[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Warrant for blood tests in DWI cases increasing (Austin, Tx) When police pulled over the 1982 Oldsmobile in North Austin in June, they said, Jesus Gonzales Aguirre had a broken taillight and had failed to use his turn signal. Officers soon suspected Aguirre, who also had his infant son in the car, of something more serious: He had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and smelled of alcohol, according to court documents. He also had an open bottle of Budweiser and beer on his shirt. In Austin, obtaining warrants for blood tests is now done primarily by DWI officers such as Michael Rhone. 'There is no reason we can't have patrol people who are trained in this,' Assistant Chief David Carter said. Austin officer Michele Aparicio's cruiser features a picture of Jacqueline Saburido, who received disfiguring burns when she was trapped in a car that was struck by a drunken driver. Despite such campaigns, Texas' alcohol-related highway death numbers are high. Aguirre participated in a field sobriety test — officers wrote in reports that he swayed and lost his balance — but refused when police asked him to do a Breathalyzer exam. So investigators took what is becoming an increasingly common step among Texas law officers: They got a judge to sign an order requiring Aguirre to roll up his sleeves and submit to a blood test as soon as he got to the Travis County Jail. Aguirre's lawyer said he thinks the test violated his client's constitutional rights protecting people from unreasonable searches and seizures. "We are against any type of test being taken without consent," said attorney Arnold Garcia, who is still fighting Aguirre's case after he was charged with felony DWI because he had a child in the car. From small Texas towns to big cities such as Austin and Fort Worth, the practice of using search warrants — traditionally reserved for entering homes and businesses or seizing private property — to obtain the blood of drunken driving suspects is sweeping the state. In recent months, some law enforcement agencies have begun taking blood in cases in which a suspect is thought to have caused an accident and refused to take a Breathalyzer exam. Others have started doing it when drivers have previous DWI convictions. In Dalworthington Gardens, near Fort Worth, police leaders have trained officers to do blood draws at the police station in every DWI case. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials say the practice, which courts in Texas have upheld on appeal, represents a get-tough approach to reducing the number of alcohol-related deaths on Texas roads by bolstering evidence to ensure convictions. The state has the second-highest number of alcohol-related highway deaths, just behind California, with more than 1,569 people killed in 2005. Authorities say the state also has among the highest number of drunken driving suspects — about 45 percent — who refuse to participate in Breathalyzer exams. However, defense attorneys and civil libertarians say that obtaining blood samples from drunken driving suspects is an unnecessary invasion. Police should be confident in their cases without the added evidence, they say, particularly in instances when the arrests are recorded by patrol car cameras. "It seems like an overly invasive procedure to obtain evidence," said David Frank, an Austin defense attorney who specializes in DWI cases. "The invasion into the body is a much more significant invasion than what we usually think of in terms of searching for evidence." Authorities throughout the state say it is too soon to know whether using blood samples is affecting the number of DWI convictions. Most cases in which police used blood tests for DWI arrests are pending. Austin police began asking judges to grant such orders last year — Aguirre's arrest was the first instance — and have since collected blood from more than 50 suspects. Officers who specialize in drunken driving arrests have the authority to request such warrants, but department leaders are now trying to decide whether they will give all officers the option. "We are serious about this offense," Assistant Chief David Carter said. "We recognize the sheer number of lives lost here in Austin is a serious matter, and we are looking for whatever tools, whatever help we can get, to reduce the number of traffic fatalities. That is the bottom line." 'Hiding evidence' The idea of routinely using search warrants to get blood samples from drunken driving suspects originated in the Panhandle. By the summer of 2003, Jim English, the district attorney of Deaf Smith County southwest of Amarillo, had grown tired of losing cases in which suspects refused to take Breathalyzer exams. "Hiding evidence," he called it. He was reading a court opinion in which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had upheld the use of a search warrant to get a blood sample from a drunken driving suspect in a West Texas case. "I just thought, 'Why don't we do that routinely?' " English said. He met with the Hereford police chief and county sheriff, who supported the idea. Then English created a standard search warrant that officers and deputies could fill out, and he arranged for county judges to sign them at their homes if the arrests happened in the middle of the night. The Texas District and County Attorneys Association learned about what English was doing and included it in a statewide journal. The practice began spreading, first to Tarrant County in mid-2005. That July, Dalworthington Gardens police leaders met and decided to use search warrants to get blood from all drunken driving suspects. For years, the department had taken them to a Breathalyzer machine in Arlington about 12 miles away. They've ended that practice and now use only blood samples. Deputy Chief Jerry Vennum said the department has arranged for officers to take warrants to magistrate judges' homes for their signatures. The department also has trained officers in how to collect the samples, which are taken to a Texas Department of Public Safety lab in Garland for testing. Dalworthington officers have taken about 100 samples since 2005, Vennum said. Suspects in about 35 cases have pleaded guilty; the other cases are still pending, he said. Vennum said the practice has saved the department from having to pay overtime for officers to attend court hearings and trials. Austin police Lt. Craig Cannon said officials in the department's highway enforcement division began looking into the practice last year and started using it a couple of weeks later in certain drunken driving cases. The handful of officers at the department who primarily handle DWI enforcement might seek search warrants for cases in which drivers are suspected of felony drunken driving, which would include driving with children in the car or instances in which a person has been convicted of DWI in the past five years and when drivers caused an accident. Supervisors must sign off on the warrants. Suspects' blood is drawn by a nurse at the Travis County Jail and taken to the Austin police forensic center, where it is tested. Results are quickly sent back to the DWI team and included in information sent to prosecutors. As of this month, DWI officers have collected blood samples from 54 of more than 1,500 suspected drunken drivers. Police officials said they hope to decide in coming weeks how and if they will expand the program. "There is no reason we can't have patrol people who are trained in this," Carter said. Rights vs. results Texas law allows drivers to refuse to participate in Breathalyzer exams, but courts have ruled that such refusals can be used against them in court. Clay Abbott, DWI resource prosecutor for the county and district attorneys association, said that state lawmakers have tried numerous times in recent years to require drivers to take Breathalyzer exams but that the measures have failed. Court rulings in Texas and across the United States also support using search warrants to take the blood of drunken driving suspects who refuse to take Breathalyzer exams. Prosecutors say that law enforcement officers must show judges why they think the suspect is drunk, such as whether they smelled of alcohol or were swerving, but that judges generally sign the warrants. DWI defense attorney Jamie Balagia hasn't had a client whose blood was drawn for a drunken driving case. But he's already got a court strategy. Balagia said he'd first examine whether the officers had enough reason to obtain the warrant. Then, he said, he would try to learn how the blood sample was handled and whether it may have been contaminated. "It is a continuing erosion of our constitutional rights, and they have found a good scapegoat in DWIs," Balagia said. However, prosecutors support the practice and say it will reduce time courts spend on such cases. They say it also will ensure people who are not intoxicated go free. "It has been a real education for us to look at how drunk these people are," said Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, who last year began encouraging police and sheriff's deputies to get blood samples in felony DWI cases. They have since collected about 25. B.J. Hassell, victims services coordinator for the Austin chapter of MADD, said, "It's another tool to assist officers to get people off the street. And anything that officers can do or prosecutors can do within the law to protect innocent people, I am for it."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: christine, all (#0)
(Edited)
If I hear a certain radio personality say tomorrow that the NEW WORLD ORDER is on the run I'm going to upchuck. Refusal of Breath, Blood or Urine Test - If you refused to take a breath, blood or urine test after being arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania, your license will be suspended for a period of not less than 1 year and a 3 days mandatory incarceration. A person should take immediate action if chemical tests were refused. The arresting officer must forward Notice of Refusal (DL-26 Form), to inform Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) of driver's refusal. Once received, PennDOT forwards order to driver that licence shall be suspended in 30 days from the date of correspondence. Driver has 30 days from correspondence date to appeal in a civil proceeding.
speaking of delusions....
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||