taking of a blood specimen to be authorized."[45] In the instant case, she pointed out, only two of the four requirements were satisfied, and therefore, "[t]he taking of blood . . . was obtained in violation of section 724.013," and "should have been suppressed under Article 38.23."[46] She then explained: 
The Legislature has chosen to give DWI arrestees the right to refuse to submit a breath or blood specimen unless the rather restrictive requirements of section 724.012(b) are met. The state would have us condone broad application by permitting use of a search warrant to circumvent the legislated prohibition. It is not unreasonable or absurd for the Legislature to decline to give _carte blanche_ to officers to demand and forcibly obtain blood samples from all persons arrested for DWI. The Legislature could quite reasonably decide to permit officers to require the taking of a specimen only in those situations in which the officer reasonably believes a life-threatening accident had been caused by the DWI offense.
. . . .
It is axiomatic that, while our constitutions limit the powers of government and provide protection for the rights of the people, the Legislature can pass laws that provide even greater protection. The Legislature has clearly and explicitly provided a statutory right for a DWI arrestee to refuse a request for a specimen, with one specific, limited exception. I do not acquiesce to the state's request that we disregard and judicially repeal the Legislature's clear and explicit statutory right to refuse to provide a specimen.[47]​


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

26 y/o


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

troutslayer said:


> Anyway they can without violating someones constitutional rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


X10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

:fireworks:birthday2:fireworks

TSA should start blood draws on everyone as airline passengers go through the security gate.. anyone high or intoxicated might be in that state to gain courage before commiting a terroristic suicide event. I don't want to fly with impaired people that might do something stupid on the plane. Hey, it's not a privilege to fly.


----------



## Downandout (Dec 24, 2004)

Troutslayer IS right!!!

And for the 26yo leo, well you just keep right on listenen to those lawmakers and one day when you get some more years on you, and kids, you will understand. Everytime they add another law for you to enforce they get more money from the people. Look at what the legislature did this year, THEY even know its unconstitutional to charge people a grand a year for three years after a DWI, BUT since they didnt know how to deal with the huge loss of monies comin in, they kept it in place. They are the very crooks that you work for, and YES that we voted in. Really Sad.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

it's unconstitutional "to charge people a grand a year for three years after a DWI" ???

really - I'd like to see how you figured that one out.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

Downandout said:


> And for the 26yo leo, well you just keep right on listenen to those lawmakers and one day when you get some more years on you, and kids, you will understand. Everytime they add another law for you to enforce they get more money from the people. Look at what the legislature did this year, THEY even know its unconstitutional to charge people a grand a year for three years after a DWI, BUT since they didnt know how to deal with the huge loss of monies comin in, they kept it in place. They are the very crooks that you work for, and YES that we voted in. Really Sad.


Maybe what you do not understand is that the 26Y.O. LEO is just doing his job which is enforcing the laws in place?

Also, I have never bought into the "they only do it for the money" excuse. If you do not like that that is what they do it for, then simply do not break the law. If they want to make more money off the law breakers, then good for them.

Pretty sure though that with this issue, the bottom line is they are going to continue the blood draws. So maybe you drunks out there better be careful when you head to where ever you are going while drinking?

Though the person drinking and driving always has the mentality that they will never be caught.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

FireEater said:


> Though the person drinking and driving always has the mentality that they will never be caught.


When I'm drinking and driving, I stay out of the fast lane and keep my texting to a minimum.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

InfamousJ said:


> When I'm drinking and driving, I stay out of the fast lane and keep my texting to a minimum.


Simple basic rules right there. lol

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk 2012


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

teeroy said:


> *I'm the problem? I'm the low man on the totem pole. I ENFORCE THE LAWS YOUR LEGISLATORS HAVE PUT INTO ACT. I ENFORCE THE BLOOD WARRANT PROCEDURES OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND LOCAL JUDGES HAVE PUT TOGETHER. I've never created or proposed the creation of ONE LAW, EVER. I merely do my job, not create laws and procedures. Crazy huh?*
> 
> Until a judge makes a ruling on the issue and there is some sort of case law being created, no one's rights are being violated. People are getting convicted EVERYDAY that have had their blood forcibly taken. EVERY SINGLE DAY. *The WAY OUR LAWS ARE WRITTEN, IT'S PERMISSIBLE. *
> 
> ...


I can answer that. If the police were not so busy sitting on side of the road and trying to catch a speeder that might lead to a DWI instead of patroling the neighborhood protecting people, the officer might have caught the suspect before the crime. That is just a thought. ****** me off every single time I see a cop sitting on side of the road radaring and then going home and hearing about a home invasion near the radaring cop.


----------



## Downandout (Dec 24, 2004)

Mike77

There is not any MONEY in patroling neighborhoods or doing investigative work. Ticket Writers everywhere.


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

Downandout said:


> Mike77
> 
> There is not any MONEY in patroling neighborhoods or doing investigative work. Ticket Writers everywhere.


You are probably right.


----------



## JED (Nov 14, 2004)

teeroy said:


> In red


This explains alot of what I already knew. It's going to sound very cliche, but I was alot like you; condescending attitude and all. At 26 yo, I had four years in the USBP and by that time had made countless arrests and hundreds of felony cases. After 9:11, I lasted two more years until I got married and left the BP. Then I worked as a county PO assigned to the S.O. warrants division. I worked with FBI, ATF, USBP, DPS CID and the local gang unit. This was mainly to build cases on and arrest prison gang members/ RICO offenders. I have worked MB to F1 cases from start to finish and am very familiar with CCP, rules of evidence and statutory authorities. But Ive also seen many, many blatant constitutional violations by all agencies. Now I've established that I'm not some schmoe without a clue I'll get to the point...

I was and still am very proud of my service. But during my time in, I was lacking in a very important life skill. A skill that you obviously haven't gained or learned. That skill is critical and objective thought. Some people gain it through education (self or collegiate) , with maturity/age or never at all. Have a look at your co-workers and yourself, do you build cases around the law or apply the law to your cases. I'm off the soap box now, but I'll make a final plea.

Please don't be a robot in a uniform. Educate yourself, use your discretion and apply the law and your oath as it was intended. With these skills, you should have a long and rewarding career. Best of luck and stay safe...


----------



## Mike77015 (Dec 27, 2007)

JED said:


> This explains alot of what I already knew. It's going to sound very cliche, but I was alot like you; condescending attitude and all. At 26 yo, I had four years in the USBP and by that time had made countless arrests and hundreds of felony cases. After 9:11, I lasted two more years until I got married and left the BP. Then I worked as a county PO assigned to the S.O. warrants division. I worked with FBI, ATF, USBP, DPS CID and the local gang unit. This was mainly to build cases on and arrest prison gang members/ RICO offenders. I have worked MB to F1 cases from start to finish and am very familiar with CCP, rules of evidence and statutory authorities. But Ive also seen many, many blatant constitutional violations by all agencies. Now I've established that I'm not some schmoe without a clue I'll get to the point...
> 
> I was and still am very proud of my service. But during my time in, I was lacking in a very important life skill. A skill that you obviously haven't gained or learned. That skill is critical and objective thought. Some people gain it through education (self or collegiate) , with maturity/age or never at all. Have a look at your co-workers and yourself, do you build cases around the law or apply the law to your cases. I'm off the soap box now, but I'll make a final plea.
> 
> Please don't be a robot in a uniform. Educate yourself, use your discretion and apply the law and your oath as it was intended. With these skills, you should have a long and rewarding career. Best of luck and stay safe...


Post of the year.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

JED said:


> This explains alot of what I already knew. It's going to sound very cliche, but I was alot like you; condescending attitude and all. At 26 yo, I had four years in the USBP and by that time had made countless arrests and hundreds of felony cases. After 9:11, I lasted two more years until I got married and left the BP. Then I worked as a county PO assigned to the S.O. warrants division. I worked with FBI, ATF, USBP, DPS CID and the local gang unit. This was mainly to build cases on and arrest prison gang members/ RICO offenders. I have worked MB to F1 cases from start to finish and am very familiar with CCP, rules of evidence and statutory authorities. But Ive also seen many, many blatant constitutional violations by all agencies. Now I've established that I'm not some schmoe without a clue I'll get to the point...
> 
> I was and still am very proud of my service. But during my time in, I was lacking in a very important life skill. A skill that you obviously haven't gained or learned. That skill is critical and objective thought. Some people gain it through education (self or collegiate) , with maturity/age or never at all. Have a look at your co-workers and yourself, do you build cases around the law or apply the law to your cases. I'm off the soap box now, but I'll make a final plea.
> 
> Please don't be a robot in a uniform. Educate yourself, use your discretion and apply the law and your oath as it was intended. With these skills, you should have a long and rewarding career. Best of luck and stay safe...


Hundreds of felony cases in just 4 years? Holy smokes you were busy!!

This may be my ignorance speaking, but I thought BP agents "only" have the authority to detain rather than arrest? And what is a county po? Is that a probation officer? Or a police officer aka county deputy aka peace officer.

Critical and objective thought is a solid point. Sadly not so common after all.


----------



## JED (Nov 14, 2004)

ATX 4x4 said:


> Hundreds of felony cases in just 4 years? Holy smokes you were busy!!
> 
> This may be my ignorance speaking, but I thought BP agents "only" have the authority to detain rather than arrest? And what is a county po? Is that a probation officer? Or a police officer aka county deputy aka peace officer.
> 
> Critical and objective thought is a solid point. Sadly not so common after all.


Very, very busy. During the late 90's, there was 'Operation Gatekeeper' an INS offensive on the arizona/new mexico borders, which in turn pushed traffic to the west and east, right my neck of the woods, (Bracketville, TX). I also was assigned to detail posts in Nogales and Douglas AZ. Those places were absolutely nuts!

BPA's have no TCLEOSE cert. They are by stat authority, immigration agents first and have delegated Title 21 authority by the DEA. They can only arrest for immigration violations (IE; 8 USC 1324 and 1325 plus some others) and of course for dope smuggling.
Agent's only need little or no suspicion for stop and talks on the street and reasonable suspicion for vehicle stops. However they make vehicle stops only under the guise of an immigration check with art. facts like riding low, regular route for smuggling, agent experience, etc. I have pulled over United states Citizens that were drunk, detained them for public safety, then called in DPS for the investigations because I had no Texas peace officer status.

I was a probation officer with TCLEOSE in Nueces County, and I hated that job with a passion. Witnessing habitual felons get placed back on probation after a solid MTR is an absolute morale crusher. With the whole reasoning is that the TDCJ pays the county something like $10 for each day and for each defendant that is on probation. It is all just a money grab, it has nothing do do with justice. Working the the warrants division made it tolerable but not for long. I'm sure you know that as a condition of probation, defendants on probation are subject to search without PC, which is the role I played while working in conjunction with the other agencies.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

solid MTR?


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

Motion to revoke.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

JED said:


> I was and still am very proud of my service. But during my time in, I was lacking in a very important life skill. A skill that you obviously haven't gained or learned. That skill is critical and objective thought. Some people gain it through education (self or collegiate) , with maturity/age or never at all. Have a look at your co-workers and yourself, do you build cases around the law or apply the law to your cases. I'm off the soap box now, but I'll make a final plea.
> 
> Please don't be a robot in a uniform. Educate yourself, use your discretion and apply the law and your oath as it was intended. With these skills, you should have a long and rewarding career. Best of luck and stay safe...


I've always practiced officer discretion and common sense since I've began this job. That's what makes this job great. Just because you _can_, doesn't mean you _should_. And I think you know what I'm talking about.:spineyes:

But nothing I've said in this thread should lead you to believe I'm a deek head robot. The basis of this thread was "blood draws are unconstitutional" without much of a reason as to explaining why they are unconstitutional, except that their blood is sacred.

I simply gave examples of when blood draws are necessary and how it hasn't been deemed unconstitutional, and cited which part of our law allows search warrants to be executed to seize evidence. I haven't said "I do this, and I do that." I just wanted to give real life examples when seizing blood makes sense because it was obvious that some of the posters hadn't thought it through before posting.

I believe *STRONGLY* in using the laws to their intent. I don't arrest someone for a class B suspended license with one active suspension, who's on their way to work. I don't confirm every single warrant someone has. I don't write someone a ticket for going 10+MPH at 0200 in the morning. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

I believe it's the same thing with these blood draws. We have a department wide policy regarding them. If someone has ZERO convictions and refuses SFSTs, we do a search warrant. If someone has ONE conviction and refuse to give a breath specimen, we do a search warrant.

There have been several times when I've arrested a person for DWI who has had one prior and they've refused to give a specimen, but I had great video evidence and enough for a conviction in my opinion (which is a lot, jurys don't seem to think a drunk is drunk unless he can't stand up). And I've had to take someone of these people to a hospital with a search warrant in hand and get their blood, usually always against their will.

There's been times where I've felt bad about having to do it But there's times when I'm glad we've got to do it. But it's one of our policies that take the discretion out of our hands. Kind of like the zero tolerance family violence laws/department polices. I don't want to get off on that tangent. It could be another 20 pages!!!

But I don't like when discretion is taken from our hands. Kind of reminds me of zero tolerance policies, which often lead to zero common sense. With that said, I just do the best of my ability and I do what I need to do to stay employed without a target on my back. I love my job. Things aren't perfect with our system. But I can't worry about any of that, as I can't do anything about it, except at the polls.


----------



## ByGodTx (Sep 15, 2010)

As a officer I for one do not feel the state has the right to invade your body to take your blood without consent. Its easy to say well they should not be drinking and driving rightfully so. The bigger issue is the Gov./State and the rights of the American citizen. As the Government grows our rights shrink where does it stop? As officers we need to face the facts its all about city/county/state revenue. Revenue is dropping for all of them due to the economy so what happens, they push for more citations to be written and its wrong. We need to be of the mind set that we are not law enforcement officers but peace officers. I took a oath to defend the Constitution against all all enemies, foreign and domestic. We have a hell of a lot of enemies of the Constitution in power right now going all the way to the commander and chief.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

ByGodTx said:


> As a officer I for one do not feel the state has the right to invade your body to take your blood without consent. Its easy to say well they should not be drinking and driving rightfully so. The bigger issue is the Gov./State and the rights of the American citizen. As the Government grows our rights shrink where does it stop? As officers we need to face the facts its all about city/county/state revenue. Revenue is dropping for all of them due to the economy so what happens, they push for more citations to be written and its wrong. We need to be of the mind set that we are not law enforcement officers but peace officers. I took a oath to defend the Constitution against all all enemies, foreign and domestic. We have a hell of a lot of enemies of the Constitution in power right now going all the way to the commander and chief.


I see you are the Uncle Tom of popos huh? lol!


----------



## zombiedrifter (Aug 26, 2010)

FireEater said:


> I see you are the Uncle Tom of popos huh? lol!


Attitude like that gives all law enforcement a bad name. And people wonder why LEOs gets less respect every week.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

FireEater said:


> I see you are the Uncle Tom of popos huh? lol!


Stick to fighting fires and shut up about laws.

As to teeroy- wow, what a change of tone when you were called out...interesting...


----------



## ByGodTx (Sep 15, 2010)

FireEater said:


> I see you are the Uncle Tom of popos huh? lol!


A lot of us feel the same way bud.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> Stick to fighting fires and shut up about laws.
> 
> As to teeroy- wow, what a change of tone when you were called out...interesting...


Whatever you say guy.


----------



## rudy99 (Jul 20, 2010)

ByGodTx said:


> As a officer I for one do not feel the state has the right to invade your body to take your blood without consent. Its easy to say well they should not be drinking and driving rightfully so. The bigger issue is the Gov./State and the rights of the American citizen. As the Government grows our rights shrink where does it stop? As officers we need to face the facts its all about city/county/state revenue. Revenue is dropping for all of them due to the economy so what happens, they push for more citations to be written and its wrong. We need to be of the mind set that we are not law enforcement officers but peace officers. I took a oath to defend the Constitution against all all enemies, foreign and domestic. We have a hell of a lot of enemies of the Constitution in power right now going all the way to the commander and chief.


This post somes up my thoughts 100% I just didn't have the Peace Officer title to explain to the other Peace Officer's on the board. I wasn't against a Peace Officer doing their job. I am against the fact that a Peace Officer has been given the authority to do this portion of the job.

I understand that once the authority or neccassry means are given, it is the Peace Officer's responsibility to get the job done.

Cheers to you ByGodTx:cheers:


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

zombiedrifter said:


> Attitude like that gives all law enforcement a bad name. And people wonder why LEOs gets less respect every week.





SaltyTX said:


> Stick to fighting fires and shut up about laws.
> 
> As to teeroy- wow, what a change of tone when you were called out...interesting...





ByGodTx said:


> A lot of us feel the same way bud.


Thanks guys, I see you failed in sarcasm. Sheesh. Feel better now? haha


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

FireEater said:


> Maybe what you do not understand is that the 26Y.O. LEO is just doing his job which is enforcing the laws in place?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

teeroy said:


> Whatever you say guy.


so do you work nights? a desk job? or are you on the computer in the cop car posting to 2cool? haha


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

InfamousJ said:


> so do you work nights? a desk job? or are you on the computer in the cop car posting to 2cool? haha


He is one of finest and takes his job to heart. Let's say he works when the bad guys outnumber the good guys and the backup is farther away. Some of y'all sure could stand to do a ride along with a LEO some dark night and see what y'all are missing out on.

Now get off his case and agree to disagree and stop beating a dead horse.


----------



## ByGodTx (Sep 15, 2010)

Ok I think we all need to discuss this face to face and hash this out. Party at my house this Sat. Ill cook fajitas.....BYOB.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

InfamousJ said:


> so do you work nights? a desk job? or are you on the computer in the cop car posting to 2cool? haha


5th amendment

Or something like that


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

ByGodTx said:


> Ok I think we all need to discuss this face to face and hash this out. Party at my house this Sat. Ill cook fajitas.....BYOB.


bring your own...breathalyzer?



teeroy said:


> 5th amendment
> 
> Or something like that


oh, nooooooooooooooww you believe in constitutional rights?


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

Great opinions, and points of view! Thanks, Guys!


----------



## Whoopin It Up! (Dec 20, 2010)

*Clarification? What's your definition?*



teeroy said:


> I beg you to clarify exactly what you mean.
> 
> If you get stopped or detain by police, it was either because of Probable Cause (Likely for a traffic offense) or by reasonable suspicion. More than likely it was probable cause.
> 
> ...


Hey there Lawman .... you say alot as if you have all the answers! Please clarify "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion."

Many Americans believe the idea of "probable cause or reasonable suspicion" is based on RACE, COLOR OF SKIN, or STATUS in your community, maybe a person is dirt poor (must be a problem). Or maybe based with this pre-conceived idea "the suspect was wearing a hoodie (must be a menace to society!), or maybe the suspect was driving a vehicle with 22" inch chrome wheels with rap music coming out of the car (he's a suspect!) based on pre-conceived ideas as to what is in your mind as suspicion ... you get my drift? Maybe the dude in the 22" inch wheeled car, listening to rap music ... was just minding his own business, when, wham! he's pulled over, arrested for suspicion??? Hey, it happens!!!!

What is your definition of probable cause or reasonable cause?

Here's one for you: A person's civil rights is violated when there was no probable cause or reasonable cause. And the cops arrested and detained or went in to the person's home ... without REAL cause. This usually ends up with a lawsuit against a police department, a city, or even the state or the federal government.

The police enforce the laws. And I support their efforts, however, they are not judges, or a jury, and they are not our lawmakers.

My gripe with traffic cops is a cop just writing tickets when he could be doing something much more beneficial for the community. I see city cops on the interstate freeway doing the radar thing and it looks to be either a money maker for their city or just another speed trap. I have called the police to report either a burglary or break-in and it takes an hour or more to get a cop out to investigate, but man can they be readily availble when it comes to traffic and sitting on the side of the road with radar (or maybe just sleeping in their squas car).

What is Beneficial to the Community? Less real crime. And their police on the beat, rather than doing the traffic radar thing (with pre-conceived ideas as to what reasonable cause or probable cause).


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

RIGHT ON!!!! We all know that without those traffic cops, the commute to work and our childrens school zones would be much safer places. ...


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

Jim Martin said:


> RIGHT ON!!!! We all know that without those traffic cops, the commute to work and our childrens school zones would be much safer places. ...


Yes, because school zones were nothing more than target factories until they put those flashey lights. And by golly, we gotta protect the chiiiilllldreeen.

And your work commute and speeding....have you looked at Transtar during peak hours?

I'm pretty sure you didn't even think before posting.


----------



## drattler (Mar 27, 2012)

:texasflagSorry, you are out of luck blood warrants are legal in Texas ,and yes the govt is closing in more every day. Problem is ,there is no place left to move to,like the pilgrims leaving Europe to the new America, ?? How do you get away,where can you go? Govt. isn a malignancy that in time kills freedom,productivity,prosperity, ALL IN THE NAME of doing whats best for YOU--Just ask any young progressive!!


----------



## Jim Martin (Jun 3, 2009)

I understand we don't HAVE to protect children. As a civilized society we should, but we don't HAVE to. Some people think it's a good idea to do what we can and having a police officer in the school zone seems like a good way to do that. Some people aren't really comfortable confronting someone that disregards a crossing guard, turns against a red light or travels at an unreasonably high speed in a school zone. Some people feel like they pay taxes for law enforcement to perform that task and expect them do it as well as the other functions they are given responsibility to do. I would appear from your post, you don't agree that it could be beneficial to have an officer I a school a zone from time to time. If that's your opinion, I respect it and your right to present it, but I disagree. As for Transtar, no, I don't look at it; I am typically driving on my commute, not watching Transtar. For some of us, the commute starts about 6:30 a.m. and traffic is moving well above the posted speed limit with a good deal of lane changing, cutting people off and aggressive driving taking place. I can take care of myself, but I am glad my wife is not subjected to some of the behavior I frequently witness on my commute. The truth is, I seldom see a police car on the beltway during my commute.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Whoopin It Up! said:


> Hey there Lawman .... you say alot as if you have all the answers! Please clarify "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion."
> 
> Probable cause, in it's most simple definition is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. With probable cause you arrest and search.
> 
> ...





drattler said:


> :texasflagSorry, you are out of luck blood warrants are legal in Texas ,and yes the govt is closing in more every day. Problem is ,there is no place left to move to,like the pilgrims leaving Europe to the new America, ?? How do you get away,where can you go? Govt. isn a malignancy that in time kills freedom,productivity,prosperity, ALL IN THE NAME of doing whats best for YOU--Just ask any young progressive!!


*I can't say anything else except don't break the laws of the state (which I don't think they're unreasonable for the most part, especially DWI laws) and you don't have to worry about it. That's all we can worry about as a citizenry. Because as you mentioned, I think the blood draws on DWIs are here to stay.*


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

teeroy said:


> *I**Myself and most officers use the transportation code to our advantage. I'll stop someone for a burned out license plate light or failing to signal their turn. Criminals don't have to play by the rules. The cops do. You dang right I'm going to use the tools available to me to catch as many criminals doing something wrong. There are bad people that burglarize and steal that are in YOUR neighborhood with a burned out license plate light. *


And finally we have gotten to the root of all of the angst over this issue. A cop, as stated above, can use something as simple as a burned out tail light to stop a motorist (in this case who truly has had only two beers), because they have had alcohol and it can be smelled on them, they are put through the tests, and if in the judgement of the cop, they are drunk, they can require them to blow, if they don't blow they get a blood warrant. Does ANYBODY see where this came from and is going?????? I sure do, no where in this scenario does the citizen have any say in due process, the cop has full speed ahead authority to put them through the wringer, including arrest and detainment. Ridiculous.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

HydraSports said:


> And finally we have gotten to the root of all of the angst over this issue. A cop, as stated above, can use something as simple as a burned out tail light to stop a motorist (in this case who truly has had only two beers), because they have had alcohol and it can be smelled on them, they are put through the tests, and if in the judgement of the cop, they are drunk, they can require them to blow, if they don't blow they get a blood warrant. Does ANYBODY see where this came from and is going?????? I sure do, no where in this scenario does the citizen have any say in due process, the cop has full speed ahead authority to put them through the wringer, including arrest and detainment. Ridiculous.


I know this sounds crazy and maybe hard to believe..................but if they aren't intoxicated they don't get arrested!!!! Wild huh?! Like I said, cops have to go by the rules, no one else does. If I get a drunk off the road by using a little used section of the transportation code and my work of gathering all evidence aids in a conviction, so be it. That's my job.

Cold hard fact is, most officers don't care to deal with DWIs. It's a hell of a lot of work for a class B misdmeanor, if it's a first offense. I can do a robbery arrest, ag. assault arrest or felony theft arrest quicker than I can do a DWI (for the most part).

Most officers shy away from them. There's three officers on my shift (out of 16) who actively seek intoxicated drivers. Other officers will call me to an accident scene or to their traffic stop if they have someone stopped who is intoxicated.

Another cold hard fact; Most officers fear them because they aren't comfortable with them. Most DWI arrests stem from an officer that wanted to make the arrest, since we aren't forced to arrest anyone (unless we have a victim that wants to press charges and a suspect in hand). What I'm getting at is, most people at .08 aren't arrested, much less asked from the vehicle as a .08 is hard to detect. In my experience, most drunks that are arrested have a BAC of at least .13 or much higher, as it's easier to detect than .08. So again, there goes the "had had one beer, got dragged off and his blood seized" theory.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

dangit teeroy. Quit digging a hole for yourself and your brethren. Just quit talking. You have a lot to learn judging by your posts. You're still on this robocop idea that you are the savior. Maybe you don't feel that way (though, i think you are a little amped up on your power) but you act that way with your words.

You just said that 3/16 cops (that's 19%) of the police force is out looking for drunks. If that doesn't tell you that its about money, I don't know what else would. What are the rest that are doing? Traffic tickets? 

Your job isn't to get a conviction, that is the job of the DA. You certainly would "make the case" a little better for an enemy than a friend....One post you claim you have no discretion, this one you do.

Just......stop talking.


----------



## troutslayer (Feb 7, 2006)

SaltyTX said:


> dangit teeroy. Quit digging a hole for yourself and your brethren. Just quit talking. You have a lot to learn judging by your posts. You're still on this robocop idea that you are the savior. Maybe you don't feel that way (though, i think you are a little amped up on your power) but you act that way with your words.
> 
> You just said that 3/16 cops (that's 19%) of the police force is out looking for drunks. If that doesn't tell you that its about money, I don't know what else would. What are the rest that are doing? Traffic tickets?
> 
> ...


We have a winner........................lol:biggrin:


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

SaltyTX said:


> dangit teeroy. Quit digging a hole for yourself and your brethren. Just quit talking. You have a lot to learn judging by your posts. You're still on this robocop idea that you are the savior. Maybe you don't feel that way (though, i think you are a little amped up on your power) but you act that way with your words.
> 
> You just said that 3/16 cops (that's 19%) of the police force is out looking for drunks. If that doesn't tell you that its about money, I don't know what else would. What are the rest that are doing? Traffic tickets?
> 
> ...


Did you read anything I posted? LMAO

I make a humble posting merely explaining things that may not be clear to someone who isn't a cop, and now I'm a robocop and I act as the DA?

Your stats are flawed. DPS looks for drunks at a much higher rate than an overworked municipal cop. I'm speaking for my dept. and the other PD I worked for.

And when did I claim I don't use discretion? That's the greates thing ever afforded to a police offcer. Why don't you stop posting, because you aren't making much sense.


----------



## Ted Gentry (Jun 8, 2004)

And the saga continues. If there was ever a thread that needed to die, it's this one.:biggrin:


----------



## yakamac (Jan 24, 2010)

There should be a no tolerance policy towards drinking and driving.....sorry but if you leave a bar after drinking you are endangering innocent folks lives. I know everyone that drinks only had two and can drive just as well afterwards


----------



## koyhoward (Jan 8, 2007)

yakamac said:


> There should be a no tolerance policy towards drinking and driving.....sorry but if you leave a bar after drinking you are endangering innocent folks lives. I know everyone that drinks only had two and can drive just as well afterwards


By this logic you are doing the same by talking on the phone, eating a burger, changing the radio station, telling your kids to settle down in the backseat, looking for change in your console on the toll road, etc.. Are they going to ban all of these activities too?


----------

