Every year, avoidable tragedies occur in the courtroom. Wrongfully accused politicians and professional athletes are acquitted after expensive, high-profile trials. Regular people waste thousands of dollars on legal representation that ends with the dismissal of their case or a plea to a different offense. And yet no one seems to care. Not even the Innocence Projects in our law schools or those that want an Innocence Commission for Texas. How can this be?

What is that crime you ask? Its DWI.

Why is there no hue and cry from the ACLU and Grits Eaters across Texas? Why isn't there a demand for a study, a commission, a moratorium, a SOLUTION to this terrible, terrible problem?

What would be that solution you ask?

Mandatory blood draws for DWI. Surely anyone that believes in making sure we arrest and convict only the guilty would support the collection of the physical evidence to end the highest acquittal rate for any crime in the Penal Code. (After all, if there was a test that could be done at the point of arrest in every death penalty case that would scientifically prove guilt or innocence, wouldn't every single person in the world demand that police use it?)

So, join the Intoxication Conviction Integrity Team and demand an end to the uncertainty of those who face trial in DWI cases. Let's do our part to set free the innocent and capture the guilty.

For right now, the best way to make that happen is to adopt a blood search warrant program for your county. That way we have a moratorium on breath test refusals. (I hear that a moratorium is the way to go if you don't want to actually say you are against something.) Austin has recently joined that team. APD Chief Art Acevedo is having a No Refusal Halloween weekend. And that's a great addition to the statewide programs already in play.

[This message was edited by JB on 11-01-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 11-01-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 11-01-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 11-01-08 at .]

"Let's do our part to set free the innocent and capture the guilty."

I'm afraid it is the second part of that sentence that will draw a lot of political heat. No one has any problem setting free the innocent, but let's be realistic here. Only a tiny fraction of people arrested for DWI are innocent. So mandatory blood draws will have a correspondingly tiny effect in freeing the innocent.

The problem is, mandatory blood draws will vastly expand the percent of the guilty who will have to pay the price for DWI. And that will include some (maybe, even, many?) state legislators.

Now, am I so naive as to think that legislators will publicly oppose this matter because, "hey, I like to drink, and sometimes I drive with a bit of a buzz on, and I don't want to get nailed for DWI"?

No I am not.

Instead, I expect you'll hear that giving the police the authority to get blood draws will be "akin to NAZI Germany, bla, bla, bla, . . . our precious freedoms, bla, bla, bla, . . . if a few thousand people have to die or be maimed for life because of ineffectual DWI laws, well that's too bad, but that is the price we'll have to pay to keep our freedoms, bla, bla, bla."

But I think your idea is great. I think an even better idea is to expand the definition of DWI to include refusing to give a blood or breath test, if an officer has PC to believe you might be DWI. That avoids the necessity of getting a blood test, which is a big help to rural counties.

[This message was edited by Terry Breen on 11-01-08 at .]