I'm going to forward their comments to Mr. Alpert, as this was all his idea.

I believe that all here welcome constructive debate about any topic raised on these fora. Unfortunately, all caps invective and unsupported vitriol generally don't fill the bill.

I would raise only two responsive points.

First: This thread isn't an advocation of roadblocks. It concerns a method available under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to determine intoxication after a stop based at a minimum upon reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated. A meritorious rant should at least be based upon an accurate characterization of the discussion at hand.

Second: Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the other great writers who contributed to the formulation of the constitution which is here purportedly threatened all signed their names to their great criticisms of the governmental practices they opposed. Patriotism is unabashedly standing up for the principles of your nation, not anonymous name-calling.

With that said, I think Tampa Bay has a legimate shot to take the American League East, as they are a well-constructed young team with deep starting pitching. I fear my beloved Astros will not fare as well, but at least they score more than one run a game this year. And I like pie. Especially strawberry or chocolate cream.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Brumley:
Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the other great writers who contributed to the formulation of the constitution which is here purportedly threatened all signed their names to their great criticisms of the governmental practices they opposed.

---

Yeah, but I think they were drunk when they signed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Brumley:
I believe that all here welcome constructive debate about any topic raised on these fora. Unfortunately, all caps invective and unsupported vitriol generally don't fill the bill.

I would raise only two responsive points.

First: This thread isn't an advocation of roadblocks. It concerns a method available under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to determine intoxication after a stop based at a minimum upon reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated. A meritorious rant should at least be based upon an accurate characterization of the discussion at hand.

---

Despite your loaded verbiage, I agree that a meritorious "rant" should be based on an accurate characterization of the discussion at hand.

Now, is the discussion at hand limited to compulsory blood testing "to determine intoxication after a stop based at a minimum upon reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Brent Robbins
DENTON COUNTY: 24/7/365 on all Felonies, all "total refusals", all crashes with injuries not serious enough to be SBI, and any "special/high profile cases".

---

Apparently not.

Now, akak's vitriolic rant comes off poorly. But there are some in the law enforcement community, and MANY outside it, who find overreaching policies like those of Denton County to be arrogant and Orwellian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JackParkman:
Now, is the discussion at hand limited to compulsory blood testing "to determine intoxication after a stop based at a minimum upon reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Brent Robbins
DENTON COUNTY: 24/7/365 on all Felonies, all "total refusals", all crashes with injuries not serious enough to be SBI, and any "special/high profile cases".

---

Apparently not.

---

Actually, those are descriptions of types of DWI stops, not independent stops on their own. "Felonies" are stops that would be the person's third or more DWI, "total refusals" are people who are stopped for DWI and refuse to do any field sobriety tests, and the crashes and high profile cases are ones where alcohol is believed to be involved. I'll grant that they're shorthand terms, but they're very common ones among the criminal bar, both prosecution and defense. It can be helpful to become more familiar with the terminology of a particular group before jumping in to criticize.

Scott, I still hold a special place in my heart for the Rangers, so I obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of any playoffs or championships. And I like Key Lime pie.

Sounds to me like some people have been drinking while posting. Perhaps an interlock device on laptops would be a good next step.

Maybe Shannon should create a glossary of terms for users. The one we use at Baby Investigator would be a good start

There you go, JB. Riling up the populace again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John B. Lyons:
Maybe Shannon should create a glossary of terms for users.

---

I don't know about that, but I did kick "akak" off this thread. That self-styled "freedom fighter" (per his anonymous registration) is free to post elsewhere, but not here, since he apparently cannot play nicely with others. Luckily for him, there are plenty of other places on the web to spew such filth. We try to welcome visitors as long as they are civil, not anonymous, and have something other than profanity-laced attacks to contribute to the discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
As you can read from the "comments" that follow the announcement, the drinking public seems pretty thrilled about the idea.

---

Y'know, every time I start feeling good about my fellow man, I unwittingly stumble across the comment boxes under news articles and that warm, fuzzy feeling quickly fades. [sigh]

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 07-02-08 at .]

Apparently, this thread has been linked by some nutjob fringe lunatic because we keep getting anonymous new posters weighing in with opinions that are factually and/or legally wrong.

If you are one of those visitors, here are some handy tips for avoiding banishment:

1) Give your real name and real email address when you register. No exceptions.

2) You don't have to agree with the posters on this thread, but you do have to know the law. Merely cut-n-pasting a provision from the Bill of Rights would get you an 'F' on a law school exam, and it will get you banned from this thread.

3) Show some class (you can fake it if you don't actually have any). Be polite, don't curse, and don't call people names. If you can't abide by those rules, then you are free to vent your spleen on thousands of other websites, but not on ours.

That is all (for now ...)

Shannon,

Would you mind blocking all of the spam I get on my email too?

Thanks

Congratulations to Richard Alpert for putting together a great public service project -- the collection of evidence in DWI cases. To listen to a pretty good radio story, click here.

Richard, how about pitching this idea to all the Innocent Projects and their supporters? If they are truly interested in spreading the use of best practices to avoid the arrest of innocent persons, surely they would support the expansion of the collection of blood (just as DNA works in rape cases), right? And, for local flavor, we could use as spokespersons all the elected officials who were "falsely" arrested and then "exonerated" when the local DA dismissed the case or got an acquittal following the trial of a no test DWI. (After all, they surely realize, in hindsight, that if they had provided a blood sample, the case never even would have been filed, saving everyone a lot of public embarrassment, right?)

[This message was edited by JB on 07-03-08 at .]

I've received an objection to expansion of blood search warrants: trypanophobia. That is the next defense.

"I'm sorry officer, I have asthma and trypanophobia."

Perhaps, then, urine would be acceptable.

You just can't make this stuff up.

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=895:1914

JB, thank you for finally bringing up trypanophobia! I personally think a blood draw is so minimally invasive, what the heck is the big deal? But as I read some of the statements of those who object vigorously, including the prior discussion of the magistrate who wouldn't sign warrants because drawing blood was too invasive even with probable cause, I have to wonder: how many of these folks, defendants and declining magistrates alike, are simply irrationally afraid of needles?

Mr. Alpert, please add a section to your DWI (Blood Will Tell) training that responds to these concerns. Perhaps a new chapter in your fantastic book that will respond to new defenses is in order. Include pictures and personal testimonials.

For example, you could advise police departments to have this guy available at the scene to respond to needle phobia.

Check out this story as well. Question: what is the effect of intoxication on needle phobia? If the suspect submits to the test but later claims the phobia, doesn't that suggest the loss of normal use? It is so refreshing to have something new to talk about in DWI cases besides all that Intoxilyzer/Breathalyzer nonsense. New nonsense makes the world go 'round.

[This message was edited by JB on 07-03-08 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 07-03-08 at .]

Here are some links to stories heading into the holiday weekend:

Police in Tarrant County plan 'no-refusal' DWI campaign (FWST)

July 4th DWI policy provides backup plan (FWST)

Drivers can�t refuse breath tests (Taylor Daily Press)

No-refusal policy out for blood in holiday DWI crackdown (Lubbock Avalanche)

It's a 'no refusal' weekend for repeat drunk drivers (News8Austin)

Program will needle suspected drunks (Brazosport Facts)

Police set for 4th of July DWI crackdown (KVIA, ABC-7, El Paso)

By the way, when you get to charging all these folks, you might want to check out this unanimous opinion from the CCA.

State v. Barbernell

The Court reversed a trial court's granting a motion to quash of a pleading that merely alleged " . . . while operating a motor vehicle in a public place, was then and there intoxicated." No definitions. Just "intoxicated."

Think of all the paper we save.

A Tarrant County defense attorney has filed a motion to suppress the blood test results from a DWI arrest made by a Dalworthington Gardens' officer. The attorney claims that the specimen was unlawfully taken because the Transportation Code excludes emergency medical technicians and phlebotomists. You can find it at LINK

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it not only does 724.017 not apply if the draw is being done under a search warrant, but if does (consent), the appellate courts have already found that a phlebotomist is a "qualified techician."

I'm curious to see how the trial court rules.

Janette A