Austin police officers, who have increasingly had suspects' blood drawn to bolster drunken driving cases, would be blocked from personally gathering such samples under a tentative City Council measure.

Details.

[What would your city do?]

The following information appeared recently in a newsletter on the Collin County District Attorney's web site.

The Collin County DA’s Office tried 250 misdemeanor jury trials in FY 2008 (October 1, 2007- September 30, 2008). Of these, 170, or 68% were DWI cases. In cases where there was not a breath test or blood test results to show intoxication, the jury trial conviction rate averaged 70% in the six Misdemeanor courts. In those DWI cases where there were breath test results, the conviction rate in jury trials was 92%, and where a blood result was obtained, the conviction rate in jury trials was 100%.


“Last month, we reported our future plans to have search warrants issued and blood tests obtained in every DWI arrest in Collin County,” said DA John Roach. “These statistics show what an enormous impact this program will have.”

My compliments to those legislators who, by passing mandatory blood draw, have advanced the application of science to the criminal justice process and have made it far less likely that an innocent person is arrested and prosecuted for DWI.

As you correctly point out, JB, blood draws allow us to scientifically identify innocent suspects and take them out of the criminal justice system. Opponents of blood draws rarely mention this fact.

Beginning this month, Collin County has now begun operating weekly No Refusal programs. Blood draws are now being collected at 3 area jails on all Friday and Saturday nights, as well as on selected holidays.

The Austin City Council's proposed ordinance is designed to protect the city from lawsuits by people who had blood drawn from them.

Has this been a problem in other jurisdictions where blood draws are common? What about Austin--have there been lawsuits because trained cops drew the blood instead of hospital personnel?

If so, perhaps the ordinance is justified.

On the other hand, if this is not a problem, then the ordinance is another example of political Chicken Littlism. The proponents of the ordinance have the burden of proof that their ordinance solves a real problem, rather than being simply another solution in search of a problem.

The recent legislation authorizing mandatory blood draws expressly dealt with all the issues that had been raise regarding potential civil liability. The language was included in the bill at the request of the lobbyist for Texas hospitals. I worked with him on crafting language that would protect anyone that draws blood. He was quite happy with the language, and it has expanded the voluntary cooperation of hospitals.

The Austin City Council, perhaps, needs to read the bill.