6 ms·

In the US the police can take you directly to the hospital for a blood draw.

by justrealist 3y ago

xwdv 3y ago
Probably won’t though. It’s a pain in the ass.
- standardUser 3y ago
  And you rejecting a breathalyzer is a pain in their ass. I was on a jury for exactly such a case and it did not sound like the cops hesitated for one second to draw the guys blood.
- bragr 3y ago
  They definitely will. In the US, cops typically apply for an electronic warrant from the local on-call judge on the way to or at the hospital and a nurse will administer the blood draw. Go watch a couple DUI arrests on youtube, it's the most routine thing for the cops and medical staff.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    I have to say, in this particular case it seems like a reasonable approach, but the phrase "an electronic warrant from the local on-call judge" seems to be somewhat at odds with the purported purpose of a warrant.
    - bragr 3y ago
      In what way is that at odds? A search warrant just a affidavit of why you think (the visible signs of intoxication and/or field tests) you're going to find a particular something (booze/drugs) in a particular place (your blood) that's signed off by a judge so they can take it by force (hold you down and draw your blood if they have to). There's really no hearing or particular extra procedure on top of that. If the warrant is invalid, you challenge it at your trial to get the evidence suppressed, but not when it is issued. Procedurally there's no difference presenting that document to sign in person or electronically. In the old days, you might have had to drive the judge's house in the middle of the to have them physically sign something urgent, but we have email now. As for judges being on-call, that's just how many courts choose to divide up the labor.
    - earthling8118 3y ago
      The purpose of a warrant isn't their concern. That's just an annoying implementation detail that the system is happy to ignore.
- pliftkl 3y ago
  Depends a lot on the jurisdiction. In Austin, the police will declare "no-refusal" weekends (typically holidays) in which they declare in advance that they'll get a warrant for a blood draw in the case of refusals. If you look at the DUI arrest stats for those weekends, about half of them involve warrant based blood draws after breathalyzer refusals.
  - teamspirit 3y ago
    Does this imply on the other days one can refuse and not get their blood drawn? Otherwise, what's the point of a "no refusal weekend?"
    - justrealist 3y ago
      It's up to the judgement of the officer whether to get a draw at other times.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Locking up a drunk driver is worth the hassle.
MandieD 3y ago
In Germany, the police can do the blood draw themselves back at the station.
pvaldes 3y ago
This is the normal procedure in Spain when people refuse to blow also. What many people don't know is that the blood test is not only less convenient, but typically also more accurate. It gives a direct alcohol-in-blood measure, so is a higher value. Therefore the situation gets worse for the driver that does not comply. This assuming that the driver behave 100% politely against the police (not always the case in the mix idiot driving + booze) Starting to insult the police is just the cherry on top for winning an extra-juicy fine. Most Police will understand that having a tracheotomy is a reasonable excuse to avoid the blow test, and will pass directly to the blood test (or will decide to take other measures first according to the case). This people simply can't blow in a normal way, so can't perform the test accurately.
- stavros 3y ago
  > Therefore the situation gets worse for the driver that does not comply. You're assuming the breathalyzer always underreports. I don't drink, so if I ever get a high reading somehow, you bet I'm going in for a blood draw.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    I was thinking the very same thing! One's liver can process alcohol at a constant rate, thus if you consume a large amount of alcohol over a relatively long period of time, you may have less in your blood than a much smaller amount consumed immediately before driving. My knowledge ends there, but I would guess that the breathalyser would pick up stronger traces of that slow consumption of alcohol relative to the content in one's blood. Drinking alcohol gradually (or, in your case, not at all) before driving is clearly more responsible than consuming it quickly and immediately beforehand, and as a result it appears to me that the blood test would always be fairer: it more closely measures what makes one's driving erratic. Does anyone know of a jurisdiction where you can explicitly request a blood test?
    - pvaldes 3y ago
      The main problems could be to be diabetic (test will confuse acetone with alcohol, false positive), to have alive yeast in the intestine (true positive even without drinking, would still be drinking under the influence), or to work in a lab (false positive, normally). You could have a false negative also, but that would be a problem by different reasons. You can request a blood test explicitly any time that you are required to pass the breath analyzer, the problem is that the movement could backfire and not play in your best interest. It will happen if you fail the breath analyzer test by a lot I talking about Europe, the laws in your country can be different, but is obvious that a driver with a tracheotomy should not lose their license just because they have a hole in the neck and are unable to use a breath-analyzer. They can always comply on doing a blood test. Common sense should be applied by the law enforcers.
x86x87 3y ago
And that's fine. Breathalyzers and worse field sobriety tests are a sham. If the cop is not willing to take you in for a blood draw he is fishing.
- justrealist 3y ago
  That's a narrative pushed by lawyers who are trying to get people out of DUIs. Yes blood is better but if you blow a .2 no you are not sober.
  - x86x87 3y ago
    If you think that the cops are 1/ properly trained 2/ will do the right thing 3/ have your best interest in mind you're going to have a bad time. This is not about being sober (hopefully everyone is driving sober). This is about making sure that your rights are respected. By the time the cop asks you do to any sort of test they have already made up their mind and now are trying to justify it. Do yourself a favor and ask for the blood test - that is usually administered by a trained medical professional.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      I don't drink so no I'm not going to waste 4 hours being driven to a hospital to confirm that I have a BAC of 0.
      - x86x87 3y ago
        your choice. people choose convenience every day with sometimes disastrous results.

In the US the police can take you directly to the hospital for a blood draw.

xwdv 3y ago

Probably won’t though. It’s a pain in the ass.

standardUser 3y ago
And you rejecting a breathalyzer is a pain in their ass. I was on a jury for exactly such a case and it did not sound like the cops hesitated for one second to draw the guys blood.
bragr 3y ago
They definitely will. In the US, cops typically apply for an electronic warrant from the local on-call judge on the way to or at the hospital and a nurse will administer the blood draw. Go watch a couple DUI arrests on youtube, it's the most routine thing for the cops and medical staff.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  I have to say, in this particular case it seems like a reasonable approach, but the phrase "an electronic warrant from the local on-call judge" seems to be somewhat at odds with the purported purpose of a warrant.
  - bragr 3y ago
    In what way is that at odds? A search warrant just a affidavit of why you think (the visible signs of intoxication and/or field tests) you're going to find a particular something (booze/drugs) in a particular place (your blood) that's signed off by a judge so they can take it by force (hold you down and draw your blood if they have to). There's really no hearing or particular extra procedure on top of that. If the warrant is invalid, you challenge it at your trial to get the evidence suppressed, but not when it is issued. Procedurally there's no difference presenting that document to sign in person or electronically. In the old days, you might have had to drive the judge's house in the middle of the to have them physically sign something urgent, but we have email now. As for judges being on-call, that's just how many courts choose to divide up the labor.
  - earthling8118 3y ago
    The purpose of a warrant isn't their concern. That's just an annoying implementation detail that the system is happy to ignore.
pliftkl 3y ago
Depends a lot on the jurisdiction. In Austin, the police will declare "no-refusal" weekends (typically holidays) in which they declare in advance that they'll get a warrant for a blood draw in the case of refusals. If you look at the DUI arrest stats for those weekends, about half of them involve warrant based blood draws after breathalyzer refusals.
- teamspirit 3y ago
  Does this imply on the other days one can refuse and not get their blood drawn? Otherwise, what's the point of a "no refusal weekend?"
  - justrealist 3y ago
    It's up to the judgement of the officer whether to get a draw at other times.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Locking up a drunk driver is worth the hassle.

MandieD 3y ago

In Germany, the police can do the blood draw themselves back at the station.

pvaldes 3y ago

This is the normal procedure in Spain when people refuse to blow also. What many people don't know is that the blood test is not only less convenient, but typically also more accurate. It gives a direct alcohol-in-blood measure, so is a higher value. Therefore the situation gets worse for the driver that does not comply. This assuming that the driver behave 100% politely against the police (not always the case in the mix idiot driving + booze) Starting to insult the police is just the cherry on top for winning an extra-juicy fine. Most Police will understand that having a tracheotomy is a reasonable excuse to avoid the blow test, and will pass directly to the blood test (or will decide to take other measures first according to the case). This people simply can't blow in a normal way, so can't perform the test accurately.

stavros 3y ago
> Therefore the situation gets worse for the driver that does not comply. You're assuming the breathalyzer always underreports. I don't drink, so if I ever get a high reading somehow, you bet I'm going in for a blood draw.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  I was thinking the very same thing! One's liver can process alcohol at a constant rate, thus if you consume a large amount of alcohol over a relatively long period of time, you may have less in your blood than a much smaller amount consumed immediately before driving. My knowledge ends there, but I would guess that the breathalyser would pick up stronger traces of that slow consumption of alcohol relative to the content in one's blood. Drinking alcohol gradually (or, in your case, not at all) before driving is clearly more responsible than consuming it quickly and immediately beforehand, and as a result it appears to me that the blood test would always be fairer: it more closely measures what makes one's driving erratic. Does anyone know of a jurisdiction where you can explicitly request a blood test?
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    The main problems could be to be diabetic (test will confuse acetone with alcohol, false positive), to have alive yeast in the intestine (true positive even without drinking, would still be drinking under the influence), or to work in a lab (false positive, normally). You could have a false negative also, but that would be a problem by different reasons. You can request a blood test explicitly any time that you are required to pass the breath analyzer, the problem is that the movement could backfire and not play in your best interest. It will happen if you fail the breath analyzer test by a lot I talking about Europe, the laws in your country can be different, but is obvious that a driver with a tracheotomy should not lose their license just because they have a hole in the neck and are unable to use a breath-analyzer. They can always comply on doing a blood test. Common sense should be applied by the law enforcers.

x86x87 3y ago

And that's fine. Breathalyzers and worse field sobriety tests are a sham. If the cop is not willing to take you in for a blood draw he is fishing.

justrealist 3y ago
That's a narrative pushed by lawyers who are trying to get people out of DUIs. Yes blood is better but if you blow a .2 no you are not sober.
- x86x87 3y ago
  If you think that the cops are 1/ properly trained 2/ will do the right thing 3/ have your best interest in mind you're going to have a bad time. This is not about being sober (hopefully everyone is driving sober). This is about making sure that your rights are respected. By the time the cop asks you do to any sort of test they have already made up their mind and now are trying to justify it. Do yourself a favor and ask for the blood test - that is usually administered by a trained medical professional.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    I don't drink so no I'm not going to waste 4 hours being driven to a hospital to confirm that I have a BAC of 0.
    - x86x87 3y ago
      your choice. people choose convenience every day with sometimes disastrous results.