But yeah, this is bullshit.A new Arizona court ruling says authorities must obtain a search warrant to conduct a blood test of a DUI suspect unless the suspect clearly consents to have blood drawn.
Or you sinply can't stand needles. Honestly, I'd rather face a fireing squad than have a needle stuck into me.Refusal would pretty much be an admission of guilt, obviously.
That's what happens here, automatic suspension, car is impounded and off to the lockup (not to sure about this last one). Thing is that America has managed to twist that clause in the Constitution against "unreasonable search and seizure" to get things like alcohol checkpoints and breathalysers heavily restricted.Sionnach Glic wrote:I'm pretty sure it's mandatory that you have to take the breathalyzer test over here. And in most of Europe, AKAIK. This is just dumb. Do the police carry around special blood analyzers in their cars as well?
Just re-write the law so that a guard can make you take a breathalyzer, or he arrests you and you do it at the station.
Same in Missouri. Automatic DUI for refusal.Tyyr wrote:Down here in Florida possession of a driver's license is implicit consent to a breathalyzer. No questions asked. If you're driving a car they can test you. If you refuse it's your ass.
Breathalyzers, particularly the portable models that the police carry around, aren't all too accurate. But they do give a good indication as to whether or not someone's been drinking recently.Mikey wrote:Yeah, I could see a simple blood-stick test (NOT drawing with a syringe) only if breathalyzers had been shown to be unreliable.
That's all that's necessary. Current models in use are generally considered to be accurate to a tenth of a percent, which is sufficient for the current legal codes over here. They need to determine DUI status, not a detailed toxicology report.<em>Sionnach Glic</em> wrote:Breathalyzers, particularly the portable models that the police carry around, aren't all too accurate. But they do give a good indication as to whether or not someone's been drinking recently.
That's exactly what happens here, and as with (it seems) most places, refusing to provide a breath sample (or a blood sample back at the nick) carries the same penalties as drink-driving.Sionnach Glic wrote:Breathalyzers, particularly the portable models that the police carry around, aren't all too accurate. But they do give a good indication as to whether or not someone's been drinking recently.
The police could carry the breathalyzers around to test people with, and if they test positive drag them back to the station and do the blood test thing on them.
Is it just me, or is that a pretty creepy line of thought?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.
