home

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.

A few courts have intervened to protect the civil liberties of drivers:

Critics of the practice see a threat to privacy and civil liberties, with judges in Rhode Island, New Jersey and Wisconsin barring, limiting or questioning the practice in recent years. In Pennsylvania, the state police say they don't take blood if a driver refuses, but might if the driver is unconscious.

Doctors have balked at the practice as well:

For me to draw blood from a patient who is refusing to have his blood drawn, unless I have compelling medical reasons for that blood sample, I'm committing assault and battery, and I'm not going to do it," says Dr. Phil Brewer, president of the Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians and a fellow at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Would the Supreme Court uphold the practice today? The last time it considered the issue was in Schmerber v. California--in upholding the practice it stressed the way the blood was taken--in a hospital by a physician.

The majority warned that "serious questions ... would arise" if the blood were extracted "in other than a medical environment -- for example, if it were administered by police in the privacy of the stationhouse" because allowing that might "invite an unjustified element of personal risk of infection and pain." It added that "more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions" might not pass muster.

State and federal courts have countenanced a range of police conduct in obtaining blood, from putting a chokehold on the carotid artery of a suspected drunk in California to shooting one in the arm with a stun-gun in Delaware. And blood often is extracted in police lockups and jailhouses -- just the sort of environment the Supreme Court said might be constitutionally troublesome.

< Excerpts from Richard Clarke's Book | Court Rules 'Choose Life' License Plates Unconstitutional >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort: