Police say syringes will help stop drunk driving

[Guest]

Ok, I haven't worked in EMS in over six years. I was a paramedic. This is a topic which surfaced in the crew lounge from time to time. Most medics I knew honored the police request to take the blood sample mostly to gain favor of the police officers. Some of us were just dead against drawing bloods for law enforcement. Absent protocol and formal agreements including indemnification between a particular law enforcement agency and EMS provider with the oversight of medical control, the paramedic in New York who draws blood for law enforcement is at the very least risking embarrassment at the hands of a sadistic defense attorney and quite forseeably risking all personal future economic freedom.

My turn came one night while stationed at Mahopac station 3. The phone in the firehouse rang, it was Kent P.D. Sergeant Ranieri was just about demanding I come over to draw blood of a DWI suspect. I refused. He gave me a rash of s*** that I am the only one who has ever refused to do so for him and there would be hell to pay. Apparently he called Sloper HQ and pissed in Joel's ear about it. The only thing to come out of this was a company wide memo from Joel that we are, under no circumstances, to ever draw law enforcement bloods! This by the way came from a police officer. I have also on more than one occasion seen E.D. staff and physicians refuse to draw law enforcement bloods. Too much legal liability.

I am in favor of getting drunks off the road. Blood tests are the only true measure of blood alcohol content. It's good to see law enforcement learning another evidence collection skill. The skill in question is certainly treading on civil rights issues and stepping into the gray area of medical procedure. But that is for the law enforcement agencies to worry about on their own without involving a profession not inherently trained in law and evidence collection.

[helicopper 1,050]

<!--quoteo(post=192426:date=Sep 16 2009, 08:16 AM:name=Chris192)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chris192 @ Sep 16 2009, 08:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=192426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

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).

The fourth amendment is not violated when a warrant is used to obtain a blood sample or accepted exigencies apply to the warrantless drawing of blood. The case you cite specifically states that it is acceptable to physically restrain someone to draw their blood. The issue is that they failed to obtain a warrant first but had the opportunity to do so.

You can protest all you want but a warrant is a warrant and whether the search is for your blood or your house or your computer, it is going to be searched.

From the decision:

In this appeal from a drunk-driving conviction, we hold that the extraction of an uncooperative driver's blood, by a nurse in a hospital emergency room, while police officers are restraining the driver, does not violate the driver's federal or state constitutional right.

We reasoned, relying on Dyal, that an individual resisting a blood sample could be "restrained in a medically acceptable way as could any other uncooperative patient." Id. at 586.

We conclude that the logical inference from the Macuk, Dyal, and Woomer holdings is that a motor vehicle driver arrested for driving under the influence has no legal right to refuse chemical testing and the police are not required to obtain his or her consent. Further, such a driver can be restrained in order to extract a blood sample.

We now turn to the issue of force, actually restraints, which is raised by Ravotto and the ACLU. It is obvious from the tape and the testimony, that Ravotto did not want to be at the hospital. He did not want to be examined. He did not want his blood pressure taken. He did not want his blood extracted. He did not like being restrained. The tape shows that he called the police officers, who were just outside the door, repeatedly to come into the treating room. In short, he was belligerent and uncooperative. However, this lack of cooperation does not preclude the lawful taking of a blood sample by using restraints. See Dyal, supra, 97 N.J. Super. at 240. We therefore conclude that the taking of Ravotto's blood, without a search warrant, was lawful given the following facts: there was a substantial likelihood that he was driving under the influence; he needed medical treatment; a breathalyzer test was not feasible; and the hospital needed to draw blood for its own purposes.

Accordingly, we reject the following contentions from Ravotto's responding brief contending: (1) defendant's State and Federal rights were violated by the taking of his blood without a warrant and against his will; (2) Schmerber v. California does not provide the State with a license for the warrantless forced taking of blood; (3) the use of force to extract defendant's blood constitutes an unconstitutional search and seizure; (4) the forcible penetration of an extraction of blood after Ravotto consented to the equally reliable and unintrusive breathalyzer test, is per se unreasonable; (5) the use of force to extract defendant's blood deprived Ravotto of due process of law; and (6) the extraction of blood without warrant or opportunity to be heard violates procedural due process. The ACLU as amicus curiae filed a brief contending that the use of force to extract Ravotto's blood was an unconstitutional search and seizure and deprived him of due process of law. These arguments are without merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

We merely note that Ravotto's belated offer to provide a breath sample was an empty one. It was not really feasible at the time and under the circumstances when it was made.

Moreover, the ACLU has brought to our attention the very recent case of Jiosi v. Township of Nutley, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2000). The holding in that civil case does not affect and is not contrary to our holding in this case.

Accordingly, the order granting the motion to suppress is reversed. The matter is remanded to the Law Division for the entry of a judgment of conviction.

Moreover, in this case it was the suppression of the evidence that was reversed and the conviction was upheld.

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.

Some people also have an inherent fear of being senslessly slaughtered by a drunk driver crossing to their side of the road or driving the wrong way on a highway. How about the mental stress and fear from that?