Police say syringes will help stop drunk driving

[x635 4,066]

We have this law in Austin, and we also have "no refusal" weekends on those times where DWI's are stastically higher (and a judge is on duty to issue the warrant). In fact, a new law went into effect last Tuesday whereas a felony DWI does not require a warrant to draw blood. Austin PD used the law 28 minutes after it went into effect after a drunk driver smashed into another vehicle, killing the innocent victim.

The officers are taught phlebotomy.

Police say syringes will help stop drunk driving

By REBECCA BOONE

Associated Press Writer

BOISE, Idaho — When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he'll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver's arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

"I was looking at people's arms and hands, thinking, 'I could draw from that,'" Dowell said.

It's all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program's aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/..._DUI_Blood.html

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Wait, the cops take blood? Wow, thats different.

[50-65 205]

So you are accused of DWI, and a guy is standing there with a gun "asking" if you consent to a blood draw. Of course if you refuse, no matter, the judge will issue a warrant for it and they'll get it anyway and probably any way.

Kind of reminds me of my time in Germany where, if you were stopped for DWI by the Polezei, you did not have the right to refuse. They would get your blood and they didn't care if it was directly or indirectly from your veins.

[rd3trk 1]

I have been involved with the Albany County STOP DWI Program for nearly a dozen years.

I am a staunch advocate to get drunk drivers off the road. However unless there is a

medical professional called to the scene or the alleged drunk driver is taken to a facility

police or medical where a medical professional is available to draw blood, I am not in

favor of police officers drawing blood for any reason. IMHO period.

[JimmyPFD 11]

Good idea but may not be good in practice or practical.

It is a relatively simple procedure but there is a civil liberties issue here, as well as real procedural considerations from a medical perspective. This is a non-urgent procedure and personal safety of all involved needs to be more stringently considered.

If this is challenged, (which one might expect to happen) and if the law stands; they should really be dispatching a qualified medical professional, (such as a Medic) to perform the procedure.

[NWFDMedic 58]

I'm all for getting rid of drunk drivers but this is WAY over the top. There is too much potential for abuse and it's potentially unconstitutional.

[Guest paramedico987]

As all the ALS providers on here can attest, venipuncture is a skill that requires extensive training and consistent practice to become and/or remain proficient and even then it can be very difficult.

I'm at odds here, because I'm an advocate of the concept, but not these particular means.

I would LOVE to see a biomedical company develop a device similar to a glucometer to get an instant blood alcohol level. It would make the similar procedure, in terms of establishing evidence for criminal prosecution, only as invasive as a prick on the finger and training for LEOs would be quite minimal.

Incidentally this isn't a new idea for me... I've been whining about how I want blood alcohol meters for a few years now.

And on a political point: I agree and see your point 50-65. I hope that the same probable cause would need to be established before any testing, just the same as breathalyser testing now.

[helicopper 1,050]

As all the ALS providers on here can attest, venipuncture is a skill that requires extensive training and consistent practice to become and/or remain proficient and even then it can be very difficult.

I'm at odds here, because I'm an advocate of the concept, but not these particular means.

I would LOVE to see a biomedical company develop a device similar to a glucometer to get an instant blood alcohol level. It would make the similar procedure, in terms of establishing evidence for criminal prosecution, only as invasive as a prick on the finger and training for LEOs would be quite minimal.

Incidentally this isn't a new idea for me... I've been whining about how I want blood alcohol meters for a few years now.

And on a political point: I agree and see your point 50-65. I hope that the same probable cause would need to be established before any testing, just the same as breathalyser testing now.

I agree wholeheartedly, paramedico. Asking police officers to become and remain proficient in yet another new skill is just ridiculous. There are many other ways to insure that an appropriate sample of bodily fluids is taken for laboratory analysis without asking the police to actually perform the stick.

As for legal issues and constitutional rights, there is no constitutional right to drive and implied consent laws through the drivers licensing process have been upheld by courts for decades. I think penalties need to be more absolute and a deterrent value if we're going to see any change.

[INIT915 1,119]

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I have no problems with this proposal. If structured correctly, I believe it could be successful.

[Goose 188]

Wasn't there a discussion some time ago (my memory of it is a bit foggy) about ambulances being called to DWI scenes so medics could draw blood for officers? My brain could be totally making this up, but i'm pretty sure there was an article relating to this and we discussed it.

Either way, not a fan. At all. All for getting these people off the road, but lets leave the policing to the law enforcement professionals and the phlebotomy to the medical professionals. Couldn't they make a light duty position at the police station (probably wouldn't work for smaller departments, only medium to large sized ones) and have a medic just draw the blood once the guy gets to the station?

Edited September 15, 2009 by Goose

[x635 4,066]

Breathalyzer test and field sobriety tests can easily let a drunk driver go free because of any number of variables. With drawing of blood, the prosecution is hard to argue.

DWI is a significant issue that's not going away, in fact, numbers are going up nationwide. I'm sure, if gosh forbid, one of your loved ones was injured or even killed by a drunk driver, you would be quite miffed to say the least if that person got lesser charges because they questioned the accuracy of the breathlyzer or FST, which happens often. With blood testing, you have concrete proof and a much more accurate blood alhohol level that's hard to debate.

Also, there is much more that goes into it then the officer just poking a needle into someones arm. There is a very well thought out program here in Austin that has many components that agencies nationally have come to witness.

Calling for EMS adds witnesses to the case and adds to the chain of custody for evidence. It also ties up an EMS unit for no reason. Some agencies have civilian phlebotomists on staff that work with the DWI team.

[50-65 205]

DWI is a significant issue that's not going away, in fact, numbers are going up nationwide. I'm sure, if gosh forbid, one of your loved ones was injured or even killed by a drunk driver, you would be quite miffed to say the least if that person got lesser charges because they questioned the accuracy of the breathlyzer or FST, which happens often. With blood testing, you have concrete proof and a much more accurate blood alhohol level that's hard to debate.

My cousin was killed by a drunk driver shortly after she turned 18. She and a friend were run over, in her driveway, by a drunk that ran off the road. So, while I have absolutely no use for drunk drivers, I still am uneasy at this increase in police powers.

[helicopper 1,050]

My cousin was killed by a drunk driver shortly after she turned 18. She and a friend were run over, in her driveway, by a drunk that ran off the road. So, while I have absolutely no use for drunk drivers, I still am uneasy at this increase in police powers.

What increase in police powers? This is not an increase in police powers but rather a proposed change in police procedure. Police already have the right to demand a sample (blood, breath, or urine) for a DWI investigation and blood can be drawn now. At issue here is whether or not the police themselves can be the one's to draw it.

So you are accused of DWI, and a guy is standing there with a gun "asking" if you consent to a blood draw. Of course if you refuse, no matter, the judge will issue a warrant for it and they'll get it anyway and probably any way.

If you're accused of DWI now, the "guy with the gun asks" you to consent to a chemical test to determine the alcohol or drug content of the suspects blood. What's the issue with that?

As for being compelled to submit blood, a warrant can be applied for and if a judge determines that a compulsory blood test is appropriate a warrant will be issued and blood will be drawn - almost always at the hospital. Yes, they will get it regardless of the refusal in these limited cases but it's not by "any way".

[gamewell45 258]

We have this law in Austin, and we also have "no refusal" weekends on those times where DWI's are stastically higher (and a judge is on duty to issue the warrant). In fact, a new law went into effect last Tuesday whereas a felony DWI does not require a warrant to draw blood. Austin PD used the law 28 minutes after it went into effect after a drunk driver smashed into another vehicle, killing the innocent victim.

The officers are taught phlebotomy.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/..._DUI_Blood.html

That's just wonderful, doing a medical procedure on someone without their consent. It's decisions like this that keep the ACLU in business.

[x635 4,066]

That's just wonderful, doing a medical procedure on someone without their consent. It's decisions like this that keep the ACLU in business.

It's just as wonderful as pulling a 3 year old child out of a car dead because someone decided to drive with a .020 BAC.

And it's not a medical procedure, it's a evidence collection procedure that involves a medical technique. It's done with a search warrant, with several other factors in play. Just like search warrants are issued for DNA samples, etc nowadays. Any argument that protects drunk drivers is disgusting, in my opinion. So many innocent people are killed, and way too often these people walk away without injuries and doing little to no jail time because of evidence issues and DWI attorneys who know how to play juries. Blood draws have been catching on and have been proving for succesful legal outcomes.

If people are worried about their rights, don't drive drunk and they shouldn't have any issues.

[ckroll 101]

Wasn't there a discussion some time ago (my memory of it is a bit foggy) about ambulances being called to DWI scenes so medics could draw blood for officers? My brain could be totally making this up, but i'm pretty sure there was an article relating to this and we discussed it.

Either way, not a fan. At all. All for getting these people off the road, but lets leave the policing to the law enforcement professionals and the phlebotomy to the medical professionals. Couldn't they make a light duty position at the police station (probably wouldn't work for smaller departments, only medium to large sized ones) and have a medic just draw the blood once the guy gets to the station?

Bureau of EMS Policy Statement

Policy Statement # 01-03

Date 05/08/01

Subject Re: Drawing Blood by

AEMTs Pursuant to

NYS V & TL Section 1194(4)

Supercedes/Updates New

The New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law has provisions to allow advanced Emergency Medical Technician (AEMT) certified by the New York State Department of Health, when requested by a police officer and under the supervision and at the direction of a physician, to draw blood for the purposes of determining the presence or alcohol and/or drugs. This law allows an AEMT to draw blood on an individual, that may or may not be a patient, if the individual is suspected by police of having violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

[ and it goes on to say the individual may refuse. REMACs were tasked with coming up with policy statements to direct when and how this would happen.. standing orders, online medical control, whatever,. To my knowlege, none of this happpened, so while it is permitted by NYSDOH there is no protocol for doing it. I wouldn't consider initiating invasive procedures without a protocol.

EMS really needs to maintain the trust of the community and I think it essential that we limit our scope of practice to patient care and leave all enforcement to law enforcement.]

[Truck4 48]

My cousin was killed by a drunk driver shortly after she turned 18. She and a friend were run over, in her driveway, by a drunk that ran off the road. So, while I have absolutely no use for drunk drivers, I still am uneasy at this increase in police powers.

So then, what would you suggest be done to combat drunk driving?

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Hundreds of law enforcement agencies in the country have been drawing blood for years with no problems. Why is it in the northeast everything seems like such an ordeal? Where I lived and worked in Virginia specific officers (and a high number of them) were trained on the proper way to collect blood samples as evidence to ensure accuracy and legality in the sample and to ensure to use proper aseptic technique. If they weren't able to get the sample because of an issue they would then transport to get it. Some of you talk of phlebotomy as if its rocket science...give me a break. Stop the BS with an increase in police powers also...probable cause is probable cause...your not going to have people just yanking on arms drawing blood. Maybe some of you forget that you didn't walk into wherever you went got your Paramedic School an IV master. Believe me in most cases there is plenty of practice to go around in many areas. Lets not forget for those who cry about reducing taxpayer spending that this could also limit the amount of OT and such needed to babysit these knuckle headed morons while awaiting the blood, take away one less person clogging up the ER and so on.

I guess we're still waiting on REMAC for guidance on the drawing blood issue. I for one have no issue with it whatsoever and do not feel that it will tarnish our image nor violate the trust with the public. Especially any "public" when their range of motion is limited by the silver bracelet attached to a bench. Let's face it gang not everything we do fits nicely into a protocol on some piece of paper. As I've said before also if I wanted to simply follow a sequence of events from a book I would have went to the culinary institute. I still find it laughable that some argue that we shouldn't even be removing TASER probes. I also will chime in and say that part of the problem is that too many EMS agencies are limiting their scope to just patient care and not providing many other essentials services that EMS should. I can maintain the trust of the community just fine by the way I still treat ALL of my patients, whether a animal in custody, a person who made a bad decision like drive after having a few and so on...by treating them with respect and giving them my best care. My attitude, interaction and the way I carry myself will maintain that and sitting down and drawing a blood sample within the accepted evidence collection procedure isn't going to wipe that away. If anything it is a greater service to the community.

[INIT915 1,119]

Hundreds of law enforcement agencies in the country have been drawing blood for years with no problems. Why is it in the northeast everything seems like such an ordeal? Where I lived and worked in Virginia specific officers (and a high number of them) were trained on the proper way to collect blood samples as evidence to ensure accuracy and legality in the sample and to ensure to use proper aseptic technique. If they weren't able to get the sample because of an issue they would then transport to get it. Some of you talk of phlebotomy as if its rocket science...give me a break. Stop the BS with an increase in police powers also...probable cause is probable cause...your not going to have people just yanking on arms drawing blood. Maybe some of you forget that you didn't walk into wherever you went got your Paramedic School an IV master. Believe me in most cases there is plenty of practice to go around in many areas. Lets not forget for those who cry about reducing taxpayer spending that this could also limit the amount of OT and such needed to babysit these knuckle headed morons while awaiting the blood, take away one less person clogging up the ER and so on.

I guess we're still waiting on REMAC for guidance on the drawing blood issue. I for one have no issue with it whatsoever and do not feel that it will tarnish our image nor violate the trust with the public. Especially any "public" when their range of motion is limited by the silver bracelet attached to a bench. Let's face it gang not everything we do fits nicely into a protocol on some piece of paper. As I've said before also if I wanted to simply follow a sequence of events from a book I would have went to the culinary institute. I still find it laughable that some argue that we shouldn't even be removing TASER probes. I also will chime in and say that part of the problem is that too many EMS agencies are limiting their scope to just patient care and not providing many other essentials services that EMS should. I can maintain the trust of the community just fine by the way I still treat ALL of my patients, whether a animal in custody, a person who made a bad decision like drive after having a few and so on...by treating them with respect and giving them my best care. My attitude, interaction and the way I carry myself will maintain that and sitting down and drawing a blood sample within the accepted evidence collection procedure isn't going to wipe that away. If anything it is a greater service to the community.

My thoughts exactly, with just a little touch of "T-Mac."

[gamewell45 258]

It's just as wonderful as pulling a 3 year old child out of a car dead because someone decided to drive with a .020 BAC.

And it's not a medical procedure, it's a evidence collection procedure that involves a medical technique. It's done with a search warrant, with several other factors in play. Just like search warrants are issued for DNA samples, etc nowadays. Any argument that protects drunk drivers is disgusting, in my opinion. So many innocent people are killed, and way too often these people walk away without injuries and doing little to no jail time because of evidence issues and DWI attorneys who know how to play juries. Blood draws have been catching on and have been proving for succesful legal outcomes.

If people are worried about their rights, don't drive drunk and they shouldn't have any issues.

It's just as wonderful as someone who isn't drunk running a stop sign and t-boning a car.

This is not an argument about protecting drunk drivers; its an argument about protecting peoples rights. You've already got the breathalyzer to use. You really want to steeply reduce drunk driving? Eliminate the sales of alcohol in this country.

Edited September 16, 2009 by gamewell45

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

You can teach a monkey to draw blood! Not that hard of a skill to learn!

[ckroll 101]

.... I also will chime in and say that part of the problem is that too many EMS agencies are limiting their scope to just patient care and not providing many other essentials services that EMS should. I can maintain the trust of the community just fine by the way I still treat ALL of my patients, whether a animal in custody, a person who made a bad decision like drive after having a few and so on...by treating them with respect and giving them my best care. My attitude, interaction and the way I carry myself will maintain that and sitting down and drawing a blood sample within the accepted evidence collection procedure isn't going to wipe that away. If anything it is a greater service to the community.

A poor choice of words on my part, but I must respectfully disagree. The greater good is served by reducing drunk driving, yes. That is what law enforcement is tasked with. EMS is tasked with health care. Ask me to use my down time looking in on the elderly, picking up prescriptions, educating people, that's fine. I believe, in the strongest terms that EMS needs to keep our focus on care. If the police want to draw blood and the law allows it, that is the way to do it.

[helicopper 1,050]

It's just as wonderful as someone who isn't drunk running a stop sign and t-boning a car.

This is not an argument about protecting drunk drivers; its an argument about protecting peoples rights. You've already got the breathalyzer to use. You really want to steeply reduce drunk driving? Eliminate the sales of alcohol in this country.

We saw how well prohibition worked so I'm not a fan of that idea but on your comment about people's rights... Exactly what right is being infringed if a warrant is issued or, pursuant to statutory authority, blood is drawn from a DWI suspect?

[x635 4,066]

This is not an argument about protecting drunk drivers; its an argument about protecting peoples rights. You've already got the breathalyzer to use. You really want to steeply reduce drunk driving? Eliminate the sales of alcohol in this country.

What you are saying is you wish to protect the rights of drunk drivers, or take away alchohol. That makes no sense. If you've missed the above, the whole reason for drawing blood is because it is the most accurate way to prove intoxication, and have a solid prosecution. DWI is a CRIME, especially felony DWI in which blood draws are mostly used for, they are not out there randomly picking people and drawing bloood.

[gamewell45 258]

We saw how well prohibition worked so I'm not a fan of that idea but on your comment about people's rights... Exactly what right is being infringed if a warrant is issued or, pursuant to statutory authority, blood is drawn from a DWI suspect?

How about the Fourth Amendment for starters? There are already cases on record where convictions have been overturned due to blood sample being drawn against the individuals protests. To wet your whisle, try State v. Ravotto, No. A-45-00 (New Jersey State Supreme court).

[x635 4,066]

How about the Fourth Amendment for starters? There are already cases on record where convictions have been overturned due to blood sample being drawn against the individuals protests. To wet your whisle, try State v. Ravotto, No. A-45-00 (New Jersey State Supreme court).

Simple. They didn't have a warrant to take his blood.

[gamewell45 258]

What you are saying is you wish to protect the rights of drunk drivers, or take away alchohol. That makes no sense. If you've missed the above, the whole reason for drawing blood is because it is the most accurate way to prove intoxication, and have a solid prosecution. DWI is a CRIME, especially felony DWI in which blood draws are mostly used for, they are not out there randomly picking people and drawing bloood.

No, your saying that I'm not.

While it may be in your opinion the best way to prove intoxication, people have rights against medical procedure(s) being done on an objecting individual. Furthermore, police have the option of using the so-called "breathalyzer" test on suspected intoxicated drivers. It might help to consider that some people have an inherent fear of needles and this alone could cause undue mental stress and strain on someone terrified of needles not to mention the potential physical impact. And suppose the test comes up negative? What do you say to the person you forceably took blood from? Sorry sir, this was done in the interest of justice?

Finally I don't think that anyone in this forum has ever maintained that DWI isn't a crime. Its just the methods employed to gather evidence which is in dispute here.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Honestly having a judge on call to write warrants and then train x number of officers to draw blood from the few DWI suspects that are not already in the hospital in police custody sounds like a giant waste of resources for the few DWIs you will actually catch and successful prosecute.

Other than that enforcement night or no refusal night what not it sounds like a waste of tax payer money to me.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Honestly having a judge on call to write warrants and then train x number of officers to draw blood from the few DWI suspects that are not already in the hospital in police custody sounds like a giant waste of resources for the few DWIs you will actually catch and successful prosecute.

Other than that enforcement night or no refusal night what not it sounds like a waste of tax payer money to me.

What??? The majority of those in custody for DWI wouldn't go to the hospital if it weren't for the need to get a blood sample in this area. Which is a bigger waste of resources AKA "taxpayer money?" Having officers trained in drawing blood, while some are on duty....or....having an officer have to waste more time waiting in an ER to get the blood sample drawn? Think of both sides of the argument. Secondly...judges are already there for when they refuse regardless..again not a waste of taxpayer money that is what they get paid for. How do you think warrants are obtained for drug seizures and such? During working hours only. Few DWI's? Every one takes another unsafe driver off the street. DWI"s have a very high prosecution rate...many are plea bargained but most are inrefutible with video evidence, breathalyzer and/or blood.

As far as a test coming up negative..in my experience this is far and few in between when proper procedures are taken. Starting from initiating a stop based on suspicion (often video taped if the RMP has the capability). Then speaking with the individual and performing a field sobriety test..then a breath test and then blood on top of it. I'm sorry but the very few instances of someone getting blood drawn having it come up nil and then add to it those who are traumatized by needles to that equation also is a weak argument at best.

CKroll...no biggie...we've disagreed before...but that's also why we're such good friends.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

Ok so a person is pulled over for suspected DWI. You can smell an Alcholoic Beverage emmanating from his/her breath. You don't need an alco sensor to determine they are DWI. You only need that to give you a ball park of what their BAC is. What if you don't have an Alco Sensor with you? I don't take one out with me all the time. Just looking at their eyes will tell you if they are over the limit. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus is a great tool in most people that don't have lazy eyes or prostetic eyes. It is the one test that somebody can't change the outcome. Who cares if you get blood. If the person refuses you get OT out of it and their license gets suspeneded.

I see the bigger problem is how most first offenders get their original charges knocked down to something lower. That isn't gonna discourage most people.