In March we tried a guy on parole for DWI #13. Ran through a highway barrier and got a flat. Looked pretty decent (for a 71 year old) on video. Fortunately our officers did a blood warrant and got the .26 BAC back. Jury convicted in just a few minutes and affirmative finding on the deadly weapon (car operated dangerously in proximity to pedestrians and occupied vehicles). Waiting on sentencing now to see what the judge does with this habitual who might have walked but for the search warrant.

Today, the House and Senate approved a conference committee report that resolved the differences between two versions of SB 328. One of those differences included an amendment of that bill in the House by Rep. Dan Gattis. He added SB 261, in the form that it had already passed the Senate, onto SB 328.

Both the Senate and House accepted that amendment. That means that SB 328, which includes the provisions contained in SB 261, has passed and now awaits the approval of the governor.

If this bill is signed by the governor, it means that beginning 9/1/09, police have the authority to demand a specimen of breath or blood from an intoxicated person without a warrant in the following new circumstances:

1) person has two or more prior DWI convictions;
2) person is under arrest for DWI with child; or
3) person caused accident with bodily injury that resulted in transport for medical care.

In addition, warrant law is amended to permit any magistrate with law license to sign a blood search warrant.

You will learn more about this bill if you come to this summer's legislative updates.

[This message was edited by JB on 05-31-09 at .]

"I'm pretty sure that there's a bill on Gov. Perry's desk which will allow the cops to take your blood without a warrant after a DWI arrest IF you have two prior convictions for DWI. And in a couple of years, they'll amend it to make it applicable to first time DWI arrests. That's how MADD works the legislature."

Link to Blog.

Did the final version keep the language for non-lawyer judges to help small counties? The last version I saw looked like it cut us out of the loop.

To read the final version of SB 328, click here. For the judge/lawyer language, see section 5 of the bill.

The underscoring is making it difficult to tell if that last section is (j), but context indicates it must be...If I am reading it right, they left 18.01(i) alone and helped the big counties out with (j), right?

I think that is right. Shannon Edmonds will give us the final word in the upcoming TDCAA Legislature Update manual, followed by a summer of regional presentations. Make your reservation early. Those suckers sell out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon D:
The underscoring is making it difficult to tell if that last section is (j), but context indicates it must be...If I am reading it right, they left 18.01(i) alone and helped the big counties out with (j), right?

---

Correct.

If it is not improper to do so on this forum, I'd like to say that many of us owe thanks to those staffers, legislators, prosecutors, and others who worked hard to get this legislation passed. It appears to protect what ground we had already and gain some valuable new resources. Thank you all from those of us who have to deal daily with the reality that some folks find their desire for an adult beverage more important than someone's life.

Currently police may draw blood, without first obtaining a search warrant, only if there has been a traffic accident involving serious bodily injury or death.

In the session that just recently ended, the Texas State Legislature expanded that police power to draw blood samples. That expanded power covers the following circumstances:

- If the DWI suspect has a child in the car;

- If he has previously been convicted of DWI two or more times (thereby making the new alleged offense a felony);

- If he has previously been convicted of DWI with a child in the car, intoxication assault or intoxication manslaughter;

- If he has caused an accident that involved any bodily injury to a victim who was transported for medical care.

We support this new legislation and applaud District 20 state Rep. Dan Gattis of Georgetown for being a driving force behind it.

No one has a right to put other people's lives in danger. When people can't control their own behavior, society will step in and do it for them.

Rest of editorial.

[Governor Perry signed this bill last week into law. It is effective for DWI cases committed on or after 9/1/09.]

[This message was edited by JB on 06-23-09 at .]

Good stuff indeed. Big time saver for dealing with repeat offenders on a really busy shift.

Former Texas House Speaker Gibson Lewis, 72, was arrested Thursday night on charges of drunken driving, Austin police said.

[Actually, it appears he provided a breath sample. But, I wonder whether that was because a blood sample from a warrant would have followed a refusal.]

Details.

A new Texas law allowing police to draw blood from DWI suspects without a judge's OK is riling defense attorneys, pleasing prosecutors and has crime labs gearing up for more work.


The law, which takes effect Sept. 1, also has sparked debate among constitutional experts, including some who are troubled by the prospect of allowing the state to invade a person's body on suspicion of a crime.

Details.

I posted the Houston Chron article on the Impaired Driving Forum. Here's a reply from a Nevada prosecutor.
__________________________________

NV has had such a law for quite a while. Nevada Revised statutes 484.383(7) permits the police to compel a blood draw on anyone who: has a prior conviction within seven years, has killed or injured someone, and who refuses to take a test i.e. there are no refusals.

This has not increased lab work significantly, but it has saved large amounts of money for DMV b/c we no longer need to revoke a license for a refusal because you cannot refuse.

The police are permitted to use "reasonable force" to obtain a blood sample.