Blood Driving Proposal

1322 Words6 Pages
Refusal May Mean Mandatory Blood Draw One of America’s most committed and deadliest crimes is impaired driving. All states and districts have established the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 as the limit. In 2010 10,228 people died in traffic crashes in which at least one driver was at or over the legal limit (Traffic Safety Marketing, 2010, p. 1). In efforts to save more lives on our public highways the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been working alongside state and local governments, as well as, numerous nonprofit research organizations by providing grant money to study the effects of impaired driving and help to establish harsher laws. A study currently be conducted, and is implemented…show more content…
S. Supreme Court decided blood could be drawn in the DWI case of Schmerber v. California in 1966. In 1985 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Skinner noted in Winston v. Lee “the drawing of blood constitutes only a minimally intrusive search. Blood tests do not infringe significant privacy interest.” In 1995 two Department of Public Safety (DPS) Troopers in Arizona were certified in phlebotomy. A Texas police officer in 2002 successfully used a search warrant to retrieve blood in a DWI case. By 2005 city law enforcement of Dalworthington Gardens, TX became the first to only request blood through warrants. The No Refusal program was created in 2006. The No Refusal program was implemented by 2007, not only in Texas, but eight other states including Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Utah. The first grants for the program was awarded by the Texas Department of Transportation in 2009. The U.S. DOT and NHTSA as of 2010 have endorsed No Refusal and granted more money for research to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in cities like Virginia Beach, Virginia (Governors Highway Safety Association, 2011, p.1). Ohio has remained a “home rule” state on the program, which leaves the implementation of the program up to the local jurisdictions (Rittgers, C. H., Rittgers E. B., 2011, p.1). Idaho and Texas have been drawing blood in the field for training since 2009; if the results of this training prove to be promising, NHTSA…show more content…
Some states have have left it to local agencies to implement the program. The most common argument at all levels of government is the impediment of the 4th amendment which, among other things, assures citizens protection from unreasonable search and seizures. State and local governments have primarily debated the explanation of what is unreasonable and constitutes probable cause. In 2011 a Florida appellate court ruled, officials cannot forcibly draw blood from a driver in a misdemeanor DUI case, still the State Attorney continues to push for the policy to be accepted for felony DUI. Many lawyers and other citizens argue this subjects them to unreasonable searches and it over steps the United States Governments limited powers (Limhardt, A., 2011, para. 1). Texas state law authorized the blood draw policy in Austin on suspects refusing the breathalyzer during the July 4th weekend of 2012 when many were celebrating freedom and independence. Critics of the policy in the Austin area, which included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated concerns of threats on civil liberties, validity of search warrants and medical privacy (Henry, L., 2012, p. 2). Scott Semrau of Semrau Law Firm in Georgia thinks the policy is “cops gone wild”.

More about Blood Driving Proposal

Open Document