TN Highway Patrol to conduct 'no refusal' enforcement Labor Day weekend

[steve2470]

http://www.wkrn.com/story/26358249/thp-to-conduct-no-refusal-enforcement-labor-day-weekend

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -The Tennessee Highway Patrol will conduct a “no refusal” enforcement campaign this Labor Day weekend.

It goes into effect at Midnight Friday, Aug. 29 and concludes at Midnight Monday, Sept. 1.

The “no refusal” campaign means that if a driver is pulled over for suspected drinking and driving they cannot refuse to take a blood test. It allows law enforcement to seek search warrants for blood samples if they suspect someone is driving while impaired.

“Law enforcement officials have another tool to utilize to deter impaired driving and reduce fatal crashes on Tennessee roadways by conducting ‘no refusal' enforcements,” THP Colonel Tracy Trott said.

*end of excerpt*

So they can strap someone down and draw blood against their will ? I'm not a civil rights lawyer, but this seems illegal to me.


ETA:

Approval for involuntary blood draws is typically attained via telephone as judge magistrates will remain on standby throughout the weekend to handle officers’ requests.

from this link: http://benswann.com/tn-cops-to-draw-blood-at-labor-day-weekend-no-refusal-dui-checkpoints/

Even with a judge's consent, this just seems pretty extreme.

[Art_from_Ark]

1. Remind me never to drive in Tennessee during Labor Day weekend

This "We can jab you with a needle and you have no recourse" stuff is pure unconstitutional crap.

[steve2470]

2. It's just so extreme wow

In Florida, if you refuse the breathalyzer or other field sobriety tests, they can revoke your license and, I'm assuming, take you in for questioning. But strapping you down forcibly and drawing blood ? WTF.

[Warpy]

4. It's the same here in NM

Refusing a breathalyzer is automatically considered a guilty plea.

I don't think drawing blood against consent is going to last long.

[steve2470]

6. I agree, I think at least one defendant is going to go all the way to the wall with this

I think I would, especially if I was not legally intoxicated and they strapped me down. I would be very pissed off.

[librechik]

41. this should be challenged by some brave individual--but

but the courts seem determined to take advantage of these opportunities to strip us of another civil right or four.

[villager]

51. If only we could elect Constitutional Scholars to high office -then the 4th Amendment would be safe!

[madville]

68. They will forcibly draw blood in Florida

If there are injuries, hit&run, deaths, etc.

[Warpy]

3. Blood draws don't pose a huge risk

and I always suggest people popped for DUI request one to confirm the breathalyzer test since calibration is a possible (although not probable) issue.

Anything invasive should require consent, though. I wonder why they're not using breathalyzers in TN.

So much for the Fourth. It was nice when we had it.

[Art_from_Ark]

7. They pose a risk if the needles aren't sterile

And I don't let anybody except a qualified physician/nurse get beneath my skin. And even then, it's only when absolutely necessary.

[Warpy]

50. Well, they're disposable

Reusing needles went out in the 60s.

EMTs and lab technicians are also taught venipuncture.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. All the same,

I don't want anyone poking around under my skin unless it's for an absolutely necessary medical procedure, not just some bullshit traffic stop.

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

76. Even a qualified nurse isn't good enough sometimes

I know for my bad veins that a phlebotomist is needed to give me an IV.

[Egnever]

63. Not so sure about that

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/mar/09/assembly-line-colonoscopies-clinic-described/

Then, 10 days ago, the Southern Nevada Health District announced that 40,000 people might have been infected with hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV because of dangerous injection practices at the downtown endoscopy center.

Dr. Dipak Desai, majority owner of the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, leaves Las Vegas City Hall on March 3. Desai has surrendered his medical license pending the outcome of a state investigation.

Never, it seems, has the community been so collectively outraged as now, with the news that patients were put at risk of being infected with fatal diseases because of a doctor’s drumbeat to save money.

According to investigators, the nurses claimed that Dr. Dipak Desai, one of the state’s most powerful physicians and owner of the clinic, had ordered the dangerous practices. When patients needed more anesthetic, the nurses were using the same syringe to dip back into the vial. That tainted the medicine. Then, even though the vials were intended for single use, the nurses would reuse them on other patients. That passed along infection. Little money would be saved by reusing syringes, but reusing the medicine could save $5 to $10 per procedure, experts estimated.

[Warpy]

67. Injection is a completely different animal from phlebotomy for blood draw

"Dangerous injection practices means using multidose vials that should be discarded after each patient and accessing the vials twice or more with the same needle, then using that vial on another patient.

[bluesbassman]

5. Direct infringement of the Fourth Amendment IMO.

I really don't understand what the rationale is for it, as I know California has severe penalties for refusal and I assume most other states do too. Seems like a money making scheme for the DUI convictions and I'd lay odds that somebody will challenge it in court.

[FrodosPet]

34. If they are getting warrants, like the story said

Then there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite this ruling, drivers continue to challenge the legality of DUI checkpoints, asking one very persistent question: are DUI checkpoints unconstitutional?

Prior to the 1990 ruling, several Michigan drivers filed suit against the state after being arrested in a DUI roadblock. The drivers argued that, because they were stopped without reason, their arrests clearly violated the Fourth Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. After reviewing the case, the Michigan State Supreme Court agreed with the drivers and ruled in their favor—but that changed once the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

~ snip ~

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following this ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them.

~ snip ~

[Warren DeMontague]

8. No one is more opposed to impaired driving than me, but I am skeptical about the constitutionality

Or legality of this.

I mean, if they could do that, wouldn't they do it year round? They get a free pass on labor day weekend?

Doesnt make sense.

[Art_from_Ark]

9. They're taking the "Give us an inch, we'll take a mile" approach

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I guess.

Maybe the difference is, they're saying that over labor day they'll actually go and get the warrants.... But doesn't that just advertise that the rest of the year they wont bother?

[Art_from_Ark]

13. First it will be Labor Day weekend

then Christmas/New Year's, then Thanksgiving, then Fourth of July and Memorial Day. Then they'll announce that the program has been so successful, they'll implement it year-round.

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. Actually, they do it on all holidays and/or long weekends. They usually do it under the guise of

their "Click it or Ticket" seatbelt laws. They are also required to put notice ahead of time in the newspaper, stating where they are setting up and at what times since they are basically closing down major roadways.

Peace,

Ghost

[Art_from_Ark]

17. Are we talking about invasive blood tests

or just breathalyzers? And is this Tennessee, or some other state(s)?

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Blood tests.... and yes, in Tennessee... n/t

[steve2470]

11. more from my second link:

Forced blood extractions take place off-site at a police precinct, making the process time consuming for individuals who might be innocent. Additionally, for those who refuse to comply, extraction locations are equipped with tools to strap down suspects and masks to cover their faces.

[Iron Man]

12. How is this even constitutional?

[FrodosPet]

26. Opinion recap: Limit on DUI blood testing

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/opinion-recap-limit-on-dui-blood-testing/

A police officer out on patrol who stops a driver who seems to be drunk may not have read through four new Supreme Court opinions and counted the Justices’ votes accurately, but that officer would probably do the sensible thing by getting a warrant before having the driver’s blood tested without consent.

That would be the best thing to do because the bottom line of the Court’s decision Wednesday in Missouri v. McNeely (11-1425) was that every case will be judged on its own facts, so the officer can never know whether failure to get a warrant will scuttle a drunk-driving case altogether.

None of the Court’s four opinions — a majority, two separate opinions supporting the result, and one dissenting opinion — said that officers investigating drunk-driving cases must always get a warrant. But the majority did say that the Constitution does not allow police to get a blood sample without ever having to get a warrant, in any case (as the dissenting opinion suggested). So that sets up the case-by-case approach, suggesting that getting a warrant very likely would remove the doubt.

~snip~

[Lee-Lee]

31. They are calling in and getting a warrant

As long as a judge signs off on it they can draw blood.

[Ghost in the Machine]

14. They do this all the time in my County and the next County over if you refuse a breathalyzer...

especially if it's obvious that you are impaired, or if they can tell you're impaired but don't smell of alcohol. They draw blood or wait until you have to pee and take your urine to test to see what kind of drugs you are on. We have a LOT of meth heads and pill addicts around here. That's just life in small-town Tennessee I guess....

I don't condone it, but understand it... especially after my son and niece were almost killed a while back when a methed out asshole blew a stop sign and T-boned my niece's car. The other driver was obviously impaired, but had no odor of alcohol on her. She also had young kids in the vehicle who weren't strapped in properly, or at all.

You *should* have some kind of say about people sticking needles in you against your will though. At least it's done here by a qualified person, like a nurse or EMT. *I* damned sure wouldn't let just anyone, like a cop with no training, stick ME with a needle.

Peace,

Ghost

[steve2470]

15. very glad your son and niece are ok, at least I hope so !

I'm all against impaired driving of any kind, but this just seems way too radical. I think arresting people and revoking licenses is really as extreme as I can go for. I haven't researched this or devoted a lot of thought to it, so I'm open-minded to reasonable approaches that also preserve our rights.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Thank you, and yes they are fine now. I actually heard the call come over my scanner about

5 minutes or so after they left my house, and I tried calling them both and neither one answered. It happened at the first stop sign from my house... 3 miles from my house... Then I get a text from a friend saying "get your ass down to 4 Corners, your son is laying in the middle of the road and your niece is trapped in the car!" Needless to say, I was gone in a flash and broke a few driving laws getting there. They wouldn't let me near the ambulance or see my son at first, and I was thinking the worst and really freaked out. I had called my folks and my sister as I was leaving, and they got there right after me. I'm standing in the pouring rain, still trying to get to the ambulance, when they finally told me my son was ok.

The reason he was in the street was because, even though in shock, he had gotten out of the car and went to the drivers side trying to get his cousin out in case the car caught fire... or before they got hit again, but he wound up just collapsing in the road.

I still worry every time one of my kids leave the house, even though my daughter just turned 22 last week and my son will be 21 next month. I raised them alone since they were 3 & 4 years old and they will ALWAYS be my *kids*.

Peace,

Ghost

[Art_from_Ark]

20. I was once stopped by a cop in Connecticut

for running a red light. It was late at night, and he thought I was driving impaired. Then he realized I was Driving While Sleepy, so he just told me to stop at the all-night diner down the street and load up on caffeine. That was 35 years ago. I shudder to think of being in the same situation today.

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. I hear you there, Art. I've driven that way myself before. Many times from East Tennessee to

Homestead, Florida, others from Tenn to Michigan and would drive my crew 12 hours to a job site and get out and work 10 to 12 hours. I was much younger then though, and also have a bad back and neck...

Peace,

Ghost

[rollin74]

18. Supreme Court has ruled forced blood draws to be OK if cops get a warrant

not saying that I personally agree with it

it used to be fairly common in many places to have forced blood draws in suspected DUI cases (even without a warrant) before Missouri v. McNeely U.S. Supreme Court decision in April 2013

[steve2470]

19. hm ok thanks for the info nt

[Live and Learn]

24. If we don't put an end to the madness, someday they will

simply be able to evaporate us with a drone based on a suspicion alone.

[RiffRandell]

25. What horseshit! nt

[FrodosPet]

30. They are supposed to get warrants first

If you fail a field sobriety test, a breathalyzer test, or refuse them, it is considered probable cause. It appears they are getting valid warrants, which can be issued over the telephone.

Tough call, but there is a valid public safety issue in preventing impaired driving.

[hobbit709]

36. Had a case here where someone failed a field sobriety test, blew a 0.00% and the blood test showed

nada for ANY alcohol and no drugs that they test for.
Person STILL got a DUI and it took him a year to clear it up. OF course he was stopped for DWB. And this was here in Austin.

[NutmegYankee]

27. I think violence to resist would be justified.

Nothing, whether needle or knife, should be penetrated through the skin without express consent. Given the concerns about sterilization of needles, your life may in fact be in danger.

[blkmusclmachine]

28. More Police State tactics.

When do we fight back?

[FrodosPet]

32. We must demand our right to drive hammered! It's the libertarian thing to do!

Don't like my driving? Stay off the sidewalk!

http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/12/17/legalize-drunk-driving/

[Lee-Lee]

29. As long as they are getting warrants it's Constitutional

And all that is really changing is they are keeping a judge of magistrate on call 24/7 over the weekend to do so.

[tammywammy]

33. They do that here on holiday weekends.

From what I've read is they get a warrant and a nurse draws the blood.

[hobbit709]

35. More police state crap.

How much you want to bet that it will used more on people stopped for DWB than anyone else.

[wandy]

37. Teapublican democray. The freedumb to be guilty until proven innocent. n/t

[MindPilot]

38. You waived your 4th & 5th rights when you said "I do" to a driver's license.

Driving may not be a right, but it is sure as hell is not a privilege; it is a deal I make with the state. California will let me drive on the condition that if I am ever pulled over under the suspicion of being impaired, I will provide self-incriminating evidence in the form of bodily fluids without a warrant. The breathalyzer is an "opt-out" of the blood draw, so this is just another example of the creeping police state pushing the envelope of original intent.

Most attorneys will recommend you refuse the breath test and opt for the blood draw because the breathalyzers are notoriously inaccurate and easily manipulated.

[mrdmk]

47. An attorney recommended the same advice to me

Do not get out of the car, do not ask why you were pulled over, do not submit to a field sobriety test (very subjective).

Do be polite, give the officer your drivers license, car registration, and proof of car insurance.

If the officer insist on you getting out of the car, ask if you are under arrest politely. If taken out of the car, you need to insist on a blood draw.

[Lars39]

39. They do crap like this instead of funding mandatory Drivers' Ed in school.

[hootinholler]

40. What exactly is the probable cause this warrant is based upon? n/t

[FrodosPet]

43. Swerving, speeding, or other signs of impaired driving

If you are unable to operate a motor vehicle without posing an enhanced risk to public safety, regardless of the reason, then that -is- who the cops should be pulling over. As long as they are obtaining warrants, it is constitutional per the United States Supreme Court.

I suppose people could start a campaign to get rid of drunk driving laws, but I cannot imagine a huge groundswell of support for that.

[hootinholler]

44. A traffic stop for that, ok maybe...

But from the article:

Officials said there will also be driver's license, sobriety and seatbelt checkpoints, as well as saturation patrols and bar and tavern checks.

“Our district captains have created enforcement plans specific to their regions. So, there will be a variety of specialized enforcement during Labor Day, including distracted driving, commercial vehicle safety, and Move Over enforcement, for example. However, the priority is always on impaired driving and seatbelt enforcement,” Trott said

My vehicle being parked outside of a restaurant or bar is not probable cause, nor is being stopped at a 'drivers license' checkpoint. The fact of the matter is that local magistrates will accept the cop's word rubberstamping the warrant. How exactly is the warrant served? Do they fax it? Is it verbal? So anyone driving through a sobriety checkpoint is subject to this?

BTW, do you actually think I am opposed to drunk driving laws? Your last sentence could be taken to imply that.

[FrodosPet]

46. Sadly, DUI checkpoints are constitutional

http://www.duicheckpoints.net/areduicheckpointsunconstitutional.html

In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that, despite their “intrusion on individual liberties,” being stopped in a DUI checkpoint does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite this ruling, drivers continue to challenge the legality of DUI checkpoints, asking one very persistent question: are DUI checkpoints unconstitutional?

~ snip ~

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

~ snip ~

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following this ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them.

So what does that mean for you? Well, if you are lucky enough to live in one of the states where roadblocks aren’t allowed (Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), you have nothing to worry about. The rest of us, meanwhile, should take certain precautions to reduce the chances of being arrested during a DUI checkpoint—such as avoiding making incriminating statements about earlier activities or admitting to drinking alcohol, for example.

~ snip ~

------------------------------------------------

My apologies for any implication that I made. But there ARE libertarians out there trying to get rid of DUI laws.

[former9thward]

53. Speeding and swerving are not signs of impaired driving.

There are signs of speeding and swerving which millions of non-impaired drivers do everyday. They do allow a cop to stop you and ask about drinking. Never admit any alcohol use. Without an admission warrants for blood are difficult to obtain.

[Calista241]

42. In Georgia, you can request the hospital that provides you

With your treatment. So if you request a specific hospital for treatment, they have to take you there.

So, theoretically, if that hospital happens to be 200 miles away, you're in for a long car ride.

[Taitertots]

45. ACAB. Where are the so-called "good cops" when we need protection from Fascists?

[former9thward]

48. Where I am at 'no refusal' is practiced all the time.

The minute you tell them you have had any alcohol you have given them probable cause for a warrant. I am not promoting drinking and driving but you should never admit any alcohol use. If a cop asks you if you had anything to drink the best answer is to say "I would like to talk to a lawyer before answering any of your questions." That is completely legal. The cop may still require you to give blood but now they will have to establish probable cause before getting a warrant and that is difficult without an admission.

Most people drinking and driving will say "Well I just had one drink" or "I just had a couple". Any answer like that gives them probable cause for the warrant.

[spanone]

49. yep i live here. if it's not illegal it sure as hell should be...what rights do we really have?

Last edited Fri Aug 29, 2014, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

think about it. the state puts a syringe in your are to extract your blood.

[Tsiyu]

52. Just be glad you actually live in America

Here in TN, we do not. What few rights we do have are being lost every day.

A friend is upset with me for wanting to move. I visited him yesterday.

"As soon as you move away, they'll legalize medical cannabis you know."

No, I don't know that.

What I do know is that Tennessee has a state-wide policy of treating every one of its working class and poor and even middle class citizens as if we are all criminals.

To have the medicine I need, I would be a criminal. I am not a criminal. I don't steal, lie, cheat. I work many hours a week. Just want to have my animals and my loved ones, grow a garden, paint, sing, play my guitar.

And yet in the Nation of Tennessee, they consider me a criminal just for thinking about cannabis.

I can't wait to live in America again. Most Tennesseans let their government shit all over them and they just open their mouths wider.

If they are happy with that, who am I to tell them it's wrong? They love being demeaned, exploited and harassed by cops. ( I have to say the cops where I live are very good people and not assholes like in other areas of this state, but I can't just stay here all the time. )

I want to be an American again. I can't wait to get out of this state.

[reflection]

55. You and me.

I'm caring for an aged parent. When the time is right, I will flee this god-forsaken state and never look back. A veritable sea of people who embrace racism, anti-intellectualism and religion. Obviously there are many exceptions, but they are still exceptions.

[Tsiyu]

56. Lemme know when you're leaving. We'll start a convoy

Most of the best people I know, who could be assets to this place but instead are just disgusted at this point, are ready to move. Some of us are considering communal living for a while and having fun choosing Shangri La. But we all have different visions of what that is.

It's only a matter of time until all the talent is gone from here except in the biggest cities, which are fairly nice cities and Democratic but still surrounded by smaller towns run like mob neighborhoods rather than healthy, vibrant places for everyone.

I love where I am but it's not enough to keep me here, not with the laws they're passing. And the dollar goes a long way here. That will be missed. But if you can't make a decent wage, you can't buy anything anyway so what does it matter?

When an auto manufacturer is pissed at how your Senator and Governor treat factory workers, something is messed up. When your congressional rep shuts the government down knowing it will hurt so many people, but giving a big FU to the president and the rest of us ( I have F bombed the prez but not hurting anyone else in the process; PBO could give two flips what I think and that's healthy ) you know you are fucked.

So, yeah. Lot of us on the great Back To America Migration. We may leave permanent ruts in the highway with our covered wagons.

Anyway, I've rambled enough and it's Friday night.




Cheeers

[Egnever]

64. Oh man

I recently took a trip to Colorado.

Sanity on cannabis was a wonderful thing to behold.

[Tsiyu]

65. I bet

Another friend was remarking today about Colorado:

"When I go in one of those shops for the first time, it's gonna be like...****insert awestruck noises here****
Heck, it'll be like that the second and third time and--."

"It'll be like that every time," I interjected.

"Yeah. Yeah you're right."

We're desperately clawing our way back to feudal times here in TN.

Can't wait to see what 2014 actually looks like in the U.S.

[Egnever]

66. Kid in a candy shop doesn't begin to describe it

Was really a mind bending experience after a lifetime of backroom deals.

[TheBlackAdder]

54. There are police flashlights with built-in BAC detectors. The light checks the pupil while scanning.

This way, the cops know who to pull out of the vehicle for a field sobriety check, or in this case, a blood test.

[Texasgal]

57. They do this in Austin every holiday weekend.

It's not a new thing here.

I usually avoid driving at these times and just stay home.

[RedCappedBandit]

58. Who does the actual blood tests there? nt

[steve2470]

60. I think someone said nurses nt

[Go Vols]

59. This has been law here since 2012

They have really been pushing it lately on the TV and radio that its gonna be wide open over the weekend.

Another fucked law here regarding DWI's is that if someone,/kid/sibling drives your car and gets a DWI,you get one too, regardless if your a 1000 miles away on vacation.

[steve2470]

61. I understand WHY the cops want forced blood tests....

but....I'm sorry, to forcibly draw your blood, warrant or no warrant, to me smacks of being locked up in prison, where your civil rights are severely limited. Revoke the license. Lock the sucker up for at least 24 hours. Maybe....impound or confiscate the vehicle. But...no forcible blood tests. I just can't get on board with that law. I might feel differently if a loved one had died at the hands of a drunk driver, but right now, I can't endorse it.

[Go Vols]

62. I don't endorse it at all,

and I am fixing to head to the bar.Its only 300 yards tho,I may ride my bike.

[JEB]

69. Why not just waterboard a confession out of them or better yet

on the spot execution and confiscation of vehicle. Vampire cops. I imagine a very shitty movie.

[Wella]

70. This is unconstitutional.

Where is the ACLU?

[Quantess]

72. I support this. Get drunks off the road.

What is the problem?

[tritsofme]

73. For law-abiding citizens this is obviously not the least burdensome method to keep drunks off the

road.

Why should we all sacrifice our civil rights and submit to blood tests? How else are you prepared to submit?

[Quantess]

74. Okay, wow. I did not see the part about blood sample

until now. There is no way that would be considered legal search.

Is this for real?

[NutmegYankee]

75. I'm surprised they don't test the blood for other drugs like canabis.

You know they are thinking about it.

[obxhead]

77. No, a refusal becomes a second charge and you also get an automatic

DWI.

Both charges will result in a minimum 2,year license suspension with no possibility of a restricted license to at least drive to work.

They can't strap you down and take your blood.

[steve2470]

78. apparently in TN they can

That's my reading of the story. Admittedly, I'm sure they try to get you to give a blood sample voluntarily first. I'm sure forcibly drawing blood is the absolute last resort, which is only done after they call a judge on call to get a warrant.

That's why I'm reacting so strongly.

[obxhead]

79. What would be the point?

As soon as you refuse they get an automatic max DWI (.015 or greater) and the secondary refusal charge which removes any chance at a restricted license. The blood test could only lessen the charge.

[steve2470]

80. oh, I'd submit voluntarily to field sobriety tests

Some people refuse that option, for whatever reason. I just can't endorse forcible blood draws. If you endorse forcible blood draws, we agree to disagree.

[obxhead]

81. I don't agree with forced blood draws.

However, I don't think that's what they are doing.

Yes they get a warrant, your refusal to obey that warrant results in a charge, the maximum charge.

Florida and Virginia have these same laws. A refusal does not end with you being taken to the hospital for a forced blood draw. It only results in the max charges and no lawyer can get you out f them.