UHP Troopers Learn to Draw Blood From Suspects

[tyme]

I hate anything IV. It takes a lot of mental effort for me to deal with having my blood drawn without panicking, and I see no reason I should have to go through that because a cop thinks I might have been drinking. IV medication is slightly less of a problem, but it's still very stressful for me. SC and IM immunizations I don't mind, so it's not needles I hate. But I'd rather have a cop slice open my palm with a knife than draw blood from a vein.

 

[Rob P.]

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?

It's not the blood that's the problem. It's the fact that after the sample has been collected, NO ONE other than the collecting officer has seen, smelled, touched, or signed for the sample. It takes no imagination to realize that once the sample has been taken it can be tampered with and no one would be the wiser.

OTOH, in the normal rest of the world proceedures, a tech takes the sample, hands it to an officer, who signs for it, seals it, boxes/bags it while in the company of someone else, and sends it to the lab who also signs for it and checks the seals for tampering, etc. Note that there's lots of witnesses to people doing all the legitimate and necessary stuff to keep things visible and legit. Having the one lone officer do all that stuff is ripe for claims that the sample was tampered with and no one can prove it wasn't.

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

If the officer is stopping someone for a traffic infraction and then does the blood draw, it's probably without a warrant since there's been no time to get a warrant and detaining the driver until a warrant is obtained would drag the stop out past permissible time for a simple traffic stop. Thus it becomes a detention without prob cause.

 

[Cmu_Sniper]

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.

That has to be the most ridiculous statement that Ive heard in a long time. Like the other gentlemen stated, They will be taught proper procedure of taking blood. This means new sterile needles and of course, latex gloves before taking the sample.

 

[theevilbob]

Are you really that Naive that it stands to reason that a road side blood draw is going to be as sanitary as a hospital blood draw???

No thanks.I will just go down as a refusal.

 

[joab]

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?

Ever had blood taken at a lab like Quest? How many infectious people do you think they deal with in a day?

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.

I missed that part of the article

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.

Missed the part where they described the chain of custody procedures that will or will not be in place. Also missed the description of the protocol for the procedure as far as establishing sterile fields is concerned

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.

Must have also missed the breakdown of what was actually taught in the classes


From this little blurb like article you have somehow managed to ascertain the complete procedural criterion for the program. How did you do that?

 

[joab]

Are you really that Naive that it stands to reason that a road side blood draw is going to be as sanitary as a hospital blood draw???

I guess I am.
Tell what all is involved with establishing a sterile field around a forearm for extracting blood,

 

[nlrpd115]

This is part of the DRE process. The officers that are doing this are or should be DRE's (Drug Recognition Experts). In this process there are very extensive test done which are kind of like field sobriety tests. In Arkansas, DRE's take a urine sample which is stored in the property room fridge to await transport to a testing facility and they also use a field test with the urine sample. Before any of this is done, a BAC test is performed. If the suspect does not register an illegal BAC and the officer believes that the suspect is intoxicated with some substance, a DRE is called and he\she starts that process. The DRE course is very long and very technical. The DRE process takes about 1 to 2 hours not counting the paper work that goes with and that is about 6 to 10 pages in length.

As far as talking with an attorney goes, it doesn't matter you don't have that right. It is part of the implied consent that goes with your drivers license. And if you refuse any or all of the tests, you get charged with refusal and DWI/DUI. Thats why the rights that are read for DWI/DUI are different than the Miranda rights. If an officer uses Miranda, he is wrong.

The blood sample would not be taken on the street. it would be done at a sub-station, HQ, etc.

I'm not a DRE but 3 work with me in my patrol zone, and I have assisted in a few of the DRE tests.

 

[utaherrn]

ok, look at my log-in name

Utah ER RN
I work in Utah, in an ER, get it? So maybe I am qualified to comment with a little understanding.
Also, listen to BobR, he is wise in the ways of this stuff.

UHP brings in a suspect to my ER, has to wait for the forensic nurse (a private company has contracted with UHP to provide this service for a fee) to come in and draw the sample because ER nurses don't do forensic (ie: legal blood draws) labs because the corporation I work for doesn't want to have to pay me to go to court and testify in a case where I drew the sample. Sometimes they wait for an hour. Sound like a waste of time?

So now, UHP won't have to wait around, clogging up my ER, waiting for someone else to draw the sample. Simple streamlining of process.

Many local and UHP officers I know already have EMT or Paramedic training already, so no big deal.

BTW, I think any officer doing lab draws is going to wear gloves, for their sake, not yours. And besides, I deal with more HIV positive, TB positive, and Hep C positive people a day than they do.


This is NO BIG WHOOP! Get out your tinfoil hats, guys!


Flame suit on

 

[Weeg]

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?

Already being done in the military...Has been for about 10 years.

Thsi way, there won't be any "unknown soldiers"

 

[Redworm]

And Redworm, if your 250 lb buddy got pulled over, it wasn't for drunk driving. It was for some traffic violation.

A non-moving violation; he's a young guy driving an old beater pick up truck with a loose headlight and goes to an expensive private college in downtown Chicago. Technically he was pulled over for having an expired plate. But in reality he was pulled over because he was driving a crappy car in a nice area.

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.

I've been pulled over for literally no reason before because I was driving a crappy car in a nice area. I was driving "suspiciously slowly" or some such nonesense....yeah, because I was looking for my employer's house as I was going to fix his son's computer.

So no, cops don't always have a good reason to pull people over. Racial profiling as well as simply suspecting kids of being up to no good seems like a perfectly good reason for Chicago, Atlanta, LA, and Tampa Bay area cops in my experience. Yet in all the times I've been pulled over not once have I recieved a citation. Not one speeding ticket, not one expired plate, nothing. Perfectly clean driving record yet when I chose to drive a beat up car in a rich neighborhood I tend to see red & blue more often than other people.

 

[Redworm]

It's the fact that after the sample has been collected, NO ONE other than the collecting officer has seen, smelled, touched, or signed for the sample. It takes no imagination to realize that once the sample has been taken it can be tampered with and no one would be the wiser.

Again, that's how evidence collection already works. Often patrol officers that respond to scenes are asked to take evidence back to the lab. In the situation we're talking about it's no different. Officer takes the blood sample, goes back to the lab, it gets tested by a technician who also signs into the chain of custody.

I see many problems with this situation, mainly that the presence of drugs in blood does NOT imply intoxication or even the slightest impairment, but the chain of custody here is no different then in any other situation.

OTOH, in the normal rest of the world proceedures, a tech takes the sample, hands it to an officer, who signs for it, seals it, boxes/bags it while in the company of someone else, and sends it to the lab who also signs for it and checks the seals for tampering, etc. Note that there's lots of witnesses to people doing all the legitimate and necessary stuff to keep things visible and legit. Having the one lone officer do all that stuff is ripe for claims that the sample was tampered with and no one can prove it wasn't.

The article is not claiming that the officer will be the only person to ever see the blood. The article only explains that this way the officers can take the blood at the scene as oppossed to bringing the suspect into the station. The only thing taken out of the equation is the suspect at the station.

 

[Cmu_Sniper]

Well, Ive been a police officer for some time now. I think if there is going to be a blood sample taken, then the person who is arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated along with the other traffic offenses will be transported to the Police Department or Jail for chemical test for intoxication(Breath Test). If drugs are suspected then a blood sample will be taken. Or whatever the cause is to take a sample, I doubt that the sample will be taken on the side of the road. It most likely will be taken in an office of some type.