DISCUSS: Supreme Court to look at DWI blood draws

samcro, people that tailgate are scum. People that don't use their blinkers are scum. People that cross 2 lanes of traffic so they can make their exit are scum. People that squeeze between two cars then put on the brakes are scum. Why? because they think of themselves 24/7/365, put many more people in harm's way--and RARELY get caught. And, since an accident they cause is behind them, they get away scott-free.

All good points. Here's another. If you have a Texas DL, you already gave written consent to draw blood when you signed for the issuance of your DL. So, if a consent is already on record for you and through the consumtion of alcohol "intoxication", you are no longer able to make sane rational decisions and change your mind/refuse, why shouldn't the blood draw happen. Hmmm.

Yes, let's just toss the 5th Amendment out the window. Wonder which one will be next ?

Drunk drivers are scum...but this goes against our civil rights and these days with NDAA and the patriot act to many of our rights are being trashed! DUE PROCESS, ILLIGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE just to name a few of ways this policy violates our rights! They also want to set up road blocks...this violates probable cause! Last Christmas with my entire family in the car a drunk driver plowed into us from behind and he just took off we followed him to his home called the police and get this they could not do anything because he made it to his home and got inside. There are many problems with our system but do not infringe on my constitutional rights!

Ok, so here's my two cents into this matter. First, I don't condone drinking and driving. Drunks that are caught doing so deserve to get punished for their actions. That said, the no refusal blood draw does concern me a bit due to the fact that, IF a cop suspects you of being drunk, they can get a blood draw to, force a conviction on a "suspect" without due process in our judicial system. Therefore, you have a higher conviction rate. This seems similar to the Salem witch trials in which someone suspected another of being a witch, they would bring that suspect and forcibly (by any means necessary) gain a confession and admission of guilt without due process. Some will go on to say, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry. Let me assure you that, police can lie to you to get a confession from you and that is perfectly legal. Why do you think that a cop (who is sworn to uphold the law), will not do a field sobriety test, will not blow into the breathalyzer machine and will refuse to have his blood drawn when they get caught driving drunk? Ask yourself WHY yet, they expect the general public to be the sheep for the slaughter. The problem that I see when someone says, "If you have nothing to hide" is that this very same statement is used extensively by the police and is only a way to gain entry into your privacy therefore, surrendering your rights on this pretense that you have nothing to worry. I believe that at times this very statement has led to unreasonable search and seizures, racial profiling, entrapment etc. The interesting part here is that the very same cops that are here to protect us are sometimes the same ones that fall to this DWI epidemic but, they do not play by the same rules. When we can answer that, then we may have an answer and better understaning why!

People, people, don't get too emotional. Isn't the blood draw supposed to be only for people who REFUSE to blow on the brethalizer device? So in reality the cops are not stopping people left and right and taking them to Dracula's Castle to have their blood sucked. However, I'm concerned when it comes to innocent people who refuse to play the game some idiotic cops want to play, usually for the dash-cam benefit, hoping to be on TV one of these days. I'm sure there are better ways to prove if a person is wasted or not. By the way, you can have a couple of drinks and drive, if you are under the limit. But once a cop says he "smelled alcohol" in your breath, specially in an accident, then you are gonna have a hell of a time fighting the judicial system, and in many times the people giving the breathalizer tests lie or manipulate the results to make it look like you were over the limit. Now that's a crime.

@ rhancox,when ur daughter gets killed by a drunk driver like ours did, then talk to me about emotions. Will see how u feel then. I will always have something to say about this BS!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but if you're not drinking and driving you have nothing to hide and as long as the person drawing the blood is certified, trained professional medical staff then draw away!

Walter, our right to not self-incriminate doesn't include giving up evidence against us. If that were true, our prisons would be ghost towns. With proper cause, I have no problem with getting a blood draw from a suspected drunk driver. The question is, can field sobriety test results be considered proper cause? Is just the "smell of alcohol" on someone's breath good enough? These are judgements made by a person, who may or may not have a hidden agenda. I would think something more concrete than a person's opinion would be required to show proper cause. Addressing the "general good of the public" issue, for a moment, I've never been in favor of that stance. We could apply that to all kinds of areas, like gun control or preventing auto accidents. Interpretation of law depends a lot upon precedence. If one case was ruled a certain way, then a similar case could be ruled the same way. If we want to invoke public safety as a reason for roadside checkpoints, then why not use it to stop people to make sure they don't illegally possess a firearm? Most murders by firearm, I'm sure, are committed using an illegally possessed weapon. Wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to stop people on the street and check them for illegal weapons? My point is, it's a slippery slope. We could lose a ton of rights in the interest of public safety. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

GoGo1971, there is no place in law for emotion. You can't violate someone's rights just because your relative was a victim. A relative of a victim is understandably angry at the perpetrator, but that's also why they couldn't serve as a juror, lawyer or judge in such a case. Victims certainly have rights, but they have nothing to do with how a defendant is processed through the court system. It's not a victim's right to make sure the perpetrator is guilty. That is supposed to be the result of the defendant's right to a fair trial.