Taking
Blood by Force
Information
courtesy of Lawrence Taylor - DUIblog
A
citizen arrested for DUI usually has the right to choose between
taking a breath test or a blood test. There is, of course, a third
choice: refuse to take either. The individual can do this, but there
are consequences: he will face an increased jail sentence or a longer
drivers license suspension -- or, in most states, both.
The
problem is that some police just won't take "no" for an
answer. An increasing practice among law enforcement agencies is
to simply ignore this third choice and forcefully take blood from
the arrestee (although some states have banned this practice). By
doing this, they can "have their cake and eat it, too":
blood is obtained for testing-- and the suspect still suffers the
heavier sentencing for having refused.
So,
just how much "force" will the courts permit? Or looking
at this from the legal view, drawing blood is considered a Search
of the person and, therefore, must be "reasonable" under
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Which still leaves
the question: What is "reasonable" force?
The
United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Rochin v. California
(342 U.S. 165), where a drug suspect was unconscious and the police
forced open his mouth and pumped his stomach to get drugs. Such
conduct is not permissible, the Court said, if it "shocks the
conscience". This vague "shocks the conscience" standard
-- if it is a standard -- was later applied by the Supreme Court
in a drunk driving case: The blood, the Court said, must be taken
under "humane and medically acceptable" circumstances.
Schmerber v. California (384 U.S. 757). [As anyone who has watched
certain videotapes knows, California seems to have recurring problems
with heavy-handed police.]
Humane
and medically acceptable circumstances.....Shocks the conscience.....Well,
lets take a look at what police and courts in California have
decided this all means. In Carleton v. Superior Court (216 Cal.Rptr.
890), the California Court of Appeals was confronted with a case
where the arrested citizen was pinned down by six police officers,
a needle jammed into him and blood forceably withdrawn. The Court
saw
|