Ted Rall for January 11, 2013

Well, medical personnel have to do the blood draw. I’m surprised at the rulling because for so long “drinkin’, drivin’, good ol’ boy” judges, and prosecutors, have long been sensitive about being “too harsh” on drunk drivers, even after they’ve killed someone. Now about that “field sobriety” that still stands in most jurisdictions as “evidence”, maybe judges are as hung up on the “forensics” and “science” as the publlic watching CSI who have no clue about how things REALLY work?

Try being a diabetic. You get to draw your own blood between 3-7 times a day. Of course, I see your point, Ted. An American citizen should not be forced to self-incriminate for a traffic violation. Dashboard cameras should be more than sufficient evidence in a traffic stop, capturing both the driving and subsequent reactions of the suspect as evidence. I imagine the first person to claim they contracted AIDS or some other blood-borne disease from an improperly administered draw will become a millionaire. Not to mention the risk to the officers themselves, should the suspect have a virus.Plus, an unnecessary blood draw from a hemophiliac can result in injury. And people on chemotherapy, who may have a reaction to their meds and exhibit intoxicated behavior, may be fatally wounded by a simple draw not administered by their doctor.

All good points. Here’s an easy fix: if the driver refuses a breath-a-lyzer, he is automatically guilty of DUI. Want to prove you’re not? Blow.

Too simple?

Im from the government and Im here to help

yes

you really can’t LOL unless you yourself are a person of color

Obama is too conservative for Ted Rall.

A good friend of my wife lost her sister-in-law after a Black Friday traffic accident where the other driver was drunk. The SIL died 10 days later from her injuries.-————————————-First, let me express my regret for the loss of life. That is indeed tragic..I look at the question as one of Constitutional rights – one of which is protection from unreasonable search & seizure and another from self-incrimination..Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court will make the ultimate determination. Trust your governmental authorities to make the right decision!.Next, I would ask you to consider whether such laws would have prevented the death – or would they merely have provided a harsher punishment for the accused? The woman still would be dead. Is this about vengeance? Or what?.I’m not being facetious – I try to understand other perspectives.

Your rights end where they infringe upon mine.-—————————-I refer you to my previous comment to The Trusted Mechanic

It is called reasonable suspicion, if the cop has enough doubt to pull you over then they have the right and obligation to investigate further.-———————————————If law enforcement officers were all lily-white and above reproach, I might (emphasis – might) accept this reasoning..In my younger days, I was a law enforcement officer in Texas. Some of the officers carried a “throw-down” to place beside a deceased = evidence that the death was a case of self-defense..I see no reason to believe that a policeman’s “obligation to investigate” will not result in similar abuse.. The right thing to do is to protect the rights of all citizens under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights..Let’s await the decision of the esteemed U.S. Supreme Court.</a

No, I want to make it easier for the innocent to avoid being tied down, degraded, and violated.-———————————-

Without limits they can pull anyone over for any reason or no reason. That is what I am afraid of. It gets too easily for them.-————————————————-That’s what I suggested in one of my previous posts (which referenced the “throw-down”)!

It’s meant to protect the cops, jailers, etc., but it’s legal overreach as far as I’m concerned…-——————————————So what are the Germans doing to fight it?(N.B. – Under what circumstances would “cops, jailers, etc.” come into contact with fluids that might be contaminated with AIDS?)

“I may be mistaken, but when you get a drivers license you agree to submit to a test for alcohol any time asked or suffer the consequences of the law.”[]I think you are mistaken.[]On the other hand – it could depend upon the laws in the state where you live.[]It isn’t in mine.;)

“I would rather have 100 people stopped and released if it catches one drunk driver that might kill someone.”-—————————-I neglected to address this statement in my previous post, so I will do so now.[]It is this kind of thinking that endangers all U.S. citizens: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to be afraid of.”[]Then, you run the risk of being a Jew in Nazi Germany – whose only crime is “being a Jew”![]I take note of your use of the word “might”![]The U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights were designed to prevent this very thing, where innocents are subjected to government harassment under the guise of legal “protections.”[]Think about it.

Yep. Not having “pale” skin is a really bad trait!

Police can stop you for any reason or no reason.-————————————————Is that a fact? In what state?.Granting (for the sake of argument) the veracity of this statement, my question is: Can they then proceed to take your blood without a warrant? (That’s the premise of this cartoon.)

Oh, c’mon now!.That’s not an answer!.To any of my questions!