UHP Troopers Learn to Draw Blood From Suspects

Wildcard

Moderator
UHP Troopers Learn to Draw Blood From Suspects

Save It
Email this Article Email It
Print this Article Print It

Some Utah Highway Patrol troopers are becoming medically certified to draw blood from motorists they suspect of driving while intoxicated.

Blood tests are necessary because portable breath tests only detect alcohol, not drugs or other possible intoxicants, said Sgt. Lee Perry, with the Weber County office of the Highway Patrol.

Without the medical certification, troopers now must either take a suspect to a hospital or call in a certified technician to stick a needle in the suspect's arm and take a small sample. Every time a trooper does that, it costs the Highway Patrol $50 or $60.

Perry said that costs about $25,000 per year.

Eventually, about 65 troopers will be trained throughout the state in the nominal medical procedures needed to take blood.

A Federal Highway Safety Administration grant provided the funds to hire the Utah School of Phlebotomy to teach troopers how to do it.

Beth Anderson, president of the school, said the compressed four-session course certifies the troopers as phlebotomists, legally and medically able to safely take a blood sample.

The course even teaches troopers how to get used to the idea of sticking someone with a needle, which isn't always that easy, she said.

``The thing is, you've got to get over that mental state of going in through some guy's skin,'' she said. ``Then you hold (the vein) so it doesn't roll, and you're in there.''

Instruction also includes patient care, confidentiality, and what to watch for if the subject is about to collapse at the idea of being stuck.

The troopers actually poke each other with the needles for practice in the classes _ eight sticks per trooper at each of the four.

By the end, the dozen troopers in an early first class sported arms flecked with bruises and needle marks.

The certified troopers will not receive any extra pay for taking the classes or drawing blood.


http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_029164221.html


:barf: :mad:
 
Why do I get the feeling that some of the troopers may end up getting stabbed with their own needles?
 
I think that's great!

I have zero "sympathy" for someone who is caught DUI...In fact, I love it, because that's one less loser on the road.

Germany is even BETTER!

If they suspect you of DUI and you "blow +", the POLIZEI can ask you to submit to a Blood Test, and if you refuse? THEY WILL TAKE THE BLOOD SAMPLE...

I Love it...Too bad our lawmakers are so thin-skinned.

.
 
Last edited:
Let's think about this one second.


Do you really want a officer who has probably just manhandled a few aids infected citizens or a officer that has handled someone with TB putting a needle in your arm?

Not me.

I cannot imagine the rank and file officer aggreeing to this.
 
Serum is the most reliable way to get ACCURATE ETOH readings...

I say it's great...if it gets drunk losers off the road, so be it


.
 
hmm...

I can see why this would be done. With half a dozen states across the nation decriminalizing marijuana and more to come the argument of people driving while high is pretty strong (not that it doesn't happen already...). The problem is that unlike alcohol most illegal drugs test positive in blood tests long, long after the intoxication wears off. It's one thing if a guy is swerving or a danger on the road but on random DUI stops (which I still don't see how those are legal) a guy that smoked pot two days before yet is completely sober could be arrested.

I have zero "sympathy" for someone who is caught DUI...
Usually I do too but some DUI laws are so ridiculously low that a 250lb 6'4" friend of mine was arrested for blowing .082 yet is still sober. What most people don't understand is that Blood Alcohol Content is NOT an accurate measure of intoxication.

I despise people who drive while truly under the influence as I myself have lost friends to drunk drivers but just because someone blows impaired does not mean they are. :(
Do you really want a officer who has probably just manhandled a few aids infected citizens or a officer that has handled someone with TB putting a needle in your arm?

Well if they're trained by phlebotomists then the first thing they should learn is to use a brand new needle each and every time, no exceptions. Though I think you overestimate the number of people in the country with AIDS and TB. It's quite unprobable that you'll be pulled over by a cop that's just handled multiple citizens infected with either one.

I'm not very happy about this but then again driving on public roads is a priveledge. I understand the need to keep people from driving intoxicated and I understand that my driver's license remains property of the state of Illinois....but I still don't see how this can be an accurate measure of impairment with other drugs when BAC has never been such. :confused:


Very tricky, this conundrum is. Meditate on this I shall. May the force be with you all.
 
"I say it's great...if it gets drunk losers off the road, so be it"

Careful, Weeg. The exact same argument holds just as well for almost any gun control measure you care to name...all in the name of "reducing crime" or "gun safety".

Anyway, that notwithstanding, I think the whole concept of cops drawing blood is bogus. Figure it out. If the cop thinks a driver is AFU on some sort of substance, he gives a field sobriety check. If the driver fails that, here comes the breath test. If he passes, that doesn't mean that the cop is obligated to let the guy go. He just hauls him in to someplace a blood sample can be taken. If there is a cost associated with that, add it to the guy's fine when he's sentenced.

Tim
 
It does not matter how many people that day the officer has handled.All that matters is that he has handled people with aids and TB recently.

TB actually scares me more than aids does.TB can be transmitted without body fluids.
Put me down as someone who does not like the idea of a officer putting a needle in my arm.
 
Actually, there are 2 things about this that scare me to death.

The first being that the officer now has a right to take a blood sample in a non sterile place by force without a warrant based on only reasonable suspicion. The officer now has to transport that blood sample to another location where it can be analyzed. (please show me the cost savings in this methodology.) During the transporting of the sample it can be subjected to all kinds of contamination and degradation as is not in any verifiable chain of custody except the officer's. Judge, jury, witness, prosecutor, and evidence collection/analysis/custody all neatly tied up in one unwatched package.

The second being that the officer is poking a person in the vein with a needle yet has no training or ability to do anything should the needle break off in the vein. Should something like that happen and medical help be immediately available, the possibility of death is a real thing.

All of this is being done ont he basis of reducing the nano-miniscule threat of DUI that aren't already being handled in other ways.

Really scarey.
 
During the transporting of the sample it can be subjected to all kinds of contamination and degradation as is not in any verifiable chain of custody except the officer's.
But that's how evidence collection is handled already. Why is it any worse for an officer to be handling blood from a DUI suspect as opposed to blood from a homicide victim?

The second being that the officer is poking a person in the vein with a needle yet has no training or ability to do anything should the needle break off in the vein.

Ever donated blood to the Red Cross or other organization? The majority of their drawers don't recieve much more training than what was mentioned in the article. Phlebotomy is a fairly complex process but it doesn't take very long to teach someone how to hit a vein.

My biggest problem with this is that it's even less reliable than the already grossly unreliable BAC test.
 
Rob P brings up some excellent points.

If this ever becomes a reality and I got pulled over and the officer wanted to draw blood my first reaction would be to insist it is against my religion to have blood drawn from my body.That may or may not buy me the time I need to discuss that with a attorney.In any event it could be setting the groundwork for a dismissal or lawsuit..

And for the record before all you badged civilians start flapping your gums about drinking and driving.I do not drink at all!
 
The first being that the officer now has a right to take a blood sample in a non sterile place

Do you think a hospital/clinic/ER is sterile? The only thing that really matters is that the needle is sterile, and the skin is prepped correctly.

by force without a warrant

I think that has been covered. You have to consent to blood draw or it doesn't get done. You will lose your license for a year in most states. I have had many, many people refuse a legal blood draw, and then it doesn't get done. If I draw your blood without your consent, or court order, it is assault. In special circumstances, it may be necessary to get a court order for you to give a sample, I am not sure this would apply to a routine DUI though.

The officer now has to transport that blood sample to another location where it can be analyzed. During the transporting of the sample it can be subjected to all kinds of contamination and degradation as is not in any verifiable chain of custody except the officer's.

Not much different than now. The suspect comes to the ER in custody. The police have a kit with them which they hand to me. I remove the tubes, prep the puncture site, draw the blood while the police watch, seal and initial the tubes, and then hand them the (2) tubes of blood. He seals the box and does the paperwork and leaves with the sealed sample box. It then gets mailed to the state crime lab. Yes, I am in the chain of custody on the paperwork, just as the accused is. From him to me to the police.

needle break off in the vein

I have done thousands of venipunctures and have never seen a needle bend, much less break. But, they are manmade, and I suppose anything *could* happen.

ont he basis of reducing the nano-miniscule threat of DUI

Come on up to the rez I work on. We have people die every week from the nano-miniscule effects of DUI. Some are teens, some are older. I applaud any method that will remove DUI offenders from the road.

My biggest beef is not how the police handle DUI's, it is how the courts handle them. Allowing prior offenders to go home with a fine, loss of license, etc. I say lock them up and throw away the key.

I can also see this freeing up the police to spend more time on the road. Here in Montana there are very few Highway Patrol to cover a very large area. I imagine there are parts of Utah that are the same. If not coming to my ER gets them out on the road and patroling sooner, then fine.

bob
 
Just out of curiosity, where did that article claim that troopers would be doing this without warrants?

LawDog
 
Also, BAT testing can be done with a finger prick, just like Diabetics, so all the needlephobia here is moot


:rolleyes:
 
"I think the whole point of this is so the officer can take the blood sample at the scene."

I know that. My whole point is that there is no compelling reason to take a sample at the scene.

Tim
 
If he passes, that doesn't mean that the cop is obligated to let the guy go. He just hauls him in to someplace a blood sample can be taken. If there is a cost associated with that, add it to the guy's fine when he's sentenced.

In TN it's a one-or-the-other situation. If I give Joe a breathalyzer test on the road, I cannot then make him submit to a blood test. I was taught, if you think it's a slam dunk with the alcohol, do the breath test (after doing the field sobriety tests). If you can't really smell the alcohol, but you still think the driver is impaired, wait and do the blood test at the jail/hospital.

THe only thing this might save is a bit of money for the local dept. The reason I say that is the blood still has to be sent off to the lab. All this does is skip the step of having a nurse/medical tech draw the blood.

And Redworm, if your 250 lb buddy got pulled over, it wasn't for drunk driving. It was for some traffic violation. This was stressed over and over at the academy to my class. You cannot pull someone over for drunk driving, because that can only be determined after you pull them over. So some kind of violation and reason for the stop must be present or the DUI is thrown out on the lack of grounds for the initial stop. So even if I suspect that a driver might be DUI, they have to do something: run a stop sign, cross the center line/fail to maintain a lane, not use a turn signal, speed, etc before I can pull them over. Once I pull them over, if I smell alcohol, see it, hear slurred speech, etc, THEN it becomes a question of determining sobriety.

edit to add: Agree with Tim. Not really any good reason to do this. Saves a little money, but that's all. TBD whether or not this actually saves money (i.e. if someone screws up, I guarantee the dept will be paying more than $25,000)
 
How long will it be before someone gets the bright idea to start keeping a data base of everyones DNA they collected when they drew the blood?
 
[sarcasm]

Hey, if you're not a murderer/child molester/rapist/drunk driver, what do you care? You got something to hide?

[/sarcasm]
 
Back
Top