Skip

Bleed for Public Safety.
November 12, 2007 9:03 AM   Subscribe


 
LOLLIBERTARIANS
posted by Kwantsar at 9:06 AM on November 12, 2007


Faust admitted that he had five brandies and failed the field sobriety tests.

Wait, people actually drink brandy? I thought it was just for cleaning cuts.
posted by brain_drain at 9:09 AM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


No doubt when breathalysers were introduced, there were libertarians appalled that you could be "forced to give him some of your breath. Ponder that for a sec."
posted by Aloysius Bear at 9:10 AM on November 12, 2007


Bloody hell.
posted by porn in the woods at 9:16 AM on November 12, 2007


This is yet ANOTHER reason to dislike Wisconsin.. The trouncing of the U of M last Saturday is one thing, but this...no, we can't stand for this!

And...if we see those cheeseheads here in Michigan, we're doing forced colon checks for dairy products...!
posted by HuronBob at 9:17 AM on November 12, 2007


If you get drunk on brandy, you shouldn't get pulled over for drunk driving. You should get pulled over for accidentally killing young squire Johnathan Pottingham's favorite pet turtledove when you were falconing drunk.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:21 AM on November 12, 2007 [27 favorites]


when breathalysers were introduced, there were libertarians appalled

The tale here is the fact; a non medical person is taking the blood sample.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:27 AM on November 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


" ... the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that not only can police require that you give up your blood, if you refuse they may use "extreme force" to extract it. "

Don't they already have that privilege?
posted by itchylick at 9:34 AM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


From one of the links in the main link:

Arizona law requires that drunken driving suspects submit to a test or lose their license for a year and it’s the officer’s choice, not the driver’s, whether to use a breath or a blood test.

Having officers draw blood has become more common recently because it makes it more difficult for people to defend themselves against DUI/DWI charges. Breathalyzers have proven to be wildly inaccurate and don’t hold up well in court so blood tests have become a more appealing option legally. But when dealing with a medical procedure like a blood draw, the focus should be on the well-being of the individual and not making sure the District Attorney can get a conviction. Officers without adequate medical training should not be playing around with people’s health, no matter the legal ramifications.


Jesus, if the idea of random stops where you have to give blood to a cop doesn't disturb you, you're hopeless.
posted by mediareport at 9:35 AM on November 12, 2007 [17 favorites]


If you get drunk on brandy, you shouldn't get pulled over for drunk driving. You should get pulled over for accidentally killing young squire Johnathan Pottingham's favorite pet turtledove when you were falconing drunk.

Which is how you explain the presence of young John-boy seated next to you in the coupe, naked, glassy-eyed and covered in blood. An emergency trip to the pet hospital it is, officer...
posted by geos at 9:36 AM on November 12, 2007


If I where a cop I would be awfully reluctant to draw blood on a regular basis. Sounds like a heck of a way to increase your risk to all manner of nasty blood related diseases.

Do they actually have roadside blood testing kits now?

The whole thing just seems like a bad idea from every angle you can imagine. Do cops now have to abide by HIPPA (which is a farce anyways)?

I would think this whole thing is ripe for heading to the SCOUS on any number of grounds.
posted by edgeways at 9:43 AM on November 12, 2007


What if you are a Jehova's Witness? Isn't this a violation of their religious freedom?
posted by well_balanced at 9:52 AM on November 12, 2007


Courvoisier? Someone must be drinking that stuff - or is it just a rap-video prop?

I don't support many rights for drivers, but collecting blood seems like a bad idea on many levels. It seems like the police should have to detect intoxication and *then* require the blood test for confirmation, in any case.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:52 AM on November 12, 2007


Do the phlebotomist unions know about this?
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:03 AM on November 12, 2007


Lets' just cut to the chase. Let the officer determine if we are breaking the law, the penalty, and exact punishment.
posted by Rancid Badger at 10:12 AM on November 12, 2007


This disturbs even me, a guy who vigorously defended the so-called "Pain Beam." This is... frightening and stupid.

And Rancid Badger... you may be on to something.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 10:29 AM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


That's also a creepy story in there about the cop putting all his weight on the guy's wrist so blood could be taken against his will.

By a nurse, but still--poor guy has permanent damage.

And it sounds really scary.
posted by zebra3 at 10:44 AM on November 12, 2007


LOLLIBERTARIANS

Yeah. Sadly we're a bit of a joke at this point in history.

No doubt when breathalysers were introduced, there were libertarians appalled that you could be "forced to give him some of your breath. Ponder that for a sec."

As a Libertarian, I simply believe that if I am driving without violating any traffic laws, that I should not be harassed in any way.

Today, DUI checkpoints are often set up (using the argument that breathalysers aren't *that* invasive), and force completely random individuals to prove that they are not committing any crimes at that point in time. (Sober, Licensed, Insured, no significant cash in the car, no drugs in the car.)

Some people aren't bothered by the harassment of innocent people, but I thought most would be bothered by the idea of officers who have the right to forcibly extract a roadside blood sample from you, without medical personnel present.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 10:54 AM on November 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


poor guy has permanent damage.

And an appeals court refused to even let him bring the case to a jury, claiming "the actions taken by the police officers to restrain plaintiff were objectively reasonable."
posted by mediareport at 10:56 AM on November 12, 2007


This is bad, but full cavity searches are worse. I envision that future thread...

"Today the US Supreme Court announced that regular police officers may administer full-body cavity searches for any reason on any American citizen..."


"LOLLIBERTARIANS"

"man whut if youre not doing drugs whut r u afraid of? lol"

"celing cat is watching a cop put his finger up your ass"

etc.
posted by Avenger at 11:31 AM on November 12, 2007


What's even scarier is that without proper privacy laws in place, these blood samples could be collected and stored forever. Not only that, but what is to prevent them from extracting DNA from these blood samples and building a DNA database similar to California's DNA database? The Washington Post had an article about this last year: Vast DNA Bank Pits Policing Vs. Privacy.

Combine that with privatization, and you have the potential for your DNA to get to outside third parties, including possibly insurance companies and employers.
posted by formless at 11:34 AM on November 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


It's insane to me that police would be able to restrain someone and draw their blood at a road test. Here in Iowa, you have the right to refuse a test, but if you do you're license will be suspended.
posted by delmoi at 11:39 AM on November 12, 2007


No doubt when breathalysers were introduced, there were libertarians appalled that you could be "forced to give him some of your breath. Ponder that for a sec."

What is it like to be you, to be constantly afraid of everything?
posted by odinsdream at 11:49 AM on November 12, 2007


“As a Libertarian, I simply believe that if I am driving without violating any traffic laws, that I should not be harassed in any way.”

You rebel scum.
*grandmofftarkinfilter*

“force completely random individuals to prove that they are not committing any crimes”

Yeah, key phrase there Tacos Are Pretty Great. I agree and that’d be the big problem I have with random stops. Why do I have to prove I’m not committing a crime without probable cause? The mere fact I am driving is not enough to place me under suspicion for the commission of a criminal act.
I’ll (grudgingly) grant Terry stops, but this is outrageous.

I can’t imagine anyone who took the constitution test before going to high school supporting this. How is it in any way reasonable to randomly stop you and draw your blood?
I guess once we started treating constitutional rights as “special protections” anything that is not explicitly a person, house or papers and effects is fair game. Blood isn’t a whole person, right?
So blood then is in “plain view” is it? I suppose it could be under certain pre-emptive conditions.

You want my blood? Yours first fucker.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:56 AM on November 12, 2007


Aloysius Bear writes "No doubt when breathalysers were introduced, there were libertarians appalled that you could be 'forced to give him some of your breath. Ponder that for a sec.'"

Being asked for my papers at random times when I did nothing wrong smacks of a police state. Being asked for more is a search. You should have a warrant or probable cause.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:01 PM on November 12, 2007


Y'all need to get with the times.
posted by everichon at 12:08 PM on November 12, 2007


What if you are a Jehova's Witness? Isn't this a violation of their religious freedom?

I believe their religious prohibition is against infusion of foreign (somebody else's) blood, not drawing of their own blood.
posted by deliquescent at 12:18 PM on November 12, 2007


Next they'll be giving zombies the right to pull you over and take your brain...
posted by tehloki at 12:39 PM on November 12, 2007


My name is the Rev MC Stay in Skool, and I've just ordained myself in the newly created Church of No Bloodletting, whose sole religious doctrine is "Thou Shalt Not Take My Blood, Officer". Join me and go (through WI checkpoints) in peace.
posted by mcstayinskool at 12:42 PM on November 12, 2007


Wow. I'm not libertarian, but this is pretty outrageous. I wouldn't think that police would be given the right to extract blood in any "free" society such as our own.

I'm also not a fan of slippery slop arguments, but this issue does have larger, scarier ramifications. What's to stop the police from testing you for drugs other than alcohol? What's to insure that the samples are properly secured or destroyed? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Simply put: This Is Really Bad.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:47 PM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Breathalyzer stop checks for all are a common feature in many countries, with quite a good reason, especially after holidays. It is pretty difficult to evaluate when you are sober enough to drive, and the risks to others are the same whether you believe that you're driving sober or not. Knowledge that you may get into trouble if you're not exactly sure keeps many temporarily dangerous drivers but otherwise nice people off the wheel until later day. I've never heard before that someone is offended by this. You may take personally and feel harassed from public information campaigns too, as they seem to assume that you're some kind of stupid who didn't already know whatever they're telling, but that would be just oversensitive pride, wouldn't it?

With a ton of fast moving steel comes great responsibility.
posted by Free word order! at 12:52 PM on November 12, 2007


Man, life here in these United States gets scarier and scarier.

Even apart for the libertarian arguments is that the drawing of blood is a medical procedure, albeit a minor one. I thought you had the right to refuse a medical procedure? What if you are terrified of needles? What if you have some disease where the drawing of blood might be contraindicated (cause a clot, etc.)

I mean do I trust the cops to keep the needles sterile, or use new ones every time, or to know how to hit a vein? Do I trust them to *know how* to take blood? I haven't read all the articles, I know the NJ one the nurse actually took the blood, but what about Wisconsin. I can imagine getting "uppity" with the cop at a checkpoint and the cop is jabbing needles into nerves and muscles (Oops I just can't seem to find a vein!)

I'd love to see ths one get litigated to the US Supreme Court - or maybe no.
posted by xetere at 12:53 PM on November 12, 2007


I'm so glad I live in Canada, and I won't have to worry about this for exactly 5 years.
posted by tehloki at 12:58 PM on November 12, 2007


To add,

My brother got stopped at a checkpoint where they had him breathe into a breathylizer. He asked if the mouthpiece was sterile and if it was changed for every person. the cop said it was. My brother said. "I'm not breathing into that thing until I see you change it in front of me!"

Surprisingly the cop did without so much as a peep.
posted by xetere at 1:00 PM on November 12, 2007


As a Libertarian, I simply believe that if I am driving without violating any traffic laws, that I should not be harassed in any way.

I don't think you really have to be a libertarian to believe this.
posted by edgeways at 1:04 PM on November 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


edgeways: I don't think that Tacos' statement implies that.

xetere: Well, there are reasonable cops out there. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unreasonable ones as well. Combine that with unreasonable laws/rulings, and well...
posted by the other side at 1:30 PM on November 12, 2007


"You want a blood sample, Officer? That's cool. I have HIV and about eight secondary infections. Are you familiar with MRSA?"

A good phlebotomist rarely hits my vein. No cop is going to be able to.
posted by Netzapper at 1:36 PM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


No doubt when breathalysers were introduced, there were libertarians appalled that you could be "forced to give him some of your breath. Ponder that for a sec."

Slave mentality.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:44 PM on November 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


Wait..wait...just hold on one goddamn second alright...alright...here's the thing that's confusing me: At what point can they forcibly take your blood?

Before or after you get tasered. Because if they do it after a tasering that's just wrong, bro.


**
posted by Skygazer at 1:52 PM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


*vomits*
posted by Skygazer at 1:59 PM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


A good phlebotomist rarely hits my vein. No cop is going to be able to.

I'm guessing that it's a lot easier to draw blood when you have no liability for any resulting damages and no interest in "customer service".

After all, look at how police SWAT teams generally do their jobs. It's routine for them to shoot dogs [second link is particularly egregious], and they are almost always shielded from any liability from their actions.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:15 PM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, medical complications notwithstanding (haemophilia, anyone?), I would be interested to see how chain of evidence works out.

Are we going to end up paying for our local police to keep blood freezers in their cars? How can we guarantee that a given blood sample is correctly tied to a given violator? What happens if I get a disfiguring or terminal infection from improper needle usage?

I won't even mention the ease of adulterating a given sample after collection...
posted by Samizdata at 2:38 PM on November 12, 2007


This is pure horse shit. Anyone that thinks allowing this should get a cavity search on the grounds they may be full of it.
posted by nola at 2:40 PM on November 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


*Anyone who thinks this is ok, should get a cavity search . . .
posted by nola at 2:41 PM on November 12, 2007


Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that police in the Dairy State may forcibly take roadside blood samples from suspected drunk drivers.

I guess we still have a lot of catching up to do down here in the south, but as it's been pointed out in MeFi time and time again, the south is very, very backward. Maybe some day soon we can get our act to gether.
posted by nola at 2:51 PM on November 12, 2007


So, when this goes badly and there is a severely injured police officer laying on the ground, and his partner kneeling across my neck spraying me in the eyes with pepper spray and reaching for his taser, can I use the excuse that "He drew first blood"?
posted by quin at 3:44 PM on November 12, 2007


Nerf cars and liquor stores that deliver will solve this problem.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:05 PM on November 12, 2007


“It is pretty difficult to evaluate when you are sober enough to drive...”

Pretty easy for a patrolman to tell if you’re driving dangerously though.

“I thought you had the right to refuse a medical procedure?”

Indeed - there are medical privacy laws. This would run roughshod over those as well. And what if you’re a hemophiliac? Or have some other medical condition (HIV+ comes to mind) that lowers your immunity to disease?

quin - only if you take out the lights and power, blow up a gas station and a gun store and shoot up the town with an M60 first.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:37 PM on November 12, 2007


I figured that was just a given.
posted by quin at 4:43 PM on November 12, 2007


A good phlebotomist rarely hits my vein. No cop is going to be able to.

Same here, and my left arm is chock full of scar tissue, which only leaves them one arm on which to get it right. God, is this country getting creepy.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 5:24 PM on November 12, 2007


Not that it makes a huge difference, but we seem to be assuming that this is something that would have to be drawn intravenously. Is there anything to support this supposition? Could it be one of those fingertip tests not unlike what diabetics use daily?
posted by quin at 5:42 PM on November 12, 2007


we seem to be assuming that this is something that would have to be drawn intravenously. Is there anything to support this supposition? Could it be one of those fingertip tests not unlike what diabetics use daily?

The ruling gave them the right to do it however they like.

That said, your comment is likely prescient. If I wanted to get people used to giving away their blood on a regular basis, I'd definitely suggest the use of diabetic blood checkers.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least (sadly) if, in 30 years, the United States has policies requiring blood-tests at checkpoints, with automobile forfeiture as a likely penalty if drug tests showed positive. That might sound crazy, but 30 years ago most police would give you a ride home, or tell you "be careful" if you were pulled over while drunk.

Times change quickly.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 10:05 PM on November 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Anyway they like? You mean they can punch you in the nose and take it that way, if they like?

Libertarian? Stop claiming the Bill of Rights as some especially "libertarian" thing. I think that is rather contrary to your interests.

Just one more brick in the wall, or, if you prefer, one more step on the way to fascism. Hear Naomi Wolf on those 10 steps to closing down democracy.
posted by Goofyy at 5:09 AM on November 13, 2007


Well I'm glad they aren't just letting you go with a "be careful" anymore, though automobile forfeiture is near the other extreme. Like I said though, and what others have also reiterated, there are enough areas of concern that it'll be a SCOTUS case in some manner soon enough.
posted by edgeways at 3:10 PM on November 13, 2007


« Older Have a Bowl of Cereal, Make a Bowl of Gut Chutney.   |   Cyclops!! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post