![[Greene County Daily World]](http://gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (41)Greene County Prosecutor Jarrod Holtsclaw offered that advice earlier this week when he announced a "No Refusal" policy will be in effect during the New Year's holiday. The policy applies to drivers asked to take blood tests to determine their blood-alcohol content.
Under Indiana law, a driver can refuse to take a chemical test but when that happens, an officer can request a search warrant to authorize a blood draw. Under the "No Refusal" policy, when a driver refuses the test, Greene County officers will request the warrant.
"We all recognize that the holidays are a time for celebration, but there is simply no excuse for endangering the lives of others as a result of driving while impaired," said Holtsclaw.
According to statistics from the Indiana State Police, last year there were nine fatalities in Indiana over the Christmas holiday and seven fatalities over New Year's. For all of 2008, as of Dec. 16, 755 people had lost their lives on Indiana roadways -- this is a reduction of 126 fatalities over the same time period last year.
To avoid becoming a statistic, Chief Troy Jerrell of the Linton Police Department says the way to stay safe and not get into any trouble is to plan ahead.
"All of the police agencies are going to have extra patrols out over the holidays looking for impaired drivers. People who are going out should plan on who's going to be the designated driver. Many places give free Coke to people who are designated drivers and some places have really stepped up to the plate and are planning to have volunteers give people rides home on New Year's Eve. They work for tips. There's several things people can do to avoid getting an OVWI (Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated) not just on New Year's Eve but every night. Driving under the influence is not only dangerous but getting an OVWI charge usually means loss of a driver's license and higher insurance rates. It's in everybody's best interest to plan ahead -- plan a way to get home so everyone stays safe and nobody gets in trouble," said Jerrell.
Holtsclaw said the point of the "No Refusal" policy is not to increase the number of arrests for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, though that may occur. Instead, the point is to notify all drivers that law enforcement does take seriously the dangers posed by impaired drivers.
"Initially, the purpose of this program, which began last holiday season, was to reduce the number of impaired drivers during the holiday season and therefore hopefully eliminate serious or fatal vehicle crashes that all too often occur after impaired motorists take to the roads in Greene County. Due to its success, it has been used by all local agencies since that time," said Holtsclaw.
Under the policy, any motorist who exhibits signs of impairment will be stopped and transported to the Greene County Sheriff's Department for standardized field sobriety testing. In those cases where there is probable cause to believe that the motorist has operated a vehicle while intoxicated, the motorist will be offered a chemical test to determine the amount of alcohol in the motorist's blood or breath. For those motorists who exercise their right to refuse the offer of a chemical test, their driver's license shall be suspended for one year if they have no prior convictions for OVWI, or for two years if they do have a prior conviction for OVWI, pursuant to Indiana Code 9-30-6-9.
If the motorist does refuse a chemical test, Holtsclaw said officers will request a search warrant from a judge for a sample of the motorist's blood for chemical analysis.
From Dec. 30 through New Year's Day, all law enforcement agencies operating in Greene County will be on patrol looking for signs of impaired driving and many departments will have extra officers working the roads during this time, according to Holtsclaw.
The Greene County Sheriff's Department, the Indiana State Police and the police departments from Linton, Jasonville, Lyons, Worthington and Bloomfield will all be cooperating in the "No Refusal" program over the New Year's holiday.
The Indiana State Police have also been stepping up patrols over the holidays, especially during the periods from Christmas Eve through 6 a.m. on Dec. 29, and from 6 p.m. on New Year's Eve through 6 a.m. on Jan. 5. Through several federally funded traffic safety grants, overtime funds will be available for troopers to work these extra hours as well as for motor carrier inspectors.
Besides participating in Greene County's "No Refusal" Program, the ISP will be participating in Operation C.A.R.E. (Combined Accident Reduction Effort) and troopers will direct enforcement efforts towards seat belt enforcement, speeding, impaired driving, and various forms of aggressive driving behavior.
Motor Carrier Inspectors will be participating in M.C.S.A.P. (Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program) and will direct their enforcement efforts towards safety violations on commercial vehicles and commercial vehicle operators.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Well actually thats not what I am saying, Yes that is possible, but it isn't probable. Just like others that think blood evidence is as good as a conviction. both views are the extreme. All you really need here is some common sense, Just ask the simple question. Most of the time what does drawing blood achieve? If the answer isn't a conviction 80-90% of the time, then maybe we should talk about this. Why not instead of it, take any time or resources spent and put it towards overtime pay for a officer to work DUI's? Folks I'm not being extreme here at all, I want drunks off the road. I read a stat that said 1 out of every 2000 drunks on the road in any 24hr period is caught. Yes I would like to stick to everyone that gets caught, yes I hate it when one gets off with a fancy lawyer. Thats just the way it goes. Maybe by focusing on the big picture, the other 1,999 drunks that we haven't caught, our roads would be safer. It just seems more effective to me.
Mr. hess is having a hard time getting a simple thing across to you folks.
1: say Joe gets pulled over, he refuses BAC they have an automatic suspension of drivers lic. WHY would they go any farther? but they haul him to GCGH they draw his blood, then complications set in. Joe gets a great lawyer. the test gets thrown out. Joe then comes after the county with the complications and pain and suffering and he and his lawyer go Smiling to the bank. IT'S JUST THAT EASY!
I guess you just are not going to get it. watch this:
Joe#1 : caught drunk driving, refuses breathalizer, no blood drawn WHAT HAPPENS loses ability to drive for one year and faces a dui trial
Joe#2 caught drunk driving, refuses breathalizer, blood drawn WHAT HAPPENS loses ability to drive for one year and faces a dui trial.
This story, and my point all along is not what you call it, call it administrative suspension call it a crime, call it the hokie pokie. This story is about what happens when you refuse a breath test. Studies from other states have shown that by drawing blood with force, you get no better conviction rate that with no blood evidence. It's not fair I agree, lawyers get stuff thrown out all the time, no matter what kind of evidence. I'm sorry that you just can't understand that I nor this story doesn't care what you call what happens to you when you refuse a breathalizer test. Maybe we could take the money spent on blood drawls and hire another police officer. Even though a few get off of the DUI they still can't drive for one year. CALL IT ANY WORD YOU LIKE THE RESULTS ARE THE SAME.
Mr. Hess
According to Indiana Law, there is a difference between an administrative action, a civil violation of the law, and a crime.
The difference is this, a CRIME can result in your freedom being taken from you. You can go to jail if convicted of a crime.
Last time I checked the Bureau of Motor Vehicles could not sentence you to jail.
Your problem lies with how the legistlation is written. Can I expect to see your name on the ballot for public office next time, or are we just going to complain about it all year long?
A crime is a crime is a crime,...smother it with conspiracy blah blah blah its still a crime. Punishment must be given. And I see this as more of a scare tactic, but some people just dont get it.
I am dealing with it. I am not upset,mad,angry. I am just letting people know what is going on in their county. I'm not asking police to answer to me. I'm just using my right to free speech. I am dealing with it. When slavery was legal, would you have said the same thing? Just so we are clear I do not think this is like slavery, I think it is like anything happening in today's society, there should be no secrets. If other states are doing it and it isn't working, why not look at it, talk about it. I am only exploring the idea that maybe this program is not worth the costs/risks. I am very surprised at how upset many get just because I would talk about a different view point. An open discussion about any program is not harmful.
billhess, it's happening whether YOU want it to or not. DEAL WITH IT! The governor, the prosecutor, the police do not have to answer to you. If you don't drink and drive, you don't have anything to worry about.
QUOTE from indiana code: " (b) If the affidavit under section 8(b) of this chapter states that a person refused to submit to a chemical test, the bureau shall suspend the driving privileges of the person:
(1) for:
(A) one (1) year
http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/ti...
It seems that you disagree with Indiana code not me, I'm just quoting it and the experts
QUOTE From who cares: "So if you think it is ok to refuse and let someone just pay a fine and walk away, I hope this person don't kill someone.
So let me help you understand the picture...
You refuse, you get an infraction ticket for approximately 150.00 dollars"
QUOTE From Greene County Prosecutor Jarrod Holtsclaw: "For those motorists who exercise their right to refuse the offer of a chemical test, their driver's license shall be suspended for one year if they have no prior convictions for OVWI, or for two years if they do have a prior conviction for OVWI, pursuant to Indiana Code 9-30-6-9"
QUOTE From Indiana Gov Criminal Justice institute:" What happens when a person refuses a chemical test?
They are immediately charged with a DUI and with refusing. A refusal results in two charges and your license being suspended up to one year."
I have quoted them, it seems that you disagree with them.
hey who cares, you are right I do not know this, I only have been quoting the Indiana gov. and the indiana department of justice and your local prosecutor. here is the link in black and white one more time:
http://www.in.gov/cji/2383.htm
If they are wrong maybe you should contact them.
I am surprised that someone that has made arrests in the past would disagree with our local prosecutor, the gov of IN, and code Indiana Code 9-30-6-9.
I have only quoted them
I certainly hope so Wisconsin has been doing it for 13 years and they have not gone up yet. I think the real problem could be this. lets say you get your blood drawn, it just gives a lawyer another hurdle to get thrown out, procedure to inspect, another thing that Lawyers find away around. Unfortunatly its become how the game works. I just hate to see Greene county have to wait 20 years to see the fruit from this. Drunks already get taken off the road , they already get the same punishment, they already face a trial with the same chances of walking. Quite frankly the effort we have put in has worked, drunk fatalities per capita have been falling for years. I just think a program that will take more than 13 years to work while exposing us to great liability is not worth it.
On a different topic, there are a lot of great police officers doing a lot of great work to inforce the laws we have to help fight this and I commend them. I hate to see there effort diminished by a program that may not work at all or for many many years.
I just cannot make you understand how our criminal justice system works then. You are absolutley correct, it is a word game; mine, yours, whosever. But the end result is the constitution (I know, "an outdated document") allows officers to seize physical evidence with probable cause and with a warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances, and thats what this program is about, collecting physical evidence. I say the longer this program continues, you will see the conviction rate increase above 40%.
It is this laissez-faire approach that is the reason why no one takes a ovwi conviction seriously.
Billhess
I will just give up, because i have came to the understanding that you have no clue what you are talking about. I do know the law and have arrested several people for ovwi in the past. So if you want to keep typing away about things that you have no clue on keep typing. Most of us know that you have no idea what your talking about, so we can just laugh at your comments.
A blood and breath sample is just great evidence in arrest, and also when you get your drivers license you agree to take a chemical test if offered. Go read the books, and get your facts straight!!!!
PF said this:"I want to reiterate, an OVWI REFUSAL will result in the immediate arrest of a violator, but does not add a criminal charge, it changes a criminal charge into a non-negotiable, no questions asked, administrative suspension of your driving privlege."
Even if we play the word game, I would rather have a criminal charge that I could fight, rather than a non-negotiable no questions suspension. Even playing your word game refusal is a worse result.
also if it is as you say a refusal does not result in an additional charge, someone should contact the gov's office and explain to them that the department of Indiana justice web site is wrong.
I guess you are just not getting my point, call it a charge call it a suspension, call it anything, the results are the same:
1.Joe #1 Caught drunk refuses breath test: a night or two in jail one year without license and a DUI trial he has a 40% chance of winning.
2.Joe #2 caught drunk refuses breath test, they draw blood: a night or two in jail one year without a license and a DUI trial he has a 40% chance of winning.
Call it anything you like the results are the same. call it an "ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION" It just avoids the point, no matter what you call it, what does drawing blood get you, statistics show it does not get you a better chance of a conviction? So stop playing word games. in the two joes what is the difference?, what are the risks/costs. no has yet to answer this, just alot of well it's called something else.
The refusal of a breath test does not ADD another charge. When a inpaired driver is arrested, he is generally charged with 3 msidemeanors. Count 1- OVWI, Count 2- OWVI in a manner that endagers a person, and Count 3- OVWI Per Se (Driving with a BAC higher than legally allowed). This is if he takes a breath test and/or sumbits to Implied Consent.
If the driver refuses, he gets charged with Count 1 and Count 2 only. He also is submitted to an ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION of his License for one year. The Administrative Suspension is a result of refusing to follow rules that you as a driver agree to for the privledge of getting a license to drive.
Do you understand that according to the State, driving is a privledge, not a right. I have read the US Constitution and the Indiana Constitution and nowhere does it garuntee you the RIGHT to DRIVE, nowhere.
Furthermore, it does not matter what the suspect is charged with, wether its one count of OVWI or 100. He is only convicted of of one count, as the others are lesser included offenses.
Compare this to Murder if you will. A man murders someone and is charged with murder, a jury can CONVICT him the lesser included offense of Voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter. Here a person might get charged with 3 counts of OVWI, but only convicted of 1.
MR. Hess, you need to understand that there is a huge difference between Arrested and Convicted. Our Prosecutor wants to have the best case possible. This is in order to effect longer sentences, more consequence and less repeat offenders. Hum, isn't that the Prosecutors job?
I want to reiterate, an OVWI REFUSAL will result in the immediate arrest of a violator, but does not add a criminal charge, it changes a criminal charge into a non-negotiable, no questions asked, administrative suspension of your driving privlege.
Its good bill dont drink if he is like this sober yikes...
If you would just scroll up and read the article you are talking about you would see this in the 7th paragraph up:
For those motorists who exercise their right to refuse the offer of a chemical test, their driver's license shall be suspended for one year
All of this is explained by Indiana law, the link I gave you is from the Indiana govenors office. That is what people need to know refusing a breath test Adds a charge it does not get rid of anything, or get you out of a DUI charge.
for whocares: I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong on this one. Here are a couple of links that show it:
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/indiana.php
look at the bottom
and this one:
http://www.in.gov/cji/2383.htm
about a 1/3 of the way up from the bottom it says this: What happens when a person refuses a chemical test?
They are immediately charged with a DUI and with refusing. A refusal results in two charges and your license being suspended up to one year.
It really is that simple, refusal adds a charge to you, it gets you out of nothing. please read it, ask any police officer, you are just way wrong on this.
Billhess,
I can explain stuff to my children better than I can explain stuff to you. You can NOT NOT NOT charge anybody with a refusal. This is not a criminal offense!!!!! You can NOT NOT NOT charge anybody with a refusal, it is an INFRACTION!!!!
Alcohol would show up in a breath test.
Medication will NOT!!!!!! Some of the OVWI in Greene County are related to overdose, recreational drugs, or illegal use of medication. This requires the officer to have a blood draw. Breath test will NOT NOT NOT show medication.
Maybe you should research the Laws of Indiana and not another state.
I am sure if your friend is a cop, he could explain the difference between a drunk on medication and alcohol. A drunk on medication would not smell like alcohol but still shows the the clues of an intoxicated driver.
So give it up unless you want to run for office and changes the laws.
First some facts.
1.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found in a 1991 survey of 40 states that 19% of drivers arrested for DUI refused to be tested.
2.No national statistics exist, but in Wisconsin 92% of the 38,214 DUI cases handled in 2002, the drivers were convicted.
3.Drunk driving remains the second-most-common crime in the U.S. behind drug offenses.
4.Out of 1,257 blood drawn DUI cases in Wisconsin in 2002, 37% were found not guilty at trial.
What this means is that 20% of the time someone refuses the test and blood is drawn they still get off at a trial 40% of the time.
I know what the prosecutor is trying to do here it is simple. He is pissed when a drunk beats a DUI in court. He wants more evidence so he can win more cases. But I feel he is losing sight of the big picture. 40% of the time with blood they win anyway. I'm guessing that is real close to the rate of without blood. Look folks no matter what you do there will always be someone with enough money to beat a charge. It's not fair. If I had a way to stop it I would. Drawing blood is not that way.
Driver comparison:
1.Joe #1 Caught drunk refuses breath test: a night or two in jail one year without license and a DUI trial he has a 40% chance of winning.
2.Joe #2 caught drunk refuses breath test, they draw blood: a night or two in jail one year without a license and a DUI trial he has a 40% chance of winning.
The only difference in the two is we a citizens of Greene County opened ourselves of to a lot of possible trouble by holding him down and sticking a needle in his arm. For this to make sense some one is going to have to be able to say we get a high enough conviction rate with blood to make the risk worth it. Not just a cop or two saying it, not just the prosecutor saying in my experience, real data that shows it is worth it. 42 states have looked at the data and said it's not worth it. Does that mean we shouldn't, no what it means is lets look at what we are doing, lets look at the facts, lets see what we are getting for the risk.
from the Indiana gov web site:
What happens when a person refuses a chemical test?
They are immediately charged with a DUI and with refusing. A refusal results in two charges and your license being suspended up to one year.
You still get tried for the DUI, it actually adds charges by refusing.
I get that a conviction for DUI is harder to get without a blood test, but it does happen often. What I don't get is the person that refuses is convicted and does lose the ability to drive for one year and still charged with DUI. What does drawing blood do to save lives? and is it worth the risk?
"For those motorists who exercise their right to refuse the offer of a chemical test, their driver's license shall be suspended for one year"
That is true, the above quote is from the article. If you read it. Refusal of a breath test is not a fine only, you lose your license for one year. This is exactly what people need to understand. I'm sorry but you have it exactly wrong.
Billhess
If you research the law you can refuse a breath test. THAT IS AN INFRACTION ONLY!!!!!! That is compared to a speeding ticket!!!!!!! A blood draw will allow the officer to charge the subject with a crime. In certain cases the crime could be a felony.
So if you think it is ok to refuse and let someone just pay a fine and walk away, I hope this person don't kill someone.
So let me help you understand the picture...
You refuse, you get an infraction ticket for approximately 150.00 dollars
Officers draw blood they get better evidence to get a conviction to but the suspect in jail.
I hope this is clear enough.
Thank you for your response. I do have a few clarifying questions. You say "OVWI Enforcement saves lives. Simple as that" we all know that. This is not about that. You then go on to talk about conviction. What I don't get is once you refuse the breath test you are guilty of a crime that has the same penalty of ovwi. You lose your license for one year for refusal. So you never answer the question once you are pulled over, have refused the breath test, how does drawing blood save any lives? you are still off the road for one year. I just don't get how drawing blood saves lives. The person is already not allowed to drive, does taking his blood change the way he will drive in a year?
I guess my question two is really an extension of the first question. The incident I cited was only to show that there are bad cops, there are some that do things just cause they get mad and want to screw with somebody. Ability to draw blood would give a bad cop another tool to screw things up and a good cop doesn't need it because by refusing a breath test the person is already off the road and you have potentially saved lives.
As for the risks, you mention our legislative branch and the argument that well it is legal so it must be worth the risk. Wasn't slavery legal? The legislative branch did not allow blacks or women to vote at one time. I don't think that just because they decided to do it, it must be okay is a reason to to something.
So let me ask, Joe gets drunk and drives home, Joe gets pulled over and refuses the breath test. Now he will be guilty of refusal which carries the same penalty as ovwi, he will not drive for one year, he is off the road. How does drawing his blood save lives? Lets say that MOST of the time you draw his blood you get a conviction on a different named crime. You get a conviction on ovwi instead of refusal to take a breath test. I just am not clear on how that change saves lives? If you are going to go into the whole conviction deters crime aspect, fist of all you have a conviction, secondly there are many studies that show conviction does not deter crime. Most know that the death penalty does not deter crime any more than life in prison. They are already off the streets. Just like this case, they are already not able to drive for one year.
I still just don't get how the act of drawing blood saves lives. I think all drunk drivers should be off the road and punished. I think this happens without drawing blood. What does drawing blood accomplish in reality? Even if it would get a slightly longer penalty? Would it be worth the risks? Please don't assume that because they do it, it must be okay.
Sorry for my delay in this response. I will answer any questions that you have, factually.
QUESTION 1:
Why do we need it?
OVWI Enforcement saves lives. Simple as that. However, in order to CONVICT these impaired drivers, Officers must not only establish the probable cause needed to arrest and detain them, but they also need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. The convictions are need twofold. One, to deter the criminal element from drinking and driving, and two, to protect society from dangerous people. I know this is a difficult concept to understand, but impaired drivers are dangerous. They are more likely to be involved in a crash that, God forbid, involves innocent people.
Question 2:
Why do we need it?
I will assume in this question you are referring to the actual collection of physical evidence and not the OVWI Enforcement.
You answer this question yourself in referring to the Excise Officer and his litigious incident. If there was physical evidence of intoxication in this incident, I think it would be fair to say it would have played out a little different.
Under Indiana State Law, it is a crime to operate a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration greater that 0.08%. In order to prove that, would it not be reasonable to think officers would need a blood sample or a breath sample as physical evidence.
Question 3:
What are the risks?
I am sure the possible risks you have mentioned are there. I am not in the medical profession and must take you at your word for that. However, our legislative branch of government has decided that the risks of this minor intrusion based upon probable cause is a lesser risk than the possibility of an impaired driver being allowed to continue on the roadway and risk the chance of harming INNOCENT people, who happen to be in the path.
It is important to remember that the job of the police is not only to catch the bad guys, but also to protect the good guys from the actions of the bad guys.
I dare to ask, would you make these same arguments if a drunk driver crashed into, and injured or killed an innocent member (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or spouse) of your family. Just so you know, in 2007, an estimated 12,998 people died in alcohol-impaired traffic crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). These deaths constitute 31.7 percent of the 41,059 total traffic fatalities in 2007. These numbers come from MADD.org and NTHSA.
Also, this is not a holiday weekend only program. Officers have been using this procedure for some time now. I would venture to guess that the reason for the press and the beefed up patrols are because there is a tremendous amount of more traffic on the roadways during the holiday seasons and because there is also a lot more celebrating, including the use of intoxicating liquors, over the holidays.
I hope I have answered you questions.
I guess I'm confused. How does drawing their blood save lives? they are already off the road. they have lost their license for one year for refusal. so how does drawing blood on top of this save lives? And by costs it means risks. Are there any risks. Only seven states in the US allow this because of deaths and complications from it. Is this a risk for us. Getting drunks off the road saves lives, This is about what you do with them once they are already off the road. Thanks for a open discussion about this. It is important for the people of greene county to know what they are risking and what they are getting
The obvious question that only I have tried to address is why do we need it, what does it achieve, what are the costs (risks)? can ANYONE actually attempt to answer any of the Three?
Your lack of answer speaks volumes. Notice how the subject is changed. We all know that the good cops don't need these three days of special punishment for drunks, we all know that the few bad cops also don't need it. I'm sorry for having got off topic at times. There are a lot of well trained officers doing a great job out there. This article is not about that. This article is about doing something different for a few days. Something extra. If as some have suggested we are doing it all year actually, then this paper and the prosecutors office is wasting our time and theirs and lying to us acting like this is news. If it is something special for this time period. The question is simple, why not do it all year? Obviously there is a reason. I was only pointing out it could be because of the risks. It clearly seems that it is possible cause the other side refuses to even discuss it. This article is about a few days of change, not training,drinking,rights,searches,. The obvious question that only I have tried to address is why do we need it, what does it achieve, what are the costs (risks)? can ANYONE actually attempt to answer any of the Three?
billhess,
Give it up, law enfocement has done several of these search warrants over the last year. There has been no problems in that time frame. The story you keep referring to happen several years ago and no blood was drawn. That was a public intoxication case not a DUI. This one officer you are talking about is behind a desk and don't even enforce the laws anymore.
I guess no one is going to address the question do you want the cop in the linked story to be able to draw blood. That cop had probable cause. I will ask it one more time and then give up. Do you want this cop to be able to draw blood http://gcdailyworld.com/story/1294447.ht...
And again,DUI's are good, drunks are bad, we get them off the road with the laws we use 360 days a year. Do you want the extra risk of that cop being able to perform a procedure that could cause death.
Mr. Hess, Your statement is inaccurate. I would like to inform you that in these types of cases, there is procedure that is followed to avoid the blood draws. First, the officer must/will establish what is called probable cause to arrest the suspect and then he is offered a certified BREATH TEST. IF the subject refuses the breath test (PLEASE NOTE THE SUSPECT REFUSED THE BREATH TEST), then the officer petitions a unbiased impartial Judge who determines if there is probable cause to recover PHYSICAL EVIDENCE from the suspect. Please note this process is conducted PURSUANT to the Constitution of the United States of America, note the 4th Ammendment.
In the fact that the Judge issues a search warrant to recover the physical evidence, then the blood draw is performed by a certified medical staff personnel, not by the law enforcement officer. Rest assured the medical staff is trained in recognizing the sypmtoms of hemophilia and are properly trained.
As a certified law enforcemtn instructor, in regards to your inaccurate statement about Newly hired police officer not recieving any training until the academy for one year, this could not be further from the truth.
Officers are required to attend a minimum PREBASIC Course before they are granted any type of arrest powers. I know that our agency and every other agency in this area then require the newly hired to further go into a field training program that encompasses many aspects of law enforcement areas.
Your ignorance of the whole process is exactly what is wrong with these types of forums. Ask your friend, the cop, if there are fail safes and judicial reviews by a prosecutor and a judge before these types of warrants and blood draws are conducted.
Here is a though! DON'T DRINK and DRIVE! Especially if you are a hemophilliac!
wow will he ever give it up. Officers are trained on dui's, and within in the first year the new officers usually have a very trained officer making the arrest.
I actually don't drink. however If they have been doing this year round I really feel sorry for all the folks of greene county opening themselves up to that risk. Not one person has addressed the fact of what happens when you get a hemophiliac and they die. This has happened. Not one person has addressed the idea that the cop in this story does not need the power to draw blood :http://gcdailyworld.com/story/1294447.html
Folks I hate drinking and driving, it should be stopped. It is stopped with normal actions, this story is just for show and is a risk we don't need to take. I or no one is saying drinking and driving is okay, what we are saying is that to hold someone down and draw their blood on the word of one person that could be untrained or one of the few bad officers is too great of a risk. Please folks stick to the topic, do you want to give the police officer in the above story that power?
just in case you would like proof here it is, note the first question:
http://www.in.gov/ilea/2330.htm
Lots of towns hire someone for a year and then send them to school. What this means is that you have an untrained person holding you down and drawing your blood cause he said so. No checks, no balances. I know that several towns in Greene county have had many officers on the payroll before going to training.
I have looked it up, i have a good friend that is a law officer, you can be one for one year before attending law academy. It's a fact. I have no sob story, most cops are great, but we all know that there are a few bad ones, and this rule will give them more ammo to do harm. Why ruin the reputation of all the good cops by allowing this to happen.
bill,
Get over it. We have heard your sob story on every law enforcement related article wrote in the GCDW. You are WRONG regarding that comment about an officer not having to be trained for the first year. Look it up. Get the facts straight before you start making these comments.
Very good point billhess!
billhess,
Your point was made in other articles. Give it up.
'it is to notify all those who operate vehicles on our roadways that law enforcement does take seriously the dangers posed by impaired drivers, according to Holtsclaw' Since this is the point does it mean they don't take it seriously the rest of the year? Come on folks we all know why this is not done all year. It would be nothing other than TROUBLE giving every cop the right to take you to a hospital and hold you down to take blood. You can be a cop for one year with absolutely no training. 1% of the population has some degree of a hemophiliac (uncontrollable bleeding). Combine these two and what that means is your county is going to lose millions of dollars due to one untrained cop. Several states have stopped doing this practice because it KILLED. Apparently your prosecutor feels it's worth the risk just to double punish anyone that disagrees with a cops opinion of probable cause.