Police Draw Blood at Drunk Driving Stops

Arizona allows it. Idaho and Texas may be next. Officers from these two states are currently undergoing training, in a test project, to draw blood from drivers suspected of drunk driving... at the scene of the stop.

The officers are being trained in a highly compressed phlebotomy course to draw blood from the hand or elbow crease.

The procedure is designed to curtail the rate of breath test refusals. The nationwide refusal rate is 22%, which has been reduced to 8-9% in Arizona since the program began in 1995. Another goal of the program is to ultimately reduce the number of drunk driving trials.

Moreover, in 1966 our supreme court upheld that the police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunk driving suspect without a warrant, so long as the draw was based on a reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated, that it was done after an arrest, and carried out in a medically-approved manner.

So imagine you are driving down the highway. You detect a patrolman's lights and sirens behind you. You are pulled over and asked a series of questions to determine whether you are intoxicated. The police flash a light in your eyes. They smell your breath, observe your car for evidence, ask for your registration and insurance and ask you to step out of your car. You are asked to blow into a Datamaster breathalyzer unit. You refuse. Field sobriety tests are administered, which you fail. So, you are arrested, taken to the police station, where a warrant is obtained and a blood test is conducted.

But, now imagine this scene in Arizona. The order of events is slightly different--expedited if you will. You refuse the preliminary breath test, PBT. You fail field sobriety tests and the officer pulls a syringe out of his medipac and draws your blood on the hood of your car.

Problematic? You bet. This practice, which was first implemented in Arizona in 1995, has raised concerns about safety and the credibility of the evidence. It has the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' DUI Committee talking. While most legal experts agree that blood tests are a better measure of blood alcohol level than breath tests, these tests can have problems, too. The vials can be mixed up or the preservative level in the tubes can be off, or blood can be stored improperly allowing it to ferment and boost alcohol content.

From an evidence standpoint, admitting a tested blood sample into evidence requires that the party who drew the blood confirm that:

• the blood sample was taken in a timely manner;
• the sample was from a particular person;
• the sample was taken by an authorized licensed physician, a medical technologist, or a registered nurse designated by a licensed physician;
  sterilized instruments were used;
• the sample was properly preserved and labeled;
• proper methods of transportation were used;
• procedures used in the test sample withdrawal were proper; and
• the identity of the supervising person, under whose care the sample was withdrawn, was established.

Gard v Michigan Produce Haulers, 20 Mich App 402, 407–408, 174 NW2d 73 (1969); see also People v Cords, 75 Mich App 415, 427, 254 NW2d 911 (1977); Clark v Flint, 60 Mich App 364, 367, 230 NW2d 435 (1975); Rose v Paper Mills Trucking Co, 47 Mich App 1, 4, 209 NW2d 305 (1973).

As I see it, the the integrity of the samples, the methods used to obtain them and even the preservation techniques will certainly become a new arena of litigation. Moreover, on a personal note....I do not like giving the police the extra authority to draw blood at the scene, no matter how skilled they are. Arrests are heated affairs. It seems to me that police blood draws are dangerous and unpredictable, and cannot be controlled to my satisfaction.

http://www.aggressivemichiganlegal.com