Get this: "And often, lawyers say, defendants faced with blood evidence admit their guilt and don't bother with a trial. 'If it bleeds, it pleads,' said Fort Worth prosecutor Richard Alpert."
At least the government has a cute phrase for the process of prosecuting someone with blood taken against their will.
from the article: "Last year, about 800 traffic deaths in Texas involved a legally intoxicated driver, and that number has steadily increased in recent years, according to the Texas Department of Transportation. In 2009, Texas had the most people killed in alcohol-impaired crashes, according to the most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."
I know that nabbing them after the fact isn't the solution, but - does anybody have a better idea than this one? And don't say prohibiton, or I will smack you right through this monitor!
If you are driving with a blood alcohol above the legal limit you are GUILTY. The job of the defendant's lawyer is to keep the guilty party from paying the penalty for his GUILTY actions. He is still GUILTY and lawyer tricks and stupid jurors do not change that fact.
While on the subject of "taken against their will"...how about those lost in the blink of an eye to a drunk driver? If only they could suffer the infringement of giving up some blood instead of dying horribly. Wouldn't that be glorious?
800 deaths is a lot of lives, and needless. The law is doing what they can to stop it. Anyone know the stats on how many deaths from last year were caused from those bumper riding, agressive, gotta be in front, pass recklessly, idiot drivers? Blood test are useless to use on them.
"The job of the defendant's lawyer is to keep the guilty party from paying the penalty for his GUILTY actions. He is still GUILTY and lawyer tricks and stupid jurors do not change that fact."
Uh....no...not quite right. The job of the defense attorney is to make sure the process is followed correctly and the defendant's rights are not violated.
Double Fake Lye, Cheatem and Steele, attorneys at law
@7:13 - You're first two points assume that the cops are pulling folks over at random and drawing blood because they don't have anything better to do. Paranoid much? First, they suspect that you've been drinking (that's usually because you have been drinking). They don't draw blood until after you refuse the breathalyzer Your next point would have been more convincing if you had said it was your girlfriend's ex-husband. If your GF's ex/ex-wife's BF is a cop, and you can't control the urge to drink and drive...seek treatment If you think this is a police state, you don't know much about areas of the world that actually do live under a police state. In South Korea, they have zero tolerance for drinking and driving - ZERO! There's no legal limit. And that's not even the harsh half of Korea
If someone is charged with a sex crime or a crime where DNA is relevant, law enforcement often gets a warrant for blood or a DNA swab. Getting a blood warrant in DWI case is no different. Blood is evidence of a crime. Also, when do we let the person alleged to have committed a crime decide which evidence is discovered in a case?
Besides, if you are NOT over the legal limit, then there will almost never be a case.
A blood draw search warrant is a search warrant just like all other search warrants. Officers must show probable cause, and satisfy constitutional requirements before the search warrant is issued. No big issue here. This nation's states (and federal government) have been issuing search warrants for all the years since the adoption of the Constitution. Blood draw search warrants are no difference. Texas (and probably everybody else) has been routinely drawing blood by statute WITHOUT A WARRANT for AGES in the situations of suspected DWIs involving death or serious bodily injury, and nobody has ever had a problem with that.
Aw. Does someone have a problem with evidence obtained by warrants issued by "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"??
We understand that it makes life hard for the poor defense attorneys. But don't hate the players. Hate the game.
.jpg)
19 comments:
from the article:
"Last year, about 800 traffic deaths in Texas involved a legally intoxicated driver, and that number has steadily increased in recent years, according to the Texas Department of Transportation. In 2009, Texas had the most people killed in alcohol-impaired crashes, according to the most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."
I know that nabbing them after the fact isn't the solution, but - does anybody have a better idea than this one? And don't say prohibiton, or I will smack you right through this monitor!
If you are driving with a blood alcohol above the legal limit you are GUILTY.
The job of the defendant's lawyer is to keep the guilty party from paying the penalty for his GUILTY actions. He is still GUILTY and lawyer tricks and stupid jurors do not change that fact.
While on the subject of "taken against their will"...how about those lost in the blink of an eye to a drunk driver? If only they could suffer the infringement of giving up some blood instead of dying horribly. Wouldn't that be glorious?
Bull$hit law-- you are required to prove yourself guilty before trail.
800 deaths is a lot of lives, and needless. The law is doing what they can to stop it. Anyone know the stats on how many deaths from last year were caused from those bumper riding, agressive, gotta be in front, pass recklessly, idiot drivers? Blood test are useless to use on them.
We don't need no stinking Vampire we have Supper Trooper Tom Bishop to control the DWI in this county.
4:29
What if...the cops test the blood of someone else and confuse it with yours?
What if...you are pulled over illegally, because you were doing nothing wrong?
What if...the cop that pulled you over is your ex-wife's new boyfriend and he hates you?
I could go on and on.
I would rather be dead than live in a police state.
Kinda like....give me liberty, or give me death, kind of thing.
Double Fake Patrick Henry
Supper Trooper....now that's funny right there.
"The job of the defendant's lawyer is to keep the guilty party from paying the penalty for his GUILTY actions. He is still GUILTY and lawyer tricks and stupid jurors do not change that fact."
Uh....no...not quite right. The job of the defense attorney is to make sure the process is followed correctly and the defendant's rights are not violated.
Double Fake Lye, Cheatem and Steele, attorneys at law
@7:13 -
You're first two points assume that the cops are pulling folks over at random and drawing blood because they don't have anything better to do. Paranoid much? First, they suspect that you've been drinking (that's usually because you have been drinking). They don't draw blood until after you refuse the breathalyzer
Your next point would have been more convincing if you had said it was your girlfriend's ex-husband. If your GF's ex/ex-wife's BF is a cop, and you can't control the urge to drink and drive...seek treatment
If you think this is a police state, you don't know much about areas of the world that actually do live under a police state. In South Korea, they have zero tolerance for drinking and driving - ZERO! There's no legal limit. And that's not even the harsh half of Korea
If someone is charged with a sex crime or a crime where DNA is relevant, law enforcement often gets a warrant for blood or a DNA swab.
Getting a blood warrant in DWI case is no different. Blood is evidence of a crime.
Also, when do we let the person alleged to have committed a crime decide which evidence is discovered in a case?
Besides, if you are NOT over the legal limit, then there will almost never be a case.
4th amendment, WHAT 4th amendment...!?!?
Vial = trial!
A blood draw search warrant is a search warrant just like all other search warrants. Officers must show probable cause, and satisfy constitutional requirements before the search warrant is issued. No big issue here. This nation's states (and federal government) have been issuing search warrants for all the years since the adoption of the Constitution. Blood draw search warrants are no difference. Texas (and probably everybody else) has been routinely drawing blood by statute WITHOUT A WARRANT for AGES in the situations of suspected DWIs involving death or serious bodily injury, and nobody has ever had a problem with that.
"Nothing to see here, people--move on."
What about our right against self-incrimination, or does that right not exist anymore either...?
Don't drink and drive. How hard is that?
Aw. Does someone have a problem with evidence obtained by warrants issued by "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"??
We understand that it makes life hard for the poor defense attorneys. But don't hate the players. Hate the game.
Take it from your arm or your lip. Your choice.
1:32 PM
Hate the cops.
1:45 PM
Come on and get it, big nuts! I'll have me a few more teeth for my necklace. Come at me, bro...
Post a Comment