• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Blood suckers in Police uniforms.

Ecomike

Ecomike

NAXJA# 2091
NAXJA Member
Location
MilkyWay Galaxy
I will start the ball rolling here. I don't like doctors or nursings taking blood, using needles, etc., much less the local police.

But I see other issues as well. One is the risk of their exposure to blood, if say the person has Hepatitis or AIDS. What if the person is a hemophiliac?

I also see potential chain of custody, sample preservation issues. Seems like they should just arrest the person, and then have a professional take the sample.
 
My thoughts are, I'll give blood anytime, anywhere. But just to make it interesting, why not test whomever is taking the blood, maybe even everybody in the decision/policy process. There is likely as much chance (actually more so in my case) that the people on the plunger side (decision making side) of the syringe are likely to turn up positive for some sort of banned substance than many people on the pointy end of the syringe. Heck if they can steer society, they can take a blood test.
Second point is, if they are going to test for alcohol or drugs, wouldn't it be in the public interest to also test for common and possibly undiagnosed disease in the same blood?
I'd be much more willing to go along with the whole process, if it was universal, unbiased and possibly beneficial to a persons health.

I don't know if I'd want this guy taking my blood or not?:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAepItFDXc4
 
Last edited:
Let's see...

Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off, or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and boosting the alcohol content.
Click to expand...

And who determines:
"If we can't get the evidence safely, we're not going to endanger the officers or the public to collect that evidence," he said.
Click to expand...

This is all well and good:
Outside of Arizona, some law enforcement agencies in Utah have officer phlebotomists, and police in Dalworthington Gardens, Texas are cross-trained as paramedics and have been drawing blood for about three years. The NHTSA is in talks with Houston, Texas about doing the phlebotomy training there, he said.
Click to expand...

And this:
"What we found was that the refusal rates of chemical testing lowered significantly since this program began," Haywood said. "Arizona we had about a 20 percent refusal rate in 1995, and today we see about an 8 to 9 percent refusal rate."
Click to expand...

But I have a few concerns.

1) As mentioned, chain of custody. It tends to delay movements.
2) Sample storage in the field. How many cruisers have fridges onboard?
3) Isn't urinalysis ("the whiz quiz") already acceptable as evidence? So, we've got a fluid test to supplement/replace a blood draw already.
4) Yes, the AC and radial sites are about the easiest to draw from, followed by the back of the hand. It's rare to get needle tracks (from a user) on the back of the hand, while long sleeves will cover up the AC and radial sites. But, you can still run into a "tracked user" who will be difficult to stick. Since they're not being trained in feet (which usually get tracked) or other alternate sites, how would that be handled?

I'm not keen on increasing invasion into people's privacy - or into people themselves. While I'll agree that Driving While Intox is a threat to public safety, we need to balance controlling this thread with the rights of the body politic - which runs right into my (generally) Libertarian views (JFTR, my political views are an interesting mix between "Libertarian" and "Draconian.")

Now, they can poke you if you refuse to blow. But, what's to prevent that from changing into, say, "Blow through this tube while we take a blood sample?" Comes the slippery slope once again - All the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again... Every time the government gives itself the ability to do something new, it's near-on impossible to take that ability away again...
 
No Sir, you may not test my blood !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is one of the most outragious privacy invasion and public safety issues I have ever heard of!

Ron
 
In Phoenix, AZ, the police have been doing blood draws for a long time as the only means to obtain a BAC. Officers who draw blood are trained phlebotomist. PBT's have long since been deemed "unreliable" in court and can only be used as a basis of probable cause, thus the blood draws. Blood draws are done at the station, not in the field. The officer who draws the blood, impounds the blood to avoid chain of custody issues (fridges in every station). A person has to submit, by law, to two tests if the officer requests it to determine intoxication levels. Refuse to give the blood? - a search warrant is written, the cops get the blood anyway, and your license is suspended. :)

Don't like to give blood to cops - don't drink and drive.

The laws here are not nice to drunk drivers either. Conviction = time in jail, period (no probation or classes).

Arizona is the wild west. Guns are everywhere. That being said, more officers and people are killed from drunk drivers. I don't think the laws are hard enough...
 
At this rate it won't be long before they start training the police to do proctology :gag: exams as well.
 
It is also a good way to start building a good DNA library. Keep in mind once they have yours they can trace it to your parents and your family down the line.
 
On a real level, I'm not sure I'd want a Cop to take my blood, where are the checks and balances? Say a typical weekend nabs twenty drunk drivers, average fine is say $2000, in a year that could add up to a couple of million bucks. If the people doing the arresting also collect and control the evidence, where is the protection for the citizen? The potential and motivation for Police fraud is there. Take say twenty samples from some wino, slap any old name on there and submit it as evidence, presto chango and extra 2 million a year.
I was pulled over in a drunk check, guy had me blow, then said I'd have to give blood. I'm sitting in the hospital waiting room with a dozen drunks thinking it sure would be easy to mix up a blood sample here ( I hadn't had a drink in months). I demanded two blood samples be taken and payed for the second myself. I was really afraid they'd screw it up and mix up the samples.
The roadside check was a circus, people parked all over, officers and citizens wandering all over. The hospital was about the same, a three ring circus.
If they tested every sample for not only blood alcohol, but for also say PSA, they may also save lives with early cancer detection. Just a thought.
 
DrMoab said:
How did I guess 8Mud would have a comment or two in a thread with the word "police" in it?
Click to expand...
Uh, Ohh, the internet police have arrived, LOL.
Answer is, I invited him!
 
"OOPS, missed the vein again, tell me what I want to hear and we can stop trying to draw your blood..."
 
Out here, each certified phlebotomist is only allowed two pokes. So, if the cop can't get it in two tries, they've got to find another certified phlebotomist to give it a go.

As far as checks and balances goes for DUI arrests, there is absolutely no motivation for the Police in regards to financial gain by switching blood or putting a different name on it and re-submitting it. The costs the city and county incur as a result of court overtime for officers, court costs in general, and housing/feeding the drunks in jail pretty much break even, if not cost the city/county more than the fines the drunk has to pay. In addition, the impounding procedure is so specific that there is no way you could duplicate vials and not get caught b/c of serial numbers and inventory records. AZ has a law that can force the drunk to pay for the costs incurred during their jail stay, but it is not enforced usually.

My buddy is a cop. We've had these discussions before. Bottom line is don't drink and drive, and you won't have to worry about anything.
 
8Mud said:
On a real level, I'm not sure I'd want a Cop to take my blood, where are the checks and balances? Say a typical weekend nabs twenty drunk drivers, average fine is say $2000, in a year that could add up to a couple of million bucks. If the people doing the arresting also collect and control the evidence, where is the protection for the citizen? The potential and motivation for Police fraud is there. Take say twenty samples from some wino, slap any old name on there and submit it as evidence, presto chango and extra 2 million a year.
I was pulled over in a drunk check, guy had me blow, then said I'd have to give blood. I'm sitting in the hospital waiting room with a dozen drunks thinking it sure would be easy to mix up a blood sample here ( I hadn't had a drink in months). I demanded two blood samples be taken and payed for the second myself. I was really afraid they'd screw it up and mix up the samples.
The roadside check was a circus, people parked all over, officers and citizens wandering all over. The hospital was about the same, a three ring circus.
If they tested every sample for not only blood alcohol, but for also say PSA, they may also save lives with early cancer detection. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I have my own reasons for not trusting their lab data. I was once involved in trying to bring some environmental criminals to justice. They were dumping cyanide plating solution into the city sewers. The city sent their inspectors to collect samples. I heard about 8 weeks later they were clean, no cyanide, and I was asked not to send the city on a wild goose chase again. 2 years later I spoke with the same city department official. He apologized to me. Turned out the city got that days samples criss crossed, and cited another company for the cyanide discharge. Only problem was they had non on the property, and never used the stuff. They let the real crooks get away, and cited an innocent company because their field guy could not properly handle a chain of custody, and sample labeling, with out screwing up, and he was an educated scientist.
 
Capt. Nemo said:
In addition, the impounding procedure is so specific that there is no way you could duplicate vials and not get caught b/c of serial numbers and inventory records. A
Click to expand...

Duplicate vials?
 
I got an idea, don't drink and drive and you won't have to worry about this.


Here I believe the cops have to get a warrant first before they can draw your blood.


8mud unless they changed the law they do the same thing in Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Saudade
Speedo Deado
Replies
4
Views
2K
Anak
Anak
Anak
Fixing What the Professional Fixed
Replies
7
Views
717
Bent
Bent
N
2000 XJ, high miles, lots of new parts, still have vibration
Replies
10
Views
1K
N8N_99xj
N
R
The most complicated Overheating problem yet
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
CJR
C
tjmotter
How to test/repair Renix era Cruise Control
Replies
15
Views
2K
RCP Phx
R
Back
Top