Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops
October 16th, 2007 Posted in Breathalyzers, DUI/DWI
There have been an increasing number of police departments allowing their officers to draw blood samples from motorists under suspicion of a DUI/DWI. This takes place on the roadside as opposed to a hospital where there are trained medical professionals. It seems like a recipe for disaster to allow officers to do blood draws when they do not have adequate medical training. This has proven true in Arizona recently where a lawsuit has been filed to stop this practice.
According to Scripps News, a man developed a persistent infection at the site of a blood draw administered by a Pima County sheriff’s deputy. He has filed what is believed to be the first claim in Arizona against the practice, which could put local taxpayers on the hook for any damages.
Arizona law requires that drunken driving suspects submit to a test or lose their license for a year and it’s the officer’s choice, not the driver’s, whether to use a breath or a blood test.
Having officers draw blood has become more common recently because it makes it more difficult for people to defend themselves against DUI/DWI charges. Breathalyzers have proven to be wildly inaccurate and don’t hold up well in court so blood tests have become a more appealing option legally. But when dealing with a medical procedure like a blood draw, the focus should be on the well-being of the individual and not making sure the District Attorney can get a conviction. Officers without adequate medical training should not be playing around with people’s health, no matter the legal ramifications.
Other Related Articles
94 Responses to “Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops”
By Andrew on Jan 7, 2009
People, Are you that dumb? Really, Do you believe everything you read on these Bullshit Websites and Forums? Do you really believe that cops are pulling out needles on this side of the road and taking peoples blood. Do you really believe that? If you do….
Then I’m trying to set up a fund to completely wipe out all the DWI Laws in all states…Please send me $50.00 dollars along with your credit card numbers to…..
By Phil Mckrackin on Jan 6, 2009
James Young writes(Save a cop from hypocrisy; revoke speed limits now!)
Save yourself from hypocrisy James obey the posted limit and don’t give the police a reason to write you a ticket. Revoke the speed limits? How ridiculous that would be we need speed limits to bring speeds into close deviations of the mean speed if for no other reason than more people will be traveling at or close to the lowest risk area of the curve.
By Charlie on Jan 5, 2009
By James Young on May 28, 2008
Charlie writes:
{To deny that a group of individuals who are put into harms way, should naturally bond for the sake of self preservation is not being realistic.}
Let’s call professional courtesy what it is: hypocrisy. If the law is truly as necessary for the public safety as its proponents claim, then those who violate it should be treated equally under that law, without regard to employment status. OTOH, if the law is not applicable to some drivers then it should be applicable to no drivers.
______________________________________________
Listen, I never stated that I shouldn’t have been taken in, or charged, I was refering to how I was treated (Like a thug), I did 31 yrs. on the Chicago Police dept. and there is NO way I should have been cuffed and thrown around by the police the way they did after knowing who I was.
By Phil Mckrackin on Jan 5, 2009
As it has been pointed out already. a licensed paramedic is called to the scene to do the blood draw. It has also been pointed out that it takes 3-5 days for blood test results. If that is the case I feel the suspected drunk driver should be put in jail or post a bond that night pending the results.
By Phil Mckrackin on Jan 5, 2009
Learn the Facts writes: {Did you know that 80% of those people using marijuana and consuming alcohol kill “innocent lives”. }
James Young responds(Hmmm. Since 20 million Americans have tried marijuana within the last year and 80% of them have killed “innocent lives” — we’re ignoring the guilty people that they have killed for the moment – that means that some 16 million people have killed at least one innocent each. This must come as a terrible shock to demographers who study mortality since it is nearly 1,000 times the number of total homicides in a given year.
I believe you need to revisit wherever you got those assertions.)
Although I feel his statement may not be factual, I don’t feel you did a proper analysis of it. Your analysis lacks the variable of those using marijuana and consuming alcohol killing an innocent life at a point beyond the end of the year. You also failed to include that he said “innocent life” not “innocent HUMAN life”.
I think you need to revisit your analysis.
By Phil Mckrackin on Jan 5, 2009
I think that the NMA has actually mae a mistake in thier reporting here. For years many states have had statutes that say an officer can compell a test of the suspects BAC by testing his breath or his blood. That doesn’t mean the officer draws the blood. If the NMA is suggesting that police officers that are not minimally trained as an EMT are actually drawing blood from suspects I’d like to view the data of these draws and know where they are happening. I do know that many Police officers are actually trained EMTs and are trained in giving injections and drawing blood. I can’t imagine that a Police Department or other municipal entity would even suggest that untrained officers perform a blood draw given today’s propensity of people to sue and the liability of allowing such an action would bring forth.
By Proscriptus on Aug 13, 2008
‘Can’t help but noticed that (James Green) case was dismissed.
By Ultra on Aug 10, 2008
Hey, “loved one is dead”
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
Allowing officers to draw blood on the side of the road is just a plain stupid idea and it does not prevent drunk driving. What it does do is endanger the public and opens the doors for more law suits against the city.
By LawAdvocate on Jul 21, 2008
If you are dumb enough to drink and drive, then the maximum penalty is the only thing you should be expecting.
By a loved one is dead on Jul 9, 2008
in reference to police drawing blood i think it needs to happen everywhere wait till its your loved one that is dead because of the choice a drunk made to get behind the wheel so dont tell me about your crap and your feelings that cops should not draw blood we have to do something to stop the jerks getting drunk and driving
By Tom Harris on Jun 25, 2008
Besides the fact that I find this to be against the basic premise of the Constitution. I also have another thought.
Lets say you were at Party and you took a hit of a joint.
About a week later your driving down the road and get pulled over.
You had nothing to drink or smoke but if you gave your blood it would show marijuana in your system with no relation as to WHEN it entered your system, only that it was in there.
I guess the end result is ,,, your still busted.
Just a thought.
By richard norton on Jun 24, 2008
FIRST COP THAT ATTEMPTS THIS IS GOING TO BE STAYING IN A HOSPITAL BED FOR A LONG TIME…..AND LET HIM PRAY THAT IS ALL HE GETS
By alice on Jun 7, 2008
More important than the unsterile conditions, there is the problem with checks and balance. Those other than the officers who stopped the driver should draw the blood; not the officers. That does not allow for checks and balances which is inherit to fairness under the law. This demand should be made by the people. if people don’t get involved and demand the us constitution be strictly enforced we will loose our rights and what about all the millions of lives who have been lost and are being lost today… get involved and demand out federal constitution. be upheld.
By MomGrandma on May 30, 2008
The medical profession is being flushed down the tubes.
By James Young on May 28, 2008
Charlie writes:
{To deny that a group of individuals who are put into harms way, should naturally bond for the sake of self preservation is not being realistic.}
Let’s call professional courtesy what it is: hypocrisy. If the law is truly as necessary for the public safety as its proponents claim, then those who violate it should be treated equally under that law, without regard to employment status. OTOH, if the law is not applicable to some drivers then it should be applicable to no drivers.
Save a cop from hypocrisy; revoke speed limits now!
By Charlie on May 28, 2008
Steve: “Charlie: Welcome to the club.Us citizens consider “Professional Courtesy” to be a double standard.”
You may consider “Professional Courtesy” a double standard, and maybe it is.
To deny that a group of individuals who are put into harms way, should naturally bond for the sake of self preservation is not being realistic.
Firemen, Soldiers, Police are all in professions where their lives are dependent on each other, at least it is in Chicago. The hick town police out here in Arizona must never of grasped that concept.
In Chicago if you are a police officer who has a reputation of screwing over other officers and their family members, you better tread lightly on the street, because if you get in the middle of trouble and have to call for help, it might not be coming as fast as you would think.
By Mike on May 25, 2008
Mack’ has a great point- if breatherlyzers aren’t good enough, well I suppose the states are going to have to reverse all those convictions for DUI using breatherlyzers and give everybody their money back, right? Either the breatherlyzer meets the standards of proof for DUI or it does not. If it does it should be sufficient, if it does not it should be banished from the courtroom.
You’ve got to wonder what the motivation is for Arizona to do this. All the other states revoke plenty of drunk drivers and make plenty of money with the breatherlyzer, and have for a long time. If they are having problems getting enough convictions then maybe 1)fewer people are driving drunk, which is the intention or 2)there is some problem with the way they are using the breatherlyzer, which should be corrected before they resort to other methods. I wonder, are drivers given an option of confessing to drunken driving in lieu of the blood draw? Are they using people’s fear of needles to obtain confessions? If this practice was legitimate, the police would be willing to hire a nurse or licensed phlebotomist for the blood draws, but that would take away some of the fear factor and the cops wouldn’t like it at all if a nurse told them blood draw wasn’t advised on a particular patient and refused to do it.
Vampiress has it right, drawing blood properly can be difficult even for a doctor in a hospital, and no one but a licensed professional should attempt it. The medical community in Arizona has a duty to weigh in on this unsafe practice of allowing police officers with minimum training to do it, on the side of the road on patients in unknown condition. Any policeman who does this is a dangerous fool. Cops have this psychological effect going, where they start to believe they are experts on everything they have observed and know more about everyone else’s business than they do. Once in municipal court I watched a youth receive a light sentence for pot-smoking, and the arresting officer protested, ran into a back room and came back with a law book, and started hollering at the judge that the sentence wasn’t strong enough and this here book proves it. He’s lucky the judge didn’t throw him in jail himself. Maybe because police know they have the power to arrest doctors and nurses, they believe they are somehow superior to them and better able to do their jobs?
By L-Lisa on May 20, 2008
I’m allergic to needles and could die if such materials are entered into my veins. I also know a lot of good attorneys.
By clarence on Apr 28, 2008
I really wonder if a cop would let an average person draw blood them i don’t think so. So why should we let them do it to us?
By Vampiress on Apr 24, 2008
I’m a certified medical phlebotomist and I do blood draws all day long. Drawing blood is an aquired skill that takes alot of practice. I wonder how many times the officer is allowed to stick before they give up? If they clean the site with alchohol and it does not dry COMPLETELY, it will alter test results. In fact, at the hospital where I work, if we have orders to do a coma panel, we don’t clean the site at all for fear of altering test results.
How about those individuals who cannot have blood drawn for various reasons including a mastectomy or fistulas??? This could lead to some serious complications!! If they want to draw blood, they should be properly trained to do so. Even nurses and doctors have problems drawing blood. I say leave it to us vampires. The police should just bring the person to the hospital and have the blood drawn there.
Don’t forget, the police officer is also in danger when drawing blood, especially from an intoxicated person. We Phlebos usually help each other out in those situations (holding arms for each other) as there is a high risk of being poked. I wonder also about the equipment supplied to the officers…….if they only have large gage needles. Some people need tiny needles ( butterfly system ) or the site may need to be pre-warmed. Sometimes we have to draw from a foot because no other site is suitable. Anyhow, seems too complicated and risky for both police and the citizen.
By yes its true on Apr 23, 2008
i was pulled over for speeding, in texas. the state trooper, said he smelled marijauna, I then had to exit the vehicle. After being put through all six tests, the officer,stated that, i had hesitated one second, on my turn, and that my eye twitched. i was arrested, and given the choice, of either take the blood test, or lose my license, right then. i chose to not take the blood test. i for one dont want my blood being tested, when a cop, is just out for a dwi arrest. In texas, state troopers, are rewarded for the actual arrest, not any ensuing conviction. quite simply, because the officer said he smelled pot, but FOUND NOTHING, ON MYSELF, OR MY VEHICLE.
There is no middle ground here, you can object however you want, for whatever reason you want, if you refuse the blood test, it will cost you, a dwi arrest, a night in jail, and roughly three thousand dollars, to fight and beat the criminal charge. that was very cheap, by the way. So take heed. even if the actual dwi case is dismissed, you will still lose your license, for a minimum of eight months. period, if you live in texas. It is purely about the money, and the revenue from these cases, that matter to the state, not your rights
By Mike on Mar 15, 2008
This is a joke, right? Drawing blood on the side of the road?
This HAS to be a joke.
By the curmudgeon on Feb 26, 2008
“I was stationed in germany when i was in the military and the german police didnt play i mean they would beat you down infront of everyone if you were out of line. I mean no one messed with the cops there b/c there was still fear and respect”
Did you sleep through history class, or what?
Let me clue you in…Germany…two World Wars…millions of people killed…untold damage to the environment…ramifications still being dealt with even today, nearly 70 years after the last one.
And you respect their system?
By Joe on Feb 18, 2008
Well Charlie, even if your a former PO I wouldn’t wish that treatment on anybody. But it may serve a purpose in that you now know how many of us normal citizens can be treated. And you don’t need to be drunk anymore to experience this treatment. See; http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp and http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2067.asp
It shouldn’t make any difference regardless if you a PO or not. No citizens deserves to be treated that way. It’s another reason police are so resented in some circles. Some police officers are just plain mean spirited. As long as things are peaceful there’s no reason for anybody to be roughed up. You might expect that in a third world country but not in the good ‘ole USA. My biggest beef is that there never seems to be anyway to get rid of the bad officers except in extreme cases.
By billmtx on Feb 8, 2008
This is amazing to me that some untrained person be allowed to draw Blood from a person that is according to the Law is “presummed innocent”. The first time I heard about this practice I was very Upset that this be allowed. I think everyone should get a copy of the US Constitution and prepare themselves for any such situation, like this one, against all inappropriate practices that the “Authorities” may use on the Public. Another point, Please Please report this to the FDA. I am sure they would want to know about this… We can’t fight City Hall….but the Federal Government can. Our Civil Liberties must be upheld… and not be bullied by Overzealous Authorites playing Politics or Self Serving Motivations.