More disturbing signs of Amerika the Police State

[BushMasterBoy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX6_QWieZlU


Be careful if you go out and have a beer...now they forcibly take a blood sample!

[beast556]

Its pretty simple dont drink and drive. Maybe if you have one of your family members ran dow and killed by a drunk driver you might change your tune. Its real simple if your gonna drink man up and dont drive.

[KevDen2005]

I can not have to watch this video and based on your comment know that is completely false...in contrast the Supreme Court actually made it extremely difficult to draw blood for DUI crashes resulting in death or serious bodily injury.

[bryjcom]

It can and does happen. Just takes a judges order.

If you refuse to blow then they can get a judge to order a blood test.

[clublights]

GEtting the warrart and taking the blood.. sure...

but the full on strap down head lock thing is horse shit ESP on a compliant subject. I get the officer safety part but if it is unsafe for the officers then don't do it.

[BushMasterBoy]

I can not have to watch this video and based on your comment know that is completely false...in contrast the Supreme Court actually made it extremely difficult to draw blood for DUI crashes resulting in death or serious bodily injury.
Yeah this video is fabricated...

[bryjcom]

Yeah this video is fabricated...

I know.. Those were all actors pretending to be strapped down and the news anchors reporting on the story were actors as well.

[Rabid]

I know.. Those were all actors pretending to be strapped down and the news anchors reporting on the story were actors as well.
Those were some good actors getting strapped down. They really made it come through as if they did not want to be there and were upset. Watch out Hollywood, you have some competition coming.

[hurley842002]

GEtting the warrart and taking the blood.. sure...

but the full on strap down head lock thing is horse shit ESP on a compliant subject.

Agree, completely out of line.

"sir you've refused both a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer, we've now obtained a warrant for a blood test, at this point it is non negotiable, are you going to cooperate with us?"

[KevDen2005]

Oh my god, another cop bashing thread by a bunch CO AR15 lawyers. Weird!. You see once stupid Youtube video and you all think that it actually goes like this? Get a grip.

[clublights]

Oh my god, another cop bashing thread by a bunch CO AR15 lawyers. Weird!. You see once stupid Youtube video and you all think that it actually goes like this? Get a grip.


I don;t see a bit of "cop bashing" going on.

everyone to this point has been rather polite about it and voiced our opinion that wht is shown in the video is not right. not only is it shown it's admitted by the sheriff of the department doing it that that is how they do it.
how is that bashing ?

[Rabid]

Oh my god, another cop bashing thread by a bunch CO AR15 lawyers. Weird!. You see once stupid Youtube video and you all think that it actually goes like this? Get a grip.
Not really, you admitted to not watching the evidence given to you yet you still respond. They get a search warrant from an on call judge strap your ass to a table and take your blood. How did SCOTUS make it really really hard to take your blood?

[KevDen2005]

I don;t see a bit of "cop bashing" going on.

everyone to this point has been rather polite about it and voiced our opinion that wht is shown in the video is not right. not only is it shown it's admitted by the sheriff of the department doing it that that is how they do it.
how is that bashing ?


The bashing just hasn't started yet, but like all of these threads, that is exactly where it's going. Most on here watch too many movies and think they have a clue with what cops do. How about going to a DUI crash where some piece of crap crashed into three cars completely destroying them, injuring several and killing one. That person has had numerous DUI's and no jail time. Doesn't have a license. And now we will be required to get a warrant for the blood draw which won't be less than two hours which the state requires for a test to be completed. How about the numerous times that DUI's kick or punch me or nearly run over a police officer or fire fighter. You guys see one video and think that's how it goes. Sometimes people get strapped down who are non compliant. It's called custody. Don't drink and drive and it won't happen to you.

At the end of the day, when you or a family member is seriously injured by a DUI driver and you lose in court you will wonder what that DUI driver got away with it.

[KevDen2005]

Not really, you admitted to not watching the evidence given to you yet you still respond. They get a search warrant from an on call judge strap your ass to a table and take your blood. How did SCOTUS make it really really hard to take your blood?


Well for those of us that have had to write warrants on probable cause know that it's not just a phone call that get's a warrant. The news is always right you know. I have said it so many times on this site. Everyone on here makes it a point to state when the news is wrong, which is nearly every time there is something mentioned of the news, EXCEPT when it shows the police doing what you think is a violation to your rights. If you kill someone while DUI, we can take your blood and it makes you a murderer, think about that.

[clublights]

Sometimes people get strapped down who are non compliant. It's called custody.

We are talking about THIS News Report / Video

In it ( have you watched it yet?) The Sheriff of Douglas County GA says they strap down ( and use a head lock type control) EVERY subject who has has the warrant issued. Compliant or not.

Edit:

Just to add another sheriff in GA who has MORE DUI arrests does not do the tie down and control method on compliant subjects.

[KevDen2005]

We are talking about THIS News Report / Video

In it ( have you watched it yet?) The Sheriff of Douglas County GA says they strap down ( and use a head lock type control) EVERY subject who has has the warrant issued. Compliant or not.

I'm aware that you are talking about THIS video. I'm aware that they are strapping every person down in that jurisdiction.

AND...

Never mind, I'm done. Hope you're never a victim people.

[hurley842002]

We are talking about THIS News Report / Video

In it ( have you watched it yet?) The Sheriff of Douglas County GA says they strap down ( and use a head lock type control) EVERY subject who has has the warrant issued. Compliant or not.

And that's the thing I can't get behind.

[clublights]

I'm aware that you are talking about THIS video. I'm aware that they are strapping every person down in that jurisdiction.

AND...

Never mind, I'm done. Hope you're never a victim people.


And WHAT?

so violating the rights ( sorry I see the strap down on a complaint subject as excessive use of force) is ok cuz people die in DUI accidents?

people are killed by guns so I guess a no knock raid to make sure your guns haven't killed anybody is ok in YOUR opinion?

[J]

Ok, KevDen, I think you know (and if you do not, ask the other LEOs on the board) that I am usually the first to strike down, and I come down hard on cop bashing on this site. But I haven't seen any here, so lets not cry wolf.

Additionally, your argument is patently false. Lets swap DUI with Terrorist...

When your family member is killed by a Terrorist, you will wonder why we aren't recording more phone calls, emails and text messages to keep them from getting away with it. None of us like these NSA taps, etc.

Additionally, the facts say that anyone who refuses to blow gets a warrant for a forcible blood draw. It says NOTHING about probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Shouldn't there at least be probable cause to get the warrant (as is required in all other warrants)? You limit it to people who are swerving, wreak of alcohol, blow a red light, you get me to agree a bunch more. But simply refusing a search (breathalyzer) is not probable cause OR reasonable suspicion, and this has been held up repeatedly at the highest levels of courts.

Just because it is a DUI and people lose family members to DUIs doesn't mean that due process and proper procedure should be followed all the same. In fact, I think that it is very concerning that you feel that a particular crime may warrant special treatment outside the limits of due process while others do not.

ETA, in your response to "I hope you are never a victim people"

I would strongly prefer to be a victim than a subject.

[clublights]

And I need to say sorry to the Sheriff of Douglas County GA....

it' Gwinnett County GA that is doing the strap down .

[clublights]

Ok, KevDen, I think you know (and if you do not, ask the other LEOs on the board) that I am usually the first to strike down, and I come down hard on cop bashing on this site. But I haven't seen any here, so lets not cry wolf.

Additionally, your argument is patently false. Lets swap DUI with Terrorist...

When your family member is killed by a Terrorist, you will wonder why we aren't recording more phone calls, emails and text messages to keep them from getting away with it. None of us like these NSA taps, etc.

Additionally, the facts say that anyone who refuses to blow gets a warrant for a forcible blood draw. It says NOTHING about probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Shouldn't there at least be probable cause to get the warrant (as is required in all other warrants)? You limit it to people who are swerving, wreak of alcohol, blow a red light, you get me to agree a bunch more. But simply refusing a search (breathalyzer) is not probable cause OR reasonable suspicion, and this has been held up repeatedly at the highest levels of courts.

Just because it is a DUI and people lose family members to DUIs doesn't mean that due process and proper procedure should be followed all the same. In fact, I think that it is very concerning that you feel that a particular crime may warrant special treatment outside the limits of due process while others do not.

ETA, in your response to "I hope you are never a victim people"

I would strongly prefer to be a victim that a subject.


I have ZERO problem with the police getting the warrant and taking the blood. do what ya gotta do officer...

Now strapping down and head locking a COMPLIANT subject to take said blood is where it crosses the line.

if the subject was resisting physically or implied they would sure strap em down and take the blood. but someone who has done nothing but verbally( and legally ) refused the tests why strap them down ? other places in GA don't seem to need to strap everyone down .. why this county ?

[Irving]

Whether it feels like it or not, the most effective discussions, on any subject, are when both sides actually speak with each other and relate their experiences; as opposed to shutting out the other side.

[hurley842002]

I'm aware that you are talking about THIS video. I'm aware that they are strapping every person down in that jurisdiction.

AND...

Never mind, I'm done. Hope you're never a victim people.

What does us thinking it is excessive have to do with being a victim? What if I have been a victim?

Here is my issue....

Let's say I'm in Gwinnitt county visiting family. I crack a beer, take a couple sips, and uncle John says hey hurley, I just remembered we need propane for the grill. Alright let me run to the store (which I wouldn't do, but we are pretending).

I get half way there, and get pulled over because uncle John forgot to replace his left brake light. Officer smells alcohol and asks me to do a roadside, "I understand your position officer, however I've been advised by my attorney to not take a roadside"

Okay hurley, would you be willing to submit to a breathalyzer? "I've also been advised to not submit to a breathalyzer". Okay hurley, unfortunately I'm going to have to place you under arrest and take you to the station (miranda and all that good stuff).

Meanwhile back at the station..... Okay hurley, you have one last opportunity to submit to a breathalyzer, and then we will obtain a warrant for a blood draw. "I'm sorry but I will not submit to a breathalyzer".

Up to this point I've been extremely polite and cooperative, and actually well under the limit, but that doesn't matter, I get the same treatment as the guy kicking and screaming.

How much sense does that make? I don't want to hear officer safety either.

Now this is all hypothetical, I wouldn't put myself in that position to begin with, I'd make the Ol lady drive me lol.

[hurley842002]

Also, would it hurt to just once in awhile acknowledge that maybe some agencies have crappy policies? It has nothing to do with bashing cops.

[ShelbyJK500]

Glad to see some rational thought in here and open-mindedness. ;) Due process IS done in these situations. A breathalyzer is NOT done unless Probable Cause already exists to ask for a chemical test (breath or blood). It already exists to "force" mandatory draws on felony DUI's. The due process lies with the fact that probable cause exists for the arrest already and there is evidence, inside the body, that can and should be collected. The fact is, DUI arrests/cases have become an absolute court system circus. There are so many, and so many defense attorneys making a living on them, that EVERY minuscule detail of the crime is argued and beaten to a pulp. All this in the effort to keep people from being held accountable for making decisions that kill, as mentioned in the video, more American's than military conflicts and gun violence. It has become an absolute joke. So I say, good for any law enforcement entity that can find a way to make accountability more effective. Slaps on the wrist and absurd defense attorneys are the reason DUI related deaths are still an epidemic....NO accountability or consequences.

As for the strapping down in ALL cases, that doesn't show common sense. However, for people to be so horrified by it is ridiculous. This happens all the time, just usually in a hospital bed in four-point restraints rather than in a cell. Just a matter of the location shouldn't freak people out, but it does.

The only heartburn I had with this thread is that the OP labeled the recovery of evidence in a crime, by a search warrant, as "Amerika the Police State". If you want to get technical, the evidence in the crime of a DUI for which probable cause existed for a arrest, is coursing through the veins of the DUI driver. The refusal to allow it's recovery could constitute the destruction of evidence...if you really want to get semi-philosophical. In any other case outside of a DUI, whether felony or not, would allow for a search warrant to recover ANY evidence of the crime...and also punish anyone who would tamper or destroy said evidence.

Add one further. If a family member of yours was killed by a drunk driver...OR even a knife wielding lunatic for the sake of argument...would you not want Law Enforcement to collect ANY and ALL evidence linked to the crime to properly prosecute the case in the best interest of your family member/victim??

Just my .02

[clublights]

Glad to see some rational thought in here and open-mindedness. ;) Due process IS done in these situations. A breathalyzer is NOT done unless Probable Cause already exists to ask for a chemical test (breath or blood). It already exists to "force" mandatory draws on felony DUI's. The due process lies with the fact that probable cause exists for the arrest already and there is evidence, inside the body, that can and should be collected. The fact is, DUI arrests/cases have become an absolute court system circus. There are so many, and so many defense attorneys making a living on them, that EVERY minuscule detail of the crime is argued and beaten to a pulp....all in the effort to get people out of being held accountable for making decisions that kill, as mentioned in the video, more American's that military conflicts and gun violence. It has become an absolute joke. So I say, good for any law enforcement entity that can find a way to make accountability more effective. Slaps on the wrist and absurd defense attorneys are the reason DUI related deaths are still an epidemic....NO accountability or consequences.


Your honestly OK with strapping down and head locking a compliant subject down ?

the county that started the warrants does NOT do that and gets more convictions....

[ShelbyJK500]

Your honestly OK with strapping down and head locking a compliant subject down ?

the county that started the warrants does NOT do that and gets more convictions....

Finished my thought...probably while you were typing this...

[hurley842002]

As for the strapping down in ALL cases, that doesn't show common sense. However, for people to be so horrified by it is ridiculous. This happens all the time, just usually in a hospital bed in four-point restraints rather than in a cell. Just a matter of the location shouldn't freak people out, but it does.


And why is this not cause for concern?

In the case of the compliant folks, nobody was hurt (that I could tell), and I'm sure it went rather smooth, but that's not the point, it's called being demoralized.

Look, I'm not a chocolate heart by any stretch, and I think drunk drivers need the hammer, but even convicted felons (in Colorado anyway), are treated better than these folks.

[clublights]

Why can't they do what they do in adam's county CO ( at least 10 years ago )

I earned myself a DUI bout 10 years ago ...

I was very compliant with the Deputies and chose blood over breath ...


when the nurse came to take the blood I had two deputies flank me with tasers drawn but not aimed..

seemed like enough to keep everyone save. but again I was compliant ......if I had been an asshole I would understand being strapped down and head locked.

[clublights]

Finished my thought...probably while you were typing this...

Yup seems like that is how it worked out ....

The location doesn;t bother me jail or hospital... if the person is not being combative ... there should be no need to take those kind of steps .

feels to me the same as PIT maneuvering every car instead of bothering with the lights and siren first .

[ShelbyJK500]

I truly don't see the problem if it's being taken against their will. That in and of itself provides the opportunity for people to go sideways, nevermind the fact that alcohol is involved, which makes almost anyone unpredictable. If I had to make an educated guess, it's probably because they have a civilian nurse doing the blood draw. That person is at great risk when dealing with a needle and someone who is under the influence of alcohol having a procedure done to them against their will. What the general public doesn't hear about is the large number of cases in HOSPITALS, not jails where these same types of draws were being done without people in restraints. ER staff have been injured, stuck by needles and even held hostage by people with the very needle being used to do the draw.

I can tell you much of that has stopped because hospitals have put policies in place to restrain any of these people during blood draws. I mean how horrible is it really when someone is strapped down for all of the 30 seconds or less it takes to do the draw and then the restraints are taken right back off. It helps keep civilian medical personnel safe. Almost every non-compliant person starts out as compliant at some point. Humans are always unpredictable even without the addition of alcohol into the scenario.

[clublights]

I truly don't see the problem if it's being taken against their will. That in and of itself provides the opportunity for people to go sideways, nevermind the fact that alcohol is involved, which makes almost anyone unpredictable. If I had to make an educated guess, it's probably because they have a civilian nurse doing the blood draw. That person is at great risk when dealing with a needle and someone who is under the influence of alcohol having a procedure done to them against their will. What the general public doesn't hear about is the large number of cases in HOSPITALS, not jails where these same types of draws were being done without people in restraints. ER staff have been injured, stuck by needles and even held hostage by people with the very needle being used to do the draw.

I can tell you much of that has stopped because hospitals have put policies in place to restrain any of these people during blood draws. I mean how horrible is it really when someone is strapped down for all of the 30 seconds or less it takes to do the draw and then the restraints are taken right back off. It helps keep civilian medical personnel safe. Almost every non-compliant person starts out as compliant at some point. Humans are always unpredictable even without the addition of alcohol into the scenario.

Ok what about when you are given the choice ( as I was) between blood or breath and I chose blood... should I have been strapped down? I coulda gone sideways right ? and I'm a big dood 6'3" 300+ I was larger then both the deputies damn near combined.

[ShelbyJK500]

Ok what about when you are given the choice ( as I was) between blood or breath and I chose blood... should I have been strapped down? I coulda gone sideways right ? and I'm a big dood 6'3" 300+ I was larger then both the deputies damn near combined.

I've never seen, and I don't think you ever would (even in this county), a voluntary draw done like this. Again, you are doing something against somebody's will...that is already putting a "dog in a corner" if you will. Of course anything can go bad at any time, even with a voluntary. And don't believe I haven't seen that happen. It's just a MUCH MUCH lower risk and things are still done to even minimize that risk.

[clublights]

It's just a MUCH MUCH lower risk and things are still done to even minimize that risk.

I get the officer saftey side of it ... and I'm sure that is 100% of the reason they do it like that in Gwinnette County, GA.

But like I said at the start... if it is THAT unsafe then maybe the policy should be dropped.

edit:


Like I said when they did me on the blood both the deputies and tasers out and I'm quite sure if I flinched wrong I woulda "rode the lightening" but even drunk I'm not THAT Stupid to think it would be a good time LOL.

[Irving]

Seems like placing your arm through a slot in some glass, and being asked to hold onto a handle or something, while the person on The other side of the glass draws blood would be a simple solution. Somewhat reduces the mobility of the suspect, gives officers time to react if it does go sideways, etc. Not to mention it'd be relatively cheap and quick to create. Basically like sticking your arm through a teller window.

[clublights]

Seems like placing your arm through a slot in some glass, and being asked to hold onto a handle or something, while the person on The other side of the glass draws blood would be a simple solution. Somewhat reduces the mobility of the suspect, gives officers time to react if it does go sideways, etc. Not to mention it'd be relatively cheap and quick to create. Basically like sticking your arm through a teller window.

look at you being all smart and shit.

this would protect everyone involved would not "dehumanize" like someone said earlier, or use excessive force like I call it...
save the straps and head locks for the problem children .. not the ones exercising their 5th amendment rights.

[Gman]

this would protect everyone involved would not "dehumanize" like someone said earlier, or use excessive force like I call it...
save the straps and head locks for the problem children .. not the ones exercising their 5th amendment rights.
Then they would have to answer why they selectively chose to use or not use the straps and head locks. Our litigious society has led to these zero tolerance policies where they treat everyone the same crappy way to avoid some of the lawsuits.

[spqrzilla]

Oh my god, another cop bashing thread by a bunch CO AR15 lawyers. Weird!. You see once stupid Youtube video and you all think that it actually goes like this? Get a grip.
Really? Is that what you see?

[Chad4000]

Ok, KevDen, I think you know (and if you do not, ask the other LEOs on the board) that I am usually the first to strike down, and I come down hard on cop bashing on this site. But I haven't seen any here, so lets not cry wolf.

Additionally, your argument is patently false. Lets swap DUI with Terrorist...

When your family member is killed by a Terrorist, you will wonder why we aren't recording more phone calls, emails and text messages to keep them from getting away with it. None of us like these NSA taps, etc.

Additionally, the facts say that anyone who refuses to blow gets a warrant for a forcible blood draw. It says NOTHING about probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Shouldn't there at least be probable cause to get the warrant (as is required in all other warrants)? You limit it to people who are swerving, wreak of alcohol, blow a red light, you get me to agree a bunch more. But simply refusing a search (breathalyzer) is not probable cause OR reasonable suspicion, and this has been held up repeatedly at the highest levels of courts.

Just because it is a DUI and people lose family members to DUIs doesn't mean that due process and proper procedure should be followed all the same. In fact, I think that it is very concerning that you feel that a particular crime may warrant special treatment outside the limits of due process while others do not.

ETA, in your response to "I hope you are never a victim people"

I would strongly prefer to be a victim than a subject.


amen to that... great post

[hurley842002]

Then they would have to answer why they selectively chose to use or not use the straps and head locks. Our litigious society has led to these zero tolerance policies where they treat everyone the same crappy way to avoid some of the lawsuits.

It's quite simple, "inmate A was compliant, inmate B was not", no different than any other time they have to use restraints or force. You are being compliant and non disruptive, you get to sit in the day room with all the other big kids, you cause a scene and act like a three year old, you get a cell and possibly a restraint chair.

[Clint45]

It was my understanding that anyone can refuse a breath/blood test for DUI, but doing so results in an automatic conviction for "refusal to take a sobriety test" which has similar penalties to DWI regarding fines, loss of license, loss of insurance, vehicle impound, etc.

[clublights]

Then they would have to answer why they selectively chose to use or not use the straps and head locks. Our litigious society has led to these zero tolerance policies where they treat everyone the same crappy way to avoid some of the lawsuits.

BS..

If your being combative you get the straps ........


Not everyone who gets put in cuffs gets tazed... same difference.

[clublights]

It was my understanding that anyone can refuse a breath/blood test for DUI, but doing so results in an automatic conviction for "refusal to take a sobriety test" which has similar penalties to DWI regarding fines, loss of license, loss of insurance, vehicle impound, etc.

I think Colorado is like this ...

Maybe GA is not.

[cmailliard]

I have done hundreds of blood draws, PD would bring them by the fire station, usually at 3 in the morning and we would perform the draw. The majority are no issue, but, we did have a handful get unruly on us and we get to go to the floor with them. If this happens after the venipuncture has been performed and the needle is still out, it is not fun. A needle stick expose sucks.

Having this restrained policy as a blanket policy is questionable, but I can understand the idea behind it. The blood draw is an exacting procedure and if one step is done or documented wrong the person can walk with no charge. Some of these chronic DUI'ers know the system and know how to increase their chances of beating a charge.

If LE has probable cause of DUI the person can choose which test they want, breath or blood. If they do not choose, refuse, or become an asshole (try to fight) they go to jail and if memory serves that is an automatic admission of DUI (LE check me if I am wrong). There are positives and negatives to each test and again some know this and use it to their advantage.

I do like Irving's idea of the bank teller booth thing

[crays]

[/QUOTE]
I do like Irving's idea of the bank teller booth thing[/QUOTE]

Then what of the litigation following the incident where the previously compliant subject goes berserk, writhing around, resulting in a broken arm as he falls out of his chair and his arm hangs up in the window?

Just saying. It is a good suggestion, but would need to be well thought out.


Sent via Mobile

[clublights]

Then what of the litigation following the incident where the previously compliant subject goes berserk, writhing around, resulting in a broken arm as he falls out of his chair and his arm hangs up in the window?

Just saying. It is a good suggestion, but would need to be well thought out.


Sent via Mobile


Simple..........

Video Camera.

[speedysst]

However, if EVERYONE gets treated the same way, then the likelihood of someone claiming that he was treated differently and/or discriminated against goes away.
GEtting the warrart and taking the blood.. sure...

but the full on strap down head lock thing is horse shit ESP on a compliant subject. I get the officer safety part but if it is unsafe for the officers then don't do it.

[hurley842002]

However, if EVERYONE gets treated the same way, then the likelihood of someone claiming that he was treated differently and/or discriminated against goes away.

People in confinement get treated differently all the time. It's quite simple to articulate why you did what you did. I'll repeat myself again, "although inmate A refused consent, he was compliant with the court ordered procedure and allowed to remain unrestrained."

"inmate B refused consent, and was also non compliant, even combative at times. For the safety of the inmate and staff, it was determined a four point restraining method was best for everyone".

Least level of force necessary, if inmates are compliant, 4 points are not necessary.

[clublights]

However, if EVERYONE gets treated the same way, then the likelihood of someone claiming that he was treated differently and/or discriminated against goes away.


again BS...

Do they tase EVERYONE they put in cuffs?
DO they PIT maneuver every car they pull over ?

[OneGuy67]

It was my understanding that anyone can refuse a breath/blood test for DUI, but doing so results in an automatic conviction for "refusal to take a sobriety test" which has similar penalties to DWI regarding fines, loss of license, loss of insurance, vehicle impound, etc.

Forgetting the GEORGIA video that started this thread, HERE IN COLORADO, you have given your express consent to either a blood test or a breath test (and in certain circumstances, a urine test, but I don't want to muddy the water with the explanation for that). A refusal to complete either test will result in an automatic revocation of your license for 1 year. That is on the administrative (non-criminal) side with the Department of Revenue. You have a right to request a DOR Hearing to challenge the revocation that needs to be filed within 7 days of your arrest. You may or may not win that challenge. Out of all the DUI arrests I made over the years, I lost in DOR maybe 2 times.

On the criminal side, you will still be charged with a DUI and DUI Per Se and the evidence used will be the totality of the event; driving actions, officer observations, statements, odors, observations on roadside maneuvers and finally, a completion or a refusal to complete a test. You still have a right to a trial and to have the evidence presented against you. A refusal can be used IN TOTALITY of the circumstances to show your demeanor, behavior, attitude, etc.


I have done hundreds of blood draws, PD would bring them by the fire station, usually at 3 in the morning and we would perform the draw. The majority are no issue, but, we did have a handful get unruly on us and we get to go to the floor with them. If this happens after the venipuncture has been performed and the needle is still out, it is not fun. A needle stick expose sucks.

Having this restrained policy as a blanket policy is questionable, but I can understand the idea behind it. The blood draw is an exacting procedure and if one step is done or documented wrong the person can walk with no charge. Some of these chronic DUI'ers know the system and know how to increase their chances of beating a charge.

If LE has probable cause of DUI the person can choose which test they want, breath or blood. If they do not choose, refuse, or become an asshole (try to fight) they go to jail and if memory serves that is an automatic admission of DUI (LE check me if I am wrong). There are positives and negatives to each test and again some know this and use it to their advantage.

I do like Irving's idea of the bank teller booth thing

We would provide the Express Consent Advisement and if the suspect chose blood, we would call to have an ambulance service come to the PD and draw the blood. Occasionally, we took them to the ER if the ambulance services were busy. If injured in an accident and in the ER, their choice was limited to blood and taken by the phlebotomist on duty. We hardly ever had an issue with anyone who chose blood not cooperating with the draw. There were a number of times that a person would choose blood and when the EMT's showed up, wanted to change their decision, as they've always been told by lawyers, both real and imagined, that they needed to request a blood test for delay of the sampling, more accurate, or any other reason, real or imagined.

The only time we forced a blood draw on someone is when there was an accident and Serious Bodily Injury or death was involved and that was only after we had other indicators of alcohol consumption. In that event, we took two samples one hour apart.

Years ago, I went to training in Michigan and talked with the cops there. Here in Colorado, if you refuse, we write it up that way and you lose your license. That's about it. There, they have a prefilled one page warrant they fax to the on-call judge for signature and then force a blood draw. They also seize the vehicle's license plates and issue a 7 day paper plate, similar to how we seize driver's licenses. A person can't get new plates for that vehicle until a specific amount of time associated with the seriousness or frequency of their DUI arrest, be it three months or one year or more. This included if it was a company vehicle or the only vehicle for the household. The point is, each state does things differently. When getting riled up about something that occurs in another state, bear in mind, that is what is going on in another state and not necessarily the state in which you reside.

[clublights]

They also seize the vehicle's license plates and issue a 7 day paper plate, similar to how we seize driver's licenses. A person can't get new plates for that vehicle until a specific amount of time associated with the seriousness or frequency of their DUI arrest, be it three months or one year or more. This included if it was a company vehicle or the only vehicle for the household.


Thats kinda tough on the company car/family car...

but I like that idea too ...

I think it would be more effective with forcing compliance with the suspension/revocation of the driving "privilege"

[DavieD55]

While we're at it, why dont we just database everyones DNA also. Just think about it! This year will go down in history for the first time a civilized nation has forced blood draws. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future...

[brokenscout]

Tic toc[shithitsfan]

[hurley842002]

Tic toc[shithitsfan]

Yup, doesn't have to be that way, but it looks like folks are going to take it there.

[OneGuy67]

Thats kinda tough on the company car/family car...

but I like that idea too ...

I think it would be more effective with forcing compliance with the suspension/revocation of the driving "privilege"

I would agree with your assessment. It is tough on the business owner whose vehicle is now unable to be operated; it is tough on the one car family. It punishes people who didn't do anything wrong other than employing or residing with a person charged with a DUI.

I can't remember if I asked and if they answered if the person could sell their vehicle to their spouse or a friend and get it licensed that way in an attempt to overcome that obstacle.

[generalmeow]

Don't you have a right to not incriminate yourself? And isn't your blood part of yourself? I do not give my blood permission to incriminate me. Laying there and letting you take my blood is incriminating me. Allowing you to tie me down is making me incriminate myself. If the blood is on the ground, it's no longer part of me. But taking it from me is technically different.

My breath is not part of me, but making me blow through something is making me do something to incriminate myself.

Why can't you plead the 5th if you get pulled over while drunk driving? Serious question. How does this jive with tying someone down and taking their blood forcefully?

If you couldn't get a blood or breath sample, it might be hard to convict. But the 5th amendment is pretty black and white and we shouldn't carve out exceptions to any of our rights. I don't like the idea of cops just saying "he smelled like alcohol and was swerving" as enough evidence to get a conviction. On the other hand, it seems like a violation of a persons rights to forcefully get the evidence.

ETA - if suspected of drunk driving, they should just put you in a room and the room measures the alcohol coming off your breath, without you doing anything. Doesn't seem to violate any rights. The cops can say "hold your breath if you want to, but you're going to be in here for 15 minutes".

[brokenscout]

Yep, sooner than later. Makes a person think about submitting to authority.
Yup, doesn't have to be that way, but it looks like folks are going to take it there.

[Monky]

How about you just don't drive fucking drunk. Driving is not a right. You signed for implied consent when you accepted your license. Don't like it. Get a bike.

I'd rather a drunk fuck be strapped to a god damn gurney and blood drawn than lose another person in my life to a drunk driver.

I honestly don't give a fuck if you guys think this is invasive. If it pulls one drunk off the roads so be it.

DUI laws are a joke as it is. I'm sure this is more of a deterrent than our current joke of misdemeanor class of DUI laws.

DUI or Dwi should carry a minimum of loss of driving for years. Can't wait for the first high driving fatality.




Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[clublights]

Just to be a jerk ........

You can get a DUI on a bike ( yes a pedal bike) in Colorado .

[brokenscout]

Lol,
Just to be a jerk ........

You can get a DUI on a bike ( yes a pedal bike) in Colorado .

[DavieD55]

The bashing just hasn't started yet, but like all of these threads, that is exactly where it's going. Most on here watch too many movies and think they have a clue with what cops do. How about going to a DUI crash where some piece of crap crashed into three cars completely destroying them, injuring several and killing one. That person has had numerous DUI's and no jail time. Doesn't have a license. And now we will be required to get a warrant for the blood draw which won't be less than two hours which the state requires for a test to be completed. How about the numerous times that DUI's kick or punch me or nearly run over a police officer or fire fighter. You guys see one video and think that's how it goes. Sometimes people get strapped down who are non compliant. It's called custody. Don't drink and drive and it won't happen to you.

At the end of the day, when you or a family member is seriously injured by a DUI driver and you lose in court you will wonder what that DUI driver got away with it.


I do know of a couple family friends who were killed by a carload of drunk illegals on hwy 85 out in Adams County. They skipped back to mexico and were never held responsible for their actions. Now we can go around accusing/harassing citizens with forced blood draws but we can't seen to secure our borders.

[Irving]

I think that some restraint has been shown in this thread from the very first post.

[Stone83]

Nothing good happens after midnight.....

(Unless your single, in Vegas)

[J]

How about you just don't drive fucking drunk. Driving is not a right. You signed for implied consent when you accepted your license. Don't like it. Get a bike.

I'd rather a drunk fuck be strapped to a god damn gurney and blood drawn than lose another person in my life to a drunk driver.

I honestly don't give a fuck if you guys think this is invasive. If it pulls one drunk off the roads so be it.

DUI laws are a joke as it is. I'm sure this is more of a deterrent than our current joke of misdemeanor class of DUI laws.

DUI or Dwi should carry a minimum of loss of driving for years. Can't wait for the first high driving fatality.



And if the magazine bans and universal background checks save just one life, are you cool with them too?

Excluding your first sentence, every instance of DUI can be replace with Gun Control in your post and make just as valid an argument.

[Monky]

And if the magazine bans and universal background checks save just one life, are you cool with them too?

Excluding your first sentence, every instance of DUI can be replace with Gun Control in your post and make just as valid an argument.

This has nothing to do with gun control, and a blatant illegal activity. Try to change the words around however you like.

It has to do with people breaking the law. If you choose willingly to break the law and think you can get away with it, well they're playing the legal game too.

I didn't watch the entire video but I certainly didn't see anyone being forcibly restrained. I'm sure regardless of compliance or not, they're strapped down for their safety and that of those around them. He'll I've ripped out an iv by coming out of anesthesia and moving too quickly.

Replace gun control with whatever you want to J. Yes, I would give up guns if they could bring my cousin back. They can't though. This isn't about guns either.




Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[brokenscout]

Soon enough everything will be illegal.

[J]

Look, I am anti-drunk driving. But I am unconditionally against restricting rights of law abiding citizens to catch a few more criminals. Hell, I am against it for catching a whole bunch more criminals.

Breaking the law is one thing, but this country stands for rights, and process (or at least it used to). We have always understood that the rights and principals we hold dear are more important that the needs of the one or the few.

I want people who are drunk driving caught, but not at the loss of our rights and process. I feel for your loss, and I can read between the lines what happened there. But I cannot succumb to that reasoning in good faith. I am by no means saying we should be soft on drunk drivers. I am just saying that losing our entire system and right to process is a far bigger loss than missing a conviction on such a crime.

I wonder how many people voted out our rights, here in Colorado and across the country recently exactly because of what you write here. Sure, YOU may want to give up guns for this reason. But is that really a reason that we should throw out the 2nd amendment, generations of tradition and something that this country was explicitly founded upon? For every person, man woman and child for the rest of eternity? I find it astonishing that you cannot link your reasoning to give up rights and process here similar at worst to the thoughts presented by the anti-gun agenda in the recent elections. Or perhaps you can, as you have slightly hinted to, and just don't care.

Two quotes that I think are perfectly fitting here:

1. "I would rather be a victim than a subject" --J
2. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Jeebus, am I the only one seeing this link here?

[hurley842002]

I'm sure regardless of compliance or not, they're strapped down for their safety and that of those around them.

For their safety, hmmm I've heard that somewhere before....

[Irving]

For their safety, hmmm I've heard that somewhere before....

Oh, was it on a roller coaster?

[clublights]

Jeebus, am I the only one seeing this link here?

No your not but I left the Drunk Driving to guns link alone as driving is not a right the guns are ...

but I feel the exact same ......

Give up one right you might as well give up the rest too....

FOr thier and the officers safety...

so what if your printing .. carrying CCW all legal all that .. but your printing .. should the cops just tase you? .. you know .. just in case for your and their safety.

[J]

But due process is a right.

[RonMexico]

Look, I am anti-drunk driving. But I am unconditionally against restricting rights of law abiding citizens to catch a few more criminals. Hell, I am against it for catching a whole bunch more criminals.

Breaking the law is one thing, but this country stands for rights, and process (or at least it used to). We have always understood that the rights and principals we hold dear are more important that the needs of the one or the few.




^^^^
i was once a punk 17 year old kid.... Got pulled over for speeding and was nervous as hell. after a million questions the cop shinned a light in my eyes and said I was drunk, he told me to take a breathalyzer and i did but I passed with flying colors bc I wasn't drinking. If I lived in that county and said "no" to the breathalyzer( like I would now a days bc I understand my rights more fully), I would have been haul off to get my blood tested.

We need to put a stop to these probing laws

[clublights]

But due process is a right.


Agreed.

[Monky]

Where is the violation of due process?

They're given a chance to prove their innocence of not violating the law by using the machine.

They refuse to that which they gave consent by accepting a state issued drivers license.

They obtain a search warrant and the evidence needed to proceed.

The judges probably don't like seeing innocent people killed by people who think they're able to drink and drive either.

But hey.. It's not just for the children


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[clublights]

Where is the violation of due process?

They're given a chance to prove their innocence of not violating the law by using the machine.

They refuse to that which they gave consent by accepting a state issued drivers license.

They obtain a search warrant and the evidence needed to proceed.

The judges probably don't like seeing innocent people killed by people who think they're able to drink and drive either.

But hey.. It's not just for the children


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

Does the getting a DL over ride your 5th amendment rights ?

[J]

1. Due process requires real probable cause. This is patently disregarded at checkpoints and a Huge majority of traffic stops that are made on weekend nights.

2. The standard is, or was and should still be, that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Since when does the accused have to prove their innocence in this country regardless of whether they had an easy opportunity do do so or not.

3. As already evidenced, they have "form warrants" that are blindly signed as soon as requested. They receive no where near the process and proof requirements of a "real" warrant.

[RonMexico]

Don't you have a right to not incriminate yourself? And isn't your blood part of yourself? I do not give my blood permission to incriminate me. Laying there and letting you take my blood is incriminating me. Allowing you to tie me down is making me incriminate myself. If the blood is on the ground, it's no longer part of me. But taking it from me is technically different.

My breath is not part of me, but making me blow through something is making me do something to incriminate myself.

Why can't you plead the 5th if you get pulled over while drunk driving? Serious question. How does this jive with tying someone down and taking their blood forcefully?

If you couldn't get a blood or breath sample, it might be hard to convict. But the 5th amendment is pretty black and white and we shouldn't carve out exceptions to any of our rights. I don't like the idea of cops just saying "he smelled like alcohol and was swerving" as enough evidence to get a conviction. On the other hand, it seems like a violation of a persons rights to forcefully get the evidence.

ETA - if suspected of drunk driving, they should just put you in a room and the room measures the alcohol coming off your breath, without you doing anything. Doesn't seem to violate any rights. The cops can say "hold your breath if you want to, but you're going to be in here for 15 minutes".
LEO can chime in, but this is straight from my 1SGTreserve/CSP( former unit) ........
he said gents if you know you are fucked and gonna lose your TS/SCI, you did it to yourself by drinking 10 beers
now,
if you are only at a few beers and the cop is being a dick and you might get a DUI, only crack your window 1/2 inch to hand over documents and roll it back up. If they want to give you a test... Don't. He said he would rather us call him and tell him we got arrested hours later for resisting arrest than a DUI.
Would LEO break windows to get you out?

[hurley842002]

Oh, was it on a roller coaster?

Nah I don't do roller coasters, wouldn't want my Glock to fall out and hit anybody.

[BushMasterBoy]

This is the current law! Any person who is required to take and to complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests shall cooperate with the person authorized to obtain specimens of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine, including the signing of any release or consent forms required by any person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens. If such person does not cooperate with the person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens, including the signing of any release or consent forms, such noncooperation shall be considered a refusal to submit to testing. No law enforcement officer shall physically restrain any person for the purpose of obtaining a specimen of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine for testing except when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed criminally negligent homicide pursuant to section 18-3-105 (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-105&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0) , C.R.S., vehicular homicide pursuant to section 18-3-106(1) (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-106&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0&nojumpmsg=0#18-3-106(1)) (b), C.R.S., assault in the third degree pursuant to section 18-3-204 (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-204&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0) , C.R.S., or vehicular assault pursuant to section 18-3-205(1) (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-205&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0&nojumpmsg=0#18-3-205(1)) (b), C.R.S., and the person is refusing to take or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests, then, in such event, the law enforcement officer may require a blood test.

[clublights]

This is the current law! Any person who is required to take and to complete, and to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests shall cooperate with the person authorized to obtain specimens of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine, including the signing of any release or consent forms required by any person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens. If such person does not cooperate with the person, hospital, clinic, or association authorized to obtain such specimens, including the signing of any release or consent forms, such noncooperation shall be considered a refusal to submit to testing. No law enforcement officer shall physically restrain any person for the purpose of obtaining a specimen of such person's blood, breath, saliva, or urine for testing except when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed criminally negligent homicide pursuant to section 18-3-105 (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-105&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0) , C.R.S., vehicular homicide pursuant to section 18-3-106(1) (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-106&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0&nojumpmsg=0#18-3-106(1)) (b), C.R.S., assault in the third degree pursuant to section 18-3-204 (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-204&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0) , C.R.S., or vehicular assault pursuant to section 18-3-205(1) (http://search.jurisearch.com/NLLXML/getcode.asp?userid=GUEST9&interface=NLL&statecd=CO&codesec=18-3-205&sessionyr=2012&Title=18&datatype=S&noheader=1&nojumpmsg=0&nojumpmsg=0#18-3-205(1)) (b), C.R.S., and the person is refusing to take or to complete, or to cooperate in the completing of, any test or tests, then, in such event, the law enforcement officer may require a blood test.

Great to know....


but what if they were "hospital personal"?

[lead_magnet]

LEO can chime in, but this is straight from my 1SGTreserve/CSP( former unit) ........ he said gents if you know you are fucked and gonna lose your TS/SCI, you did it to yourself by drinking 10 beers now, if you are only at a few beers and the cop is being a dick and you might get a DUI, only crack your window 1/2 inch to hand over documents and roll it back up. If they want to give you a test... Don't. He said he would rather us call him and tell him we got arrested hours later for resisting arrest than a DUI. Would LEO break windows to get you out?
This is not the best of advice... if you're being stopped it is for a reason (at least in theory), if the officer feels that it is nessesary to contact you, not just your driver license, than he will do so, if you "obstruct" his investigation by placing a barrier between the two of you aftering being told not to then you will probably be arrested for obstruction or interference (depending on state), and if he has to breach a window to enact his arrest then the same result will be achieved, but you'll be paying for a window too.

[ShelbyJK500]

Does the getting a DL over ride your 5th amendment rights ?

Where in the world are 5th Amendment rights coming into this? Your 5th Amendment right has EVERYTHING to do with spoken testimony/statements, and NOTHING to do with the collection/preservation of evidence to which probable cause exists to obtain. This is why search warrants are easily obtained in the cases in question. Probable cause already existed for the arrest...so the collection and/or preservation of evidence necessarily becomes the next logical step. NO due process is being violated, NOR any rights. I'm not saying I am completely on board with this blanket policy for refusals in this particular county...but it certainly doesn't fall outside the scope of criminal procedure and say that America is headed toward a police state.

Also, just my editorial...the submission to chemical testing is also considered exculpatory evidence. Which is; evidence that could prove your innocence. The main reason why Express Consent is required when obtaining a license is that there should be no reason for refusing a test to be taken unless you are guilty of the crime. If you are charged with a crime and there is evidence out there which could prove you innocent of the charge...would you not DEMAND it's collection?!? Of course if you knew there was evidence of the crime out there which could prove your guilt, you would want to distance yourself from it as far as possible. In either case, no matter which side you are on it is a matter of DUTY by any entity investigating a crime to collect and preserve any and all evidence that would serve either purpose.

This topic is truly ALL about evidence collection and NOT about the loss or violation of rights. If this were occurring without a search warrant in misdemeanor cases I would be on board with a discussion of rights violations.

[Ronin13]

Probable cause already existed for the arrest...so the collection and/or preservation of evidence necessarily becomes the next logical step. NO due process is being violated, NOR any rights. I'm not saying I am completely on board with this blanket policy for refusals in this particular county...but it certainly doesn't fall outside the scope of criminal procedure and say that America is headed toward a police state.
I think the point being argued here is that a checkpoint or traffic stop based solely on time of day and day of week does not constitute probable cause. "You were driving between midnight and two thirty AM on a Friday, probability suggests that you're returning from a bar." That's not probable cause, that's an educated, yet unproven, guess. DUI Checkpoints are dragnets, the only proof that someone is drunk driving is provided after the contact, and is not the cause for the contact. I am in no way arguing either way because I'm still formulating my opinion, but I do disagree with the lack of due process for a DUI checkpoint.

[ShelbyJK500]

I think the point being argued here is that a checkpoint or traffic stop based solely on time of day and day of week does not constitute probable cause. "You were driving between midnight and two thirty AM on a Friday, probability suggests that you're returning from a bar." That's not probable cause, that's an educated, yet unproven, guess. DUI Checkpoints are dragnets, the only proof that someone is drunk driving is provided after the contact, and is not the cause for the contact. I am in no way arguing either way because I'm still formulating my opinion, but I do disagree with the lack of due process for a DUI checkpoint.

Not to be rude....but I have no idea what you're talking about here. Someone might have mentioned DUI checkpoints, but that isn't the topic AT ALL. This has nothing to do with a DUI stop in the daytime or peoples interpretation of DUI checkpoints. This topic is all about what occurs after an arrest is made based on probable cause for a DUI arrest. This is about the OP's original topic and the perceived "rights violations" versus "evidence preservation." At least that is what I have gleaned through the 3 pages of posts. Just my .02