Police Forcing Blood Tests to Catch Drunk Drivers
The Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) reports that in many states, police are opting for blood tests instead of breath tests for suspected drunk drivers -- even if they have to take the blood by force.
The tests raise two nettlesome questions: How much force should police be able to use in extracting blood from uncooperative suspects? And should medical professionals, who are honor-bound to obey patients' treatment wishes and protect their privacy, be compelled to do otherwise?
Prosecutors say the blood tests are more accurate than breath tests. Also, many drivers refuse to take either test, and police say you can't force someone to take a breath test, but you can strap someone down to draw blood from them.
At least eight states -- Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada and Texas -- have in recent years enacted statutes specifically permitting police to use reasonable force to obtain blood samples in DUI cases.
Laws in at least seven other states allow police to take blood without the driver's consent, without explicitly authorizing force. In most other states, court rulings have authorized reasonable force to obtain blood. Many such rulings cite a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All motorists are considered to have consented to a search of their blood, breath or urine. Such "implied consent" laws were introduced in New York in 1953, and today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them.
< Excerpts from Richard Clarke's Book | Court Rules 'Choose Life' License Plates Unconstitutional > |