Forced bood draws if you refuse breathalyzer.

[stevelyn]

So if not by blood draw how would you have the police determine if a driver is intoxicated or not? Though the whole forced blood draw thing does seem to scream fifth amendment violation. I'd be curious to see how much oversight there is on the warrants issued for the draws and how much of a rubber stamp parade they are.

In AK you don't have to prove level of intoxication. You have to prove that the person's driving was impaired, which can be from any number of reasons. Also, 'Refusal" incurrs an additional charge and carries the same mandatory penalties.

IOW, I don't give a *expletive deleted*it whether you submit a breath sample or not. My case was already made with or without it. The only thing it cost me is an additional check-the-box complaint form reflecting the extra charge and an extra sentence or two on the affidavit.

We can only do a forced blood draw in the event the at-fault driver is involved in an injury or fatality MVA. There is no provision in law for an involuntary blood draw under any other circumstance. However, DUI suspects do have the option of an independent voluntary blood draw, if they wish to contest the results of the breath test instrument.

[agricola]

Can you physically force someone to take a breathalyzer?

Nope, but refusal will always result in either arrest (at the roadside) or charge (at the station). 

[cordex]

Though the whole forced blood draw thing does seem to scream fifth amendment violation. I'd be curious to see how much oversight there is on the warrants issued for the draws and how much of a rubber stamp parade they are.

It seems pretty rubber-stampy, if only because it happens an awful lot so everyone has the procedure down.

BobR is right inasmuch as there is significant incentive to refuse tests and take the license suspension.  Drunks (and their lawyers) understand that it is often the best choice they have.  Cops and prosecutors know that drunks know that, so police start out the process collecting observations that can be used to either obtain the necessary warrants or bolster a DUI charge from the very beginning.  All part of the arms race.

[Tallpine]

If there wasn't sufficient evidence of erratic driving to begin with, why are the cops stopping the person 

[Jamisjockey]

If there wasn't sufficient evidence of erratic driving to begin with, why are the cops stopping the person 

Here in Texas they combine forced blood draws with roadblocks.  No suspicion needed, comrade! You are all suspects!

[Tallpine]

Here in Texas they combine forced blood draws with roadblocks.  No suspicion needed, comrade! You are all suspects!

Why bother with all those messy trials and stuff?  While they have them strapped down on the table they could just go ahead and execute 

[tokugawa]

The whole  drunk driving thing is way overblown. Just another excuse for the cop state.  Those laws stop drunks about as often as gun control stops criminals, and they both have the the same unconstitutional  assumption- that because someone MIGHT injure another, that pro active measures are warranted against all. If someone causes an accident, then charge them and try them.

 And they share another similarity as well, since they don't work to start with, the laws  keep getting more and more restrictive-if they keep it up ,soon your aftershave will push your blood alcohol content "over the limit".
 

[MechAg94]

Here in Texas they combine forced blood draws with roadblocks.  No suspicion needed, comrade! You are all suspects!

Where are the road blocks you speak of?  I haven't seen that. 

I have heard of the blood draws with a warrant.  MADD has been pretty powerful in Texas for a while.  There probably is some push back against them, but not enough yet to force more reasonable laws. 

[MechAg94]

Nooz? Texas has been at this *expletive deleted* for a while.  Tell me again how much more free Texas is.....I punch you!

Funny, I don't think I have ever heard anyone bragging that Texas is more free, certainly not in the last several years.  All I ever hear about it is out of staters complaining.   

[SADShooter]

Funny, I don't think I have ever heard anyone bragging that Texas is more free, certainly not in the last several years.  All I ever hear about it is out of staters complaining.   

At least we can actually buy firearms manufactured here...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Those laws stop drunks about as often as gun control stops criminals,

your fantasy differs with reality
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-533451.html

[tokugawa]

Your reading comprehension is in fail mode-  posting a news article about drunk driving stat's in various States in no way invalidates my assertion that laws do not do anything to reduce drunk driving, with especial regard to the new ultra low limits being proposed.
 

[Balog]

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

Have a beer and get rear ended at a stoplight with a .001 BAC? ZOMG it's a drunk driving accident!!!!!

There's no evidence in the link that the laws are responsible for the death rate from "drunk driving." How much of that correlates to better, safer cars reducing overall fatalities for example? And how many of the folks who actually did get in accidents due to intoxication were at .08 vs .15 or .2?

However, let's say that more laws does equal less drunk driving deaths. Are we willing to make that trade? Are road blocks and mandatory seraches/tests/blood draws a reasonable infringement to accept for a small decrease in fatalities, or is that an unreasonable search and seizure? Shall we ban swimming pools because it would undoubtedly prevent children from drowning?