No refusal weekend question

[charlie12]

Brannon, there's a case I know of like your example you posted.
A drunk illegal guy hit a car with 3 girls in it, killed 1 girl and hurt the other 2. The girl driver was also DWI.
The drunk girl didn't learn a damn thing from all of it. I heard she's totaled 3 cars since the crash and I watch her FB page and all she talks about is partying and getting wasted.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Brannon, there's a case I know of like your example you posted.
A drunk illegal guy hit a car with 3 girls in it, killed 1 girl and hurt the other 2. The girl driver was also DWI.
The drunk girl didn't learn a damn thing from all of it. I heard she's totaled 3 cars since the crash and I watch her FB page and all she talks about is partying and getting wasted.

Yeah, personally it is kinda chickednshit, but at the same time, maybe that drunk is getting caught before they do cause an accident. Oh well.

The oral of the story is do not drive if you are impaired by any intoxicant. Doing so is simply taking a chance with everyone's life and liberty.

 

[NOLASHOOTER]

Not to stray off the topic but while we have a LEO listening, how is the whole texting while driving ban going. I still see so many people doing it and it just makes me scream. I am pretty sure many people do not even know it is in effect but for those that do they are probably going to hold the phones in their laps and still do it which makes it even more dangerous. I am a long time cellphone user and even worked for a few cell companies and I am all for banning all use of cellphones except with an earpiece. The number of people who are on the phone driving is ridiculous. Something needs to be done.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Not to stray off the topic but while we have a LEO listening, how is the whole texting while driving ban going. I still see so many people doing it and it just makes me scream. I am pretty sure many people do not even know it is in effect but for those that do they are probably going to hold the phones in their laps and still do it which makes it even more dangerous. I am a long time cellphone user and even worked for a few cell companies and I am all for banning all use of cellphones except with an earpiece. The number of people who are on the phone driving is ridiculous. Something needs to be done.

I have personlly not written it yet, and I would not be surprised if one has not been written in all of NIOLA. It is kinda difficult to catch one legit, and despite what people here think, cops generally could careless about traffic stuff as they are normally 4-5 RTF's in the hole by mid shift.

I think it will end up being an after the accident type of ticket. Unless it is a uniques situation where the person pulls up at the red light next to me doing it at night where I can clearly see what they are doing. Kinda like people who watch TV while driving. Now, I have probably written 40-50 of those... LOL

 

[posse comatosis]

NOLACOP wrote:

you WILL be bled to see if you were intoxicated

An arrest is required before a blood test can be forced from a suspected DWI. Are you really going to place someone under arrest without any valid articulable reason just to take a blood sample of a party obviously not a fault in an automobile wreck and no visible symptoms of intoxication?

However, once legally arrested, SCOTUS has ruled forced blood tests do not violate the right to be free of unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendmet, nor the right against self incrimination under the Fourteenth.

384 U.S. 757 (1966) SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA

459 U.S. 553 (1983) SOUTH DAKOTA v. NEVILLE

So if you do catch 'em drunk, "Book Em, Dano." Then bleed 'em.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

NOLACOP wrote:


An arrest is required before a blood test can be forced from a suspected DWI. Are you really going to place someone under arrest without any valid articulable reason just to take a blood sample of a party obviously not a fault in an automobile wreck and no visible symptoms of intoxication?

However, once legally arrested, SCOTUS has ruled forced blood tests do not violate the right to be free of unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendmet, nor the right against self incrimination under the Fourteenth.

384 U.S. 757 (1966) SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA

459 U.S. 553 (1983) SOUTH DAKOTA v. NEVILLE

So if you do catch 'em drunk, "Book Em, Dano." Then bleed 'em.

prove it

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

PC are you an attorney? I ask because Im not, but, I know enough about law to be very careful when trying to apply 27 year old and older SCOTUS decisions to my day to day. Doing enough research to find a case that applies to the topic at hand is just a start. Without doing the rest of the research and reviewing Case Law, subsequent decisions, Dissenting Opinions, and what the most recent interpretation of the decision is.

Your comment on an arrest being mandatory before a blood sample can be compelled is just wrong. Warrants are routinely issued for the collection of blood, DNA, Skin Samples, Hair Samples,and wound photographs. It is done in the State of Louisiana and all of the other 49 as well. When you get a Driver's Licences from the State of Louisiana you agree to submit to a Chemical Test if it is suspected you are driving while impaired. If you refuse to submit to the test you will be penalized.

If you kill someone in a Traffic Accident you are gonna bleed. You can do it the proverbial easy way or the hard way but its gonna go down. This will happen in all likely hood BEFORE you are arrested. I don't work traffic, well because I don't like it, but I have worked fatal crashes and I prefer to collect my evidence, finish my reconstruction and then get a Grand Jury True Bill BEFORE the offending party is arrested. If that party was intoxicated they still may not be arrested for several reasons including injury, or something as simple as jail space.

Im not trying to bust your chops I just think quoting a piece of a SCOTUS decision out of context and without the full spectrum of research behind it and then using it to make authoritative statements is reckless. In experience even the most experienced Judges and Attorneys are very careful about quoting the Justices without first doing some homework.

 

[posse comatosis]

NOLACOP wrote

proove it

The 4th Amendment provides:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

An exception is made in DWI cases for the necessity of a warrant on account of the immediate perishability of blood-borne substances that could be evidence of a crime. But, probable cause must exist for forced testing, same as for an arrest. As DWI suspects are as a rule not free to leave the scene, they are already under arrest before the matter of blood testing comes up.

This:

the right on the part of the government always recognized under English and American law to search the person of the accused when legally arrested, to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases. 1 Bishop.Criminal Procedure § 211; Wharton, Crim. Plead. & Practice 8th ed. § 60; Dillon v. O'Brien, 16 Cox C.C. 245.

See Weeks v. U.S.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/232/383/case.html

I misspoke when I wrote that an arrest is required before a forced blood test. The arrest has already gone down with the detention of the suspect. Consequently, the issue is mute. So I'm right, sort of, by default.

One more thing. Never trust anybody in a uniform :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_us_casualties
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/28/insurgents-in-us-army-uni_n_697856.html

Best of luck over there. Saving that beer until your safe return. Regards, posse.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

NOLACOP wrote


An exception is made in DWI cases for the necessity of a warrant on account of the immediate perishability of blood-borne substances that could be evidence of a crime. But, probable cause must exist for forced testing, same as for an arrest. As DWI suspects are as a rule not free to leave the scene, they are already under arrest before the matter of blood testing comes up.

This:


See Weeks v. U.S.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/232/383/case.html

I misspoke when I wrote that an arrest is required before a forced blood test. The arrest has already gone down with the detention of the suspect. Consequently, the issue is mute. So I'm right, sort of, by default.

One more thing. Never trust anybody in a uniform :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_us_casualties
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/28/insurgents-in-us-army-uni_n_697856.html

Best of luck over there. Saving that beer until your safe return. Regards, posse.

Your not even close to being right, but whatever, we have come to expect big words and irrelevant text from you.

Thanks for the well wishes. Stop being a troll so that we can enjoy that beer when I return. No warrant needed.

 

[posse comatosis]

Keeping it simple then:

 

[tunatuk]

Brannon, there's a case I know of like your example you posted.
A drunk illegal guy hit a car with 3 girls in it, killed 1 girl and hurt the other 2. The girl driver was also DWI.
The drunk girl didn't learn a damn thing from all of it. I heard she's totaled 3 cars since the crash and I watch her FB page and all she talks about is partying and getting wasted.

Was this in Ascension Parish? Christmas day a few years ago?

 

[posse comatosis]

Vanilla Gorilla, I appreciate your concern regarding the validity and accuracy of my posts. But even in the face of budgetary concerns and time constraints, I manage to maintain a higher degree of journalistic integrity than two of the nation's flagship newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post. They may spoon feed their readers absolute ********, but my bar is set higher.

No doubt, if the attending officer wants to force a blood test from you, you are gonna bleed for him or her. My point is a forced test conducted before an arrest would be ruled inadmissible in a court of law. It's my contention that arrest occurs when the suspect is not free to leave the scene. Your position is an arrest can come later after the test and guilt is indicated by the test and other evidence. Which scenario is right in Louisiana?

As a sidebar, the State of Texas will accept forced blood tests taken by it's state troopers in the field, holding you down if necessary. They haven't been trained yet, however. I don't know how it went this past weekend. But a cop with a needle coming at me while I'm lying pinned on a fire ant bed in a bar ditch to perform an invasive medical procedure doesn't strike me a something that is going to fly once it gets out of the state courts.

And no, I am not an attorney. I'm a bulldozer operator. Unfortunately, that kind of money doesn't allow fact checking like attorneys fees would. So face it. A lot of the time, I'm just wingin' it with subjective innuendo like the real media boys and girls do.

 

[charlie12]

Was this in Ascension Parish? Christmas day a few years ago?

10-4 that's her

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

You should review the legal definition of Arrest. Arrest and detainment are not the same thing. They are recognized by such in every court in the land. I think drawing a blood sample in a ditch is appalling, I doubt hat is the spirit of the law enacted in Texas. DPS is an excellent agency and I don't believe they intend to have troopers drawing blood on the shoulder of I-10. I'm sure they will do it in hospitals just like they do now. The difference will be that they actually will do the draw. Nurses have in the past botched my test so I am assuming it happens in Texas also. So if it makes you feel better to sensationalize things by sowing visions of people being held down in ditches and having their blood drawn then so be it.

Also a failed Chemical Test does not prove guilt. It is a piece of evidence, albeit a big one, but still just a piece. Arrest can occur whenever the Arresting Officer feels he has sufficient Probable Cause. It can either occur the moment said cause is established or anytime thereafter before the Statute of Limitation expires on the Offense. I Louisiana that gives me 1 year to arrest you for DUI.

 

[posse comatosis]

Yes, there is a difference between arrest and detention. My bad. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. And this is it:

But let me assure you, trust me, let me be clear on this. When you conduct a forced blood test, a suspect is in effect under legal arrest whether or not you have informed them as to that fact or not. An invasive body search is not sanctioned by the Terry Stop doctrine of detention.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Guys, please tell me you are not foolish enough to believe the actual LEO does the blood test, much less roadside. Everything is done in a hospital by certain licensed professionals. LEO are not trained for that kind of stuff.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

DPS Evidence Techs are going to start doing Blood Draws for that Agency when possible. PC, Terry is not applicable to this situation whatsoever. Terry deals with Reasonable Suspicion not Probable Cause. They are different standards.

 

[posse comatosis]

Nothing like the DA's office blowing a 1.0:

“It is constitutional (forced blood draw)...Any police officer can apply for a search warrant.” -- Norma Broussard, Assistant D.A., Jefferson Parish

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/102035268.html

 

[tunatuk]

10-4 that's her

Glad to hear the other 2 made it. I'm actually the cop that caught the guy 17 hrs later, when he blew a .174.

He took a plea though, and only got like 10 years, and then he's getting deported from my understanding. He's a piece of ****, and I should have given him my pistol and one round when he asked for it.

I know for a while, they weren't sure if one of the other girls was gonna make it...but I'm glad to hear they both pulled through.