TheAgitator.com
Syringes New Weapon in War on DWI
Monday, September 14th, 2009That’s the headline to this A.P. article highlighting a new, what-could-possibly-go-wrong tactic police are using in Texas and Idaho.
When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.
“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’” Dowell said.
It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.
If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage police nationwide to undergo similar training.
This is all perfectly legal, by the way, courtesy of a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision. I guess it’s surprising it’s taken this long for it to be implemented on a broader scale.
Assuming there’s probable cause, I’m not sure what the problem is here. I’m very much anti-Breathalyzer and anti-field sobriety testing because they’re horribly inaccurate. Blood tests are way more accurate, so at least if you’re being arrested for a BAC over .08, your BAC will actually have been over .08.
I think the real issues here are how we define probable cause and what BAC we define as the limit (and the creepiness of this guy checking out people’s veins the second he pulls them over). But those are issues whether they’re using a Breathalyzer or drawing blood (except the creepy vein part), and as long as they’re going to test for BAC, I’d rather have them use an accurate test than an inaccurate one.
“When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.”
Cop sounds like a fucking vampire.
I don’t have any problem with needles but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let some cop stick a needle in my arm under any circumstances. If they want my blood, they can take my ass to a hospital.
Can’t they just collect some blood after they bash your head in with a club? I mean after they taze and rape you of course.
All hail the God-King that am the Police.
ClubMed,
Haven’t we seen that probably cause is just something that a cop has to make up.
Can I still argue that drawing my blood amounts to obtaining my DNA sample without my permission, and thus should be illegal on that ground? I assume the referenced Supreme Court case was the Miranda case, which set limits on self-incrimination, and thus putting the DNA spin on the bloodsuckers could give it some merit. I get quickly bored with any legal stuff, but I’d be paranoid enough to try something like that…
I’m not really concerned with the comment, its probably due to taking phlebotomy and living with a phlebotomist. You really do find yourself checking out peoples veins going “I can stick that.” Weird vampire like but true.
What worries me is the violations to the 4th and 5th amendments. Then there’s the chemical problems with the blood – the articles correct, it can in fact ferment in the tube. There’s also the legal aspects that every other phlebotomist has to deal with, a big one dealing with if a patient refuses to let you stick them they can have you charged with assault and battery if you decide to anyway. My husband is always really careful of making sure every patient he gets says yes to the procedure. If not he will not stick and their doctor will not be able to have blood tests run. Its caused some customers/patients to get become real asses when all they wanted was to have him coddle them for ½ hour before they’d be willing to say yes. But he’s not going to deal with assault charges.
What really surprised me it that it does appear as if they are (the police) getting more training than a lot of phlebotomists now a days. Bear in mind that you can take an online class where the theory/book knowledge is taught but not practiced. At the end of the class you still get a certificate and your first patient is your first stick.
It takes nurses years of training before they are any good at withdrawing blood. I don’t trust the police force to pull this off with ruining my life with some syringe-introduced disease or infection.
Just wait ’til ‘Officer Friendly’ accidentally injects an air bubble in some hapless motorist and kills them. And don’t tell me it won’t happen; we heard the same crap about taser’s, remember?
If a black girl needs a cosmotology degree to braid hair a cop better have an EMT certificate to jab me in the arm with something other than a taser.
You should have seen the cop interviewed on tv here in Idaho talking about how they sit you in the chair and get other officers to hold you down if you resist. He proudly announce with a huge grin that they get to use as much force as is required to draw the blood.
WHy doesn’t America lay down some train tracks
and get some more taxis like civilized countries ?
The US gov’t has blood on its hands until it does so.
People eat . People drink. Alcohol is a legal substance.
That would be Socialist though, the trains.
No, better to “nab” lots of drivers and
turn their lives upside down.
Why would a cop want to take a chance getting stuck with a needle by a DRUNKEN SUSPECT and risk contracting HIV or Hep C? If you ask me they are paranoid enough about that already.
On the other hand, the suspect could get stuck with a used needle because he just happened to get an asshole cop that day.
How long before a cop shoots someone and claims he thought he was holding his syringe?
ClubMedSux>, from the article:
So, there doesn’t even have to be probable cause, just reasonable suspicion, which is an even lower standard of evidence, the lowest there is, if I am recalling correctly.
And, as others have pointed out, an officer will have an easy time coming up with reasonable suspicion if he wants to (“he was walking unsteadily”, “his speech was slurred”, “his eyes were watery”, etc.). Even if none of that is true, the court will always take the cop’s word over yours.
This is essentially permission for police to poke you with a needle whenever they get the urge to. And, to tear you up badly when they do it and then arrest you for “resisting”, even if your BAC comes back zero. You aren’t safe anywhere in police presence without a hidden video camera trained on you the whole time. And, even then, you aren’t really safe…
Yeah, let’s create yet another avenue thru which ignorant, vicious, and retaliatory cops can create needless pain in invisible, or at least legally justifiable, ways.
Is drunk driving really that much of a problem? In my neck of the woods, its getting rarer for fatal accidents to be blamed on booze.
Nobody should be required by the government to let anybody other than a medical professional stick anything into their bodies. I, for one, have a huge phobia about needles. Can’t help it. Wish I didn’t. But I do. Our government have long since lost their sanity. We need a good, healthy revolution and dirtbags that even think up ideas like this should be the first ones lined up against the wall.
My wife is a “tough stick”, and thus a little paranoid about needles. At the worst point, there was a time that she had 1 person holding her arm still, 1 sticking her, and me calming her, just to not completely damage her veins to get a blood sample. (She’s gotten much better in recent years.) And that was from someone who wanted her blood drawn.
Now get a belligerent 200 lb. man with a little buzz who really doesn’t want to get poked, and an office with said man in cuffs, trying to get a stick. I see lots of extra blood, torn skin & possibly torn veins, and some bonus tazer action in order to ensure compliance. Can’t wait to see the dash cam footage. This can’t possibly end well.
Haven’t we seen that probably cause is just something that a cop has to make up.
I agree, but that’s just as much of an issue with a Breathalyzer. I guess my question to those who gave me a thumb’s down would be: how is this worse than the status quo? I agree that there is still the possibility for error (as discussed by Hannah @#7) but I’m still not convinced the likelihood of error is greater than it is with Breathalyzers. I would think any decent lawyer could pick apart how a specific blood sample was drawn/handled/tested, whereas challenging a Breathalyzer result is much more difficult because you’re effectively challenging not one DUI but all DUI’s handed down due to a Breathalyzer result.
If you have a scientific basis for believing blood testing would be less accurate than other means of determining impairment, then by all means oppose this. However, if it’s more accurate it seems like a step in the right direction to me.
#9 “Just wait ’til ‘Officer Friendly’ accidentally injects an air bubble in some hapless motorist and kills them. And don’t tell me it won’t happen; we heard the same crap about taser’s, remember?”
My first thought was about injuries and air bubbles too, but then I relaxed when I realized that any problems with this program would just be isolated incidents that would be investigated by a internal review. So now my mind is completely at ease.
My body.
My blood.
Your warrant is meaningless when a victim does not exist.
My proclamation: I will fight you tooth and nail for my blood. If you harm me, whether it’s via a needle or through your gun, do not go to sleep.
This sounds like a really good way for a cop to accidentally put an air bubble in someone’s vein.
ClubMedSux, though I didn’t ding your karma and I agree with you that blood tests are more accurate than breath tests, accuracy isn’t the problem here. I suspect that the issue bothering people is that the warrantless (or, as I like to say, unwarranted) needle draws are much more invasive and, for most people, more onerous.
As such, they become a way for a cop to dole out punishment at a stop, whenever he wants. He can do it without a warrant, requiring only non-objective evidence that he can easily make up, knowing that he will not be punished for fabrication. Even if most officers wouldn’t do that, it is yet another factor of intimidation when people know that a cop can cause them physical injury, needing only the pretext that he thought the citizen might be drunk. It’s one step away from a cop being able to punch you in the face for any reason, as long as he is willing to later claim he suspected you were DWI.
So, are needles for DWI tests or are they drug paraphenalia? If a cop sees a needle in your car, then he can legally stick you with one as well? Did I miss something here?
Wow! Add me to the list of those who are terrified of needles and knowing that this could happen … damn! But shit, I shouldn’t worry right? If I do nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about. This is the fucking United States of America afterall. (damn!)
Is there anything that there isn’t a “war” on right now?
BTW, it’s also only a matter of time before cops figure out how to “dose” the samples with a tiny bit of alcohol (or, more probably, alcohol mixed with water so that less accuracy is needed in getting a small droplet) before or immediately after the draw, to make sure the test results come back over the limit.
If the ACLU and NMA join forces to stop this, they are getting a hefty check from me.
In many cases their demanding a sample to prove a crime occurred.They have it backwards.In the forced urine test case I never heard why the guy was tested.Was he driving recklessly?He was never charged so I’m guessing he did nothing at all.If they can’t make a case without a breath or blood test there was no crime.If you can’t charge at least reckless op. it’s a no go to me.
Is there any doubt that the results will be promising, and thus we’ll all now be subject to the tax-feeding vampires?
a) Cop says he has reasonable suspicion that you’re drunk (even if it’s fabricated)
b) You refuse breathalyzer – go to jail
c) You cooperate, but cop thinks the 0.0 is inaccurate, then wants to draw blood
d) You refuse blood – go to jail
e) You cooperate, still not good enough, cop wants your piss because they are into golden showers
And on and on and on ….. it is guaranteed to happen.
Using that Supreme Court ruling to justify this is a pretty big leap considering the facts of that case. I’m assuming they’re referring to Schmerber v. California. In that case Schmerber had crashed his car and was unconscious. When the doctors were treating him for his injuries the police asked for a blood sample because Schmerber was suspected of being intoxicated. The court ruled that in that situation there was no 4th Amendment violation.
Now I still disagree with that decision but at least there it was being conducted by trained medical professionals. Additionally it was not being done in the field to look for drunk drivers but rather occurred in a hospital where the person was receiving medical aid. It wasn’t like this was someone who just got pulled over in a routine drunk driving stop nor does the case say that this would be an acceptable method of searching for drunk drivers. I would hope that someone will challenge this and it will be found unconstitutional. However in our current climate I wouldn’t put money on that outcome.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to drink in moderation but have big issues with drawing blood.
The issue isn’t obtaining an accurate reading. The issue is that this shit shouldn’t be proposed/supported/endorsed/etc. Shouldn’t even be part of the discussion because it’s a violation of your body, the only thing you (supposedly) truly own, and that the State Muscle (S&M) have a long history of fabricating evidence, data, stories, etc. and enjoying use of force for the sake of causing pain.
Hmm … I’ve had ‘trained’ nurses put 5-6 holes in my arm while trying to draw blood …. now we’re going to let cops give it a try?
The notion that every “crime” a meted punishment is plain WRONG. The notion that The State knows best and represents everyone is foolish, considering that The State regularly imposes punishment in an illogical and inconsistent manner, and regularly protects its own. Punishment is not a binary system, e.g. either punish or don’t. Leaving punishment up to the judges is contradictory to the notion of punishment for the “protection of the people” as it allows 1 individual, according to functionally arbitrary guidelines, to determine the punishment.
It *IS* possible that other options exist, so they should be explored because what has been used for decades isn’t working well. Those opposed to change, usually for their own benefit, are the most resistant to contemplate other possibilities and quite possibly have to denounce their current reality, which means admitting you were wrong/stupid/outed for corruption/etc.
The notion that every “crime” deserves a meted punishment …
I do not like needles, period.
I am also nearly six and a half feet tall and mass approx. 300 pounds.
Yeah. This is gonna suck for everyone involved.
Not strictly related, but I found this funny:
http://www.amazingsuperpowers.com/2009/09/menace/
Anyone here have any idea how much they need to draw for this test? Depending on how much blood is needed, I wonder if they have taken into consideration that some people with low-blood pressure or other conditions can become extremely faint and dizzy from having blood drawn…might not be such a good idea to send such a person back on the road should a test prove negative.
I’m thinking this will be a backdoor way of adding a lot of people to DNA databases.
The issue of the State and abuse of power aside, this is interesting. As a child doctors would routinely want to draw blood from the finger tip which always stung like crazy. Someone pointed out that the ear lobe on the other hand is far less sensitive and that is where I had my blood taken. Of course this was a small amount of blood, so I don’t know if it could be done.
Aside from that this whole idea sounds like self-incrimination given how lax the courts are on what amounts to probable cause.
Officer: Well he was swerving all over the road.
Driver: Yeah, I swerved once to miss that child running into the street after the ball.
Judge: Ah-ha! You admit you swerved! Guilty, nail him to the tree of woe and let him contemplate his sins.
Haven’t we seen that probable cause is just something that a cop has to make up.
Probable Cause has been diluted to the level of:
We are probably going to screw with you ’cause we can.
I support law and order, I really do… but this shit is completely out of control, not a day goes by that we don’t hear of another ‘tool’ that has been given to law enforcement in the never – ending battle against Crime.
Okay. This shit is insane. It’s off the chart. We’ve got non-medical personnel trying to find veins in which to pump lethal injection drugs so the state can kill people, and now we’ve got non-medical personnel in cop uniforms on the street running around with needles looking for veins so the state can pump up their dui conviction rates. On that note I’m going to have a drink.
I’m not certain that this is the public health care anyone visualized
Well due to a medical condition, I have a port, only RN’s are allowed to draw blood from it, so copboy will have to take me to a hospital.
Last year Breathalyzers were challenged with some success, because the company would not turn over their programs to the defense.
Some medical issues need to be addressed here. More because I do actually like to dispel some
fears. Mind I still think its wrong what the state government is allowing the cops to do.
#39 | MDGuy | September 14th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Anyone here have any idea how much they need to draw for this test?
You need a gray top tube with 4ml of blood, the tube contains sodium fluoride and/or potassium oxalate, which inhibits glycolysis. Glycocolysis is one of the things needed to break down carbohydrates and sugars. No break down = no fermentation, thus theoretically stopping any fermentation in the blood. Please remember the sample has to be in a climate controlled area at all times. You stick it in a 104 hot car its not viable.
A finger stick is not going to work, there simply isn’t enough blood to test in that small a sample.
#27 | freedomfan | September 14th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
BTW, it’s also only a matter of time before cops figure out how to “dose” the samples with a tiny bit of alcohol (or, more probably, alcohol mixed with water so that less accuracy is needed in getting a small droplet) before or immediately after the draw, to make sure the test results come back over the limit.
Several problems with this. 1)most lab people can tell if a tube has been opened, its very hard to put those tops back on. They should also give a little “pop” when opened for the first time. Thats the remainder of the vacume being relised. 2) if the victim believes this to be true a simple demand for a CBC/Cell Blood Count would medically show that the sample was tampered.
#22 | MRK | September 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
This sounds like a really good way for a cop to accidentally put an air bubble in someone’s vein.
Unless the officer is using a syringe, which is a lot harder than what most phlebotomist use it is impossible to do this. The tubes are vacuum containers, there is no air to be injected into a vein using a butterfly system.
Hannah, thanks for that information. I should have been more clear that I don’t think even a cop is going to try and open a sample after the tube has been sealed. As a non-phlebotomist, my guess is that the best time to tamper would be to dip the needle in alcohol before insertion, allowing surface tension to fill the needle itself (not the tube) with about a drop. That doesn’t amount to much alcohol, of course, but only a very tiny amount is needed. 0.1% BAC is only something like 0.4 cg of alcohol in 4 mL of blood. Figure a 1.5 inch 20 gage needle has a volume of around 0.1 mL, which is maybe 8 cg of alcohol, so it seems possible to achieve some mischief…
Also, good point on the blood cell count, but is that a normal part of the report returned for a field BAC kit? If it isn’t, then I wouldn’t count on being able to get it. I know this is very cynical, but DWI cases are largely outside the normal practices for both science and law. It’s only recently that a court ruled that a the a breath machine maker even had to reveal how their testing works, even though it was supposed to be scientific evidence convicting people in court. There are all sorts of rules that basically say that whatever evidence the police collect is good enough and a defendant has very limited opportunity to question the methodology.
This is how well it worked here in Pima County
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/206242.php
All US torture is not outsourced. Really sick, the whole DUI mania is insane. It should be more about public safety and not some tool to abuse the people with. Drug testing seems like a pretty slippery slope, maybe someday they’ll find a way to tell if you’re a terrorist just by administering a blood test.
Does this mean the cop can be sued for malpractice if he/she damages a nerve? There are lots of nerves that run through the antecubital fossa, and it’s even worse if they try to draw from a wrist vein. Heck, they could get any medical student to testify as an expert as to how difficult it is to draw blood on some people!
Instead of getting cops to work as nurses maybe we should fire them and replace them with nurses.
Madonna needs to be very, very afraid.
I just read about how cops in Tennessee are authorized, under certain circumstances, to have people injected with Versed.
If a cop jabs me with a needle can he give me a tetanus shot chaser?
Finding veins can be tough – finally, my years of raging heroin addiction can help land me a job on the police force.
My wife is a Nurse Practitioner and there are times when it is hard for her to find a vein there is no way in hell I would allow a cop to stick a needle in me. Hold me in contempt, fine me, find me guilty of the charge but there is a line crossed here. And I’m not involuntarily contributing to the national DNA database.
Freedomfan
As a non-phlebotomist, my guess is that the best time to tamper would be to dip the needle in alcohol before insertion, allowing surface tension to fill the needle itself (not the tube) with about a drop.
Good idea in theory, doesn’t work in practice. Even a small drop will effect the results to the point that the machines that run the tests will register an error in the sample – along the lines of holy hell your blood is made of alcohol. Giving full use to the phrase “I’ve got to much blood in my alcohol system.”
If you’ve ever been brought to a hospital for a drug/alcohol test please take note. The phlebotomist has to use non-alcoholic iodine wipes to sterilize your arm. This is because that small amount of alcohol in and alcohol wipe can tamper with the test when the needle goes through it. Its about the only way I can think of a cop tampering and getting away with it. So if you come away with out a orange smear, you’ve just had an invalid test. Please remember to take photos now.
You actually have more to worry about when it comes to chain of custody issues then tampering with the blood tube. Or the phlebotomist not labeling the tube correctly and mixing up your sample with someone else’s. Fun times, fun times.
As to everyone going on about “Nurses”. They are my husbands bane in life. They do not get nearly enough practice when it comes to sticking and in some of the older ones, because they have gained seniority, don’t do much medical work. Yes there are exceptions, but their few and far between. This is why if your in a hospital they have vampires that come around the place at scheduled times to get everyone’s blood. To put it bluntly usally the nurses don’t want to do it.
Please also take note finding a vein even for someone trained in it is part medical knowledge I.E. Where should I look? What am I looking for? How do I tell what this is? And part art. Some people are very very good at it and some people suck no matter how long they’ve been in it. And some people have mental difficulties doing portions of it. I can’t mentally do it, to the point I feel like I’m going to hurl every time I go to stick a person. My husband on the other hand was sticking preemie babies after 2 months.
“I don’t think even a cop is going to try and open a sample after the tube has been sealed.”
Unless he/she needs to plant it as evidence somewhere else.
““I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’” Dowell said.”
Some people should leave the thinking to others.
#26 | Jeff | September 14th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“Is there anything that there isn’t a “war” on right now?”
The high wages and pensions of government employees.