Topic: Police Say Syringes Will Help Stop Drunk Driving

[46&2]

Police say syringes will help stop drunk driving


By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press Writer Rebecca Boone, Associated Press Writer – Sun Sep 13, 2:56 pm ET

BOISE, Idaho – 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.

It's all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program's aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it's still the main reason that drunk driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study.

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can't hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that's been upheld by Idaho's Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation's highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

The practice of cops drawing blood, implemented first in 1995 in Arizona, has also raised concerns about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

"I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle," said Steve Oberman, chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' DUI Committee.

The officer phlebotomists are generally trained under the same program as their state's hospital or clinical phlebotomists, but they do it under a highly compressed schedule, and some of the curriculum is cut.

That's because officers don't need to know how to draw blood from a foot or other difficult sites, or from an infant or medically fragile patient, said Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers.

Instead, they are trained on the elbow crease, the forearm and the back of the hand. If none are accessible, they'll take the suspect to the hospital for testing.

In a nondescript Boise office building where the Nampa officers were trained, Dowell scanned his subject and prepared to draw blood. Chase Abston, an officer taking his turn playing a suspect, recoiled a bit, pressing his back deeper into the gray pleather chair.

Dowell slid a fine-gauge needle into the back of Abston's hand. Abston, who had been holding his breath, slowly exhaled as his blood began to flow.

All the officers seemed like they'd be more comfortable if their colleagues were wielding sidearms instead of syringes. But halfway through the second day of training, with about 10 venipunctures each under their belts, they relaxed enough to trade barbs alongside needle jabs.

They're making quick progress, Watson said. Their training will be complete after they have logged 75 successful blood draws.

Once they're back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They'll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.

Though most legal experts agree blood tests measure blood alcohol more accurately than breath tests, Oberman said the tests can be fraught with problems, too.

Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off, or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and boosting the alcohol content.

Oberman said law enforcement agencies should also be concerned "about possible malpractice cases over somebody who was not properly trained."

Alan Haywood, Arizona's law enforcement phlebotomy coordinator who is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas, said officers are exposed to some extra on-the-job risk if they draw blood, but that any concern is mitigated by good training and safe practices.

"If we can't get the evidence safely, we're not going to endanger the officers or the public to collect that evidence," he said.

The Phoenix Police Department only uses blood tests for impaired driving cases. Detective Kemp Layden, who oversees drug recognition, phlebotomy and field sobriety, said the city now has about 120 officers certified to draw blood. Typically, a suspect is brought to a precinct or mobile booking van for the blood draw.

Under the state's implied consent law, drivers who refuse to voluntarily submit to the test lose their license for a year, so most comply. For the approximately 5 percent who refuse, the officer obtains a search warrant from an on-call judge and the suspect can be restrained if needed to obtain a sample, Layden said.

Between 300 to 400 blood tests are done in an average month in the nation's fifth-largest city.

During holiday months that number can rise to 500, said Layden, who reviews each case to make sure legal procedures were followed.

Outside of Arizona, some law enforcement agencies in Utah have officer phlebotomists, and police in Dalworthington Gardens, Texas are cross-trained as paramedics and have been drawing blood for about three years. The NHTSA is in talks with Houston, Texas about doing the phlebotomy training there, he said.

They're all attracted by Arizona's anecdotal evidence.

"What we found was that the refusal rates of chemical testing lowered significantly since this program began," Haywood said. "Arizona we had about a 20 percent refusal rate in 1995, and today we see about an 8 to 9 percent refusal rate."

___

Associated Press writer Bob Christie in Phoenix contributed to this report.

--------------


Thoughts on this?

[junya92toy]

I dont drink and drive but if they happened to me I would sue for assault with a dangerous weapon.

[Stocker]

So an officer is unable to hold down an uncooperative suspect and force him to breathe into a tube. But the same officer -- who may be a law enforcement professional but is certainly not a medical professional -- is expected to hold down the same uncooperative suspect, insert a needle into his vein and successfully draw an uncontaminated blood sample.

Yeah, what could go wrong with that?

I don't drink at all, and I often tend to side with law enforcement, and I hate lawsuits.....  but I smell lawsuit all over that scenario.

[NoPower]

Wow all I can say is thats CRAZY

[axled89]

yah man!     when i get my blood drawn i get kinda    dizzy.   and they expect you to drive after that.   
   i don't think so.     i have the right to refuse service to anybody.      :bull crap:    this is america we have rights.

[WHITE_TRASH]

The nation's highest court ruled in 1966 that police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, as long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

Huh, didn't seem to phase them with kennedy's drunk driving murder of a staffer... 




I can see this being helpful in a very few select cases but overall I do not see a need for it. 

[dweinberg01]

Where I work, we have nurses that respond to the jail to do the blood draw.  If someone wants to refuse, we do a forced blood draw, we have a policy as to how to do it. It's not like we are rollin on the ground trying to pin the person down.  We basically force them to sit in a chair and the nurse won't approach until the person is secure and unable to move. 

[axled89]

sounds like a nut house.   are you nuts?   

[Stocker]

Where I work, we have nurses that respond to the jail to do the blood draw.  If someone wants to refuse, we do a forced blood draw, we have a policy as to how to do it. It's not like we are rollin on the ground trying to pin the person down.  We basically force them to sit in a chair and the nurse won't approach until the person is secure and unable to move. 

I can appreciate that. However, the following from the above article makes me wonder if that's SOP in Idaho or elsewhere.

Officers can't hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood —

Once they're back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They'll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.

Maybe you can help me understand how, short of knocking the suspect unconscious, you can safely insert the needle into the vein and draw blood if the suspect is struggling. Multiple arm (and leg?) straps to a very sturdy chair, maybe?

[abnormaltoy]

I don't drink, so the odds of it happening to me are slim. I just can't see it working, I've seen guys on PCP (in the olden days) fight off six or seven officers...break a needle off in someone and the deep doodoo will start to flow.

[Trunkz]

quite frankly not having many blood samples taken or ivs or that matter, ive had experienced nurses tear my vien before (complete accident) so if a road piggy wanted to puncture my vein i would take great exception to it

[79yota350]

The article clearly states AFTER the arrest has been made.  The suspect is already detained and restrained. And the arresting officer would need probable cause for arrest.  I think the point is being missed.  If your piss drunk and are already arrested it simply means that an officer can take the sample instead of having to take you to the hospital to have the procedure done causing more cost and time in the hospital.  Your not going to have needle wielding officers taking blood on suspicion of drunk driving, this would be administered long after you fell on your ass trying to pass a field sobriety test.

[BLACKDOG]

Sounds like they just need to make the law more clear. 

Here in NV, if you are pulled over for drunk driving, a field sobriety test is performed.  If the officer has reasonable suspicion based on the field sobriety test, they ask whether you'd like to submit to a breath test or a blood test.  You have your choice of either one.  If you submit to a preliminary breath test in the field, and it is over .08, you'll be arrested, and taken to the jail.  Once you get to the jail, they will either take a blood test or a breath test there, once again your choice. 

I believe you can also request a blood test instead of the preliminary breath test, but you've got to go to the jail for that. Not positive though.

If you refuse testing, you are automatically arrested, you lose your license for a year, and you will undergo a blood test at the jail. 

Basically, if you refuse testing, you lose your license for a year, automatically.  This is spelled out on your DL application, and when you sign it, you agree to it.  The application is a binding contract. 

Remember, driving is a privelidge, not a right.


I see many issues with a cop being allowed to take blood in the field, as the article implies.

[Trunkz]

Remember, driving is a privelidge, not a right.

i dont drink anymore, and i never drove after having even 1. but its amazing how many people think that just because it is not directly enumerated in the constitution it is not a right.

9th ammendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
10th ammendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

of course i should not be supprised, our 1st 2nd 4th and 5th ammendment rights get violated constantly....

[BLACKDOG]

i dont drink anymore, and i never drove after having even 1. but its amazing how many people think that just because it is not directly enumerated in the constitution it is not a right.

9th ammendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
10th ammendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

of course i should not be supprised, our 1st 2nd 4th and 5th ammendment rights get violated constantly....

You are absolutely correct.  However, per the 10th amendment, the states have used their power to set up their driving licensing programs to establish the fact that it is not a right, but a privelidge.  Both drivers license applications that I have filled out (in CA and NV) have stated that in more words obviously.  By signing those contracts, you agree that it is not a right but a privelidge, and you agree to abide by the rules of that state. 

[Trunkz]

i totally agree with you, but i must add:

if i get arrested for dui (suspected) and they haul me off to the station, and someone in a blue uniform that refers to me as a civilian is going to stick a needle in one of my veins they can shove that priviledged liscence where the sun dont shine. people have died and or lost limbs to infection from inproperly used needles... (tear a vein, dirty needle, both etc.) and i really dont think that the badge they have on thier chest qualifies them for this operation.

my sister is an emt, you would not believe the amount of training thats required (well you might bd) for her to be able to give an iv. judging by the local police force hear im beginning to think that spelling thier name correctly is a bit more of a challenge than most people would realize

[46&2 [OP]]

i totally agree with you, but i must add:

if i get arrested for dui (suspected) and they haul me off to the station, and someone in a blue uniform that refers to me as a civilian is going to stick a needle in one of my veins they can shove that priviledged liscence where the sun dont shine. people have died and or lost limbs to infection from inproperly used needles... (tear a vein, dirty needle, both etc.) and i really dont think that the badge they have on thier chest qualifies them for this operation.

my sister is an emt, you would not believe the amount of training thats required (well you might bd) for her to be able to give an iv. judging by the local police force hear im beginning to think that spelling thier name correctly is a bit more of a challenge than most people would realize

The first thing that came to mind when I read this article was the medical clinic in Las Vegas that was found to have reused thousands of dirty needles. If we can't even trust medical professionals in some instances (I know this is not representative of all medical professionals, but the point remains) I am very wary of police using and potentially abusing this themselves. I see a lot of potential for abuse or malpractice with this.

[BLACKDOG]

i totally agree with you, but i must add:

if i get arrested for dui (suspected) and they haul me off to the station, and someone in a blue uniform that refers to me as a civilian is going to stick a needle in one of my veins they can shove that priviledged liscence where the sun dont shine. people have died and or lost limbs to infection from inproperly used needles... (tear a vein, dirty needle, both etc.) and i really dont think that the badge they have on thier chest qualifies them for this operation.

my sister is an emt, you would not believe the amount of training thats required (well you might bd) for her to be able to give an iv. judging by the local police force hear im beginning to think that spelling thier name correctly is a bit more of a challenge than most people would realize

I agree with you fully in that aspect.  In the situation I mentioned above in Reno, the drawing of blood is done by a medical professional, not a badge.

IMO, it should remain so, and the drawing of blood certainly shouldn't be preformed in the field (as the article implies).  In the jail, when they take your blood after your refusal to submit willingly to testing, you're strapped down, and all you can move is your fingers.  No matter what actions you take, you can't garantee that immobility in the field.  Its just safer and better for all involved to stick to a breath test, or leave the blood drawing to the medical professionals. 

[46&2 [OP]]

I agree with you fully in that aspect.  In the situation I mentioned above in Reno, the drawing of blood is done by a medical professional, not a badge.

IMO, it should remain so, and the drawing of blood certainly shouldn't be preformed in the field (as the article implies).  In the jail, when they take your blood after your refusal to submit willingly to testing, you're strapped down, and all you can move is your fingers.  No matter what actions you take, you can't garantee that immobility in the field.  Its just safer and better for all involved to stick to a breath test, or leave the blood drawing to the medical professionals. 

I agree 100%.

[axled89]

     i'm sure they will have a lawsuit sooner or later.    some religion or some crap like that.    how about just not drinking and driving.      i guess i just hold my CDL tight.  don't want to loose it.

[Trunkz]

just wait till they get someone with an extreme needle phobia in the chair! wasnt there someone on death row that got a reprieve because he was afraid of needles? do murderers have more rights than drivers?

[BLACKDOG]

just wait till they get someone with an extreme needle phobia in the chair! wasnt there someone on death row that got a reprieve because he was afraid of needles? do murderers have more rights than drivers?

Unfortunately, yes.

At least it seems that way