Austin police early today [12:28 am] drew the blood of a drunken driving suspect - without a previously required search warrant - who was involved in a crash and had an 11-year-old boy in the car.

Details.

[Anyone have one earlier than that? Post your success stories.]

North Richland Hills Police Department did their first new law blood draw on a felony DWI case.

As is usually the case (except in poker) - I can't beat Richard.

Denton PD did a mandatory draw on a "bodily injury/transported by POV" crash at 2:30 PM on September 1st.

If by beat me you are referring to the fact that you are always seated at the table before me and you leave the table before I do then "yes" you did beat me at Poker.

I am curious to see whether the mandatory blood draw program increases the percentage of voluntary breath samples. I'm thinking that faced with blowing or taking a needle, most drunks will just blow.

JB,

Give me a few months to collect some data and I'll post the answer to that....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Alpert:
If by beat me you are referring to the fact that you are always seated at the table before me and you leave the table before I do then "yes" you did beat me at Poker.

---

Please excuse Mr. Alpert. Apparently he is suffering from some type of retrograde amnesia regarding certain time periods from the March 2009 Intox Manslaughter school... I pray for his speedy recovery.

Careful, he will attack without warning.

There once was a fellow named Brent
On the TDCAA forum he did vent
But his point like his hand
In that game could not stand
And that�s how his money was spent

OMG. That is a low blow. Poetry.

Lose a point for unprofessional conduct.

[This message was edited by JB on 09-03-09 at .]

I have a sexual assault trial next month based on a CODIS hit. Great program, would love to see it expanded to all convictions.

John

Our first mandatory blood came at 1:26am. And, following the blood draw, defendant decided to blow: .124 and .126. Gotta love it.

Clearly the intoxilyzer mistook the time for the defendant's BAC, shame shame

Richard and John, I was told that you two were working on form changes with DPS. Are they ready? Thank you both for this huge help in felony DWI cases!!!!! I am trying to get all of my different agencies up to date since I am in one of those jurisdictions that has Judges who refused to even consider Blood warrants.

I just had the form emailed to me and can email them to you if want.

I presume you are referring to the new TLE-51 (or THP-51, as the new form is called).

KUDOS to someone at DPS! I received the form via e-mail on Monday, August 31st around noon (a full 12 hours before the new laws went into effect), and immediately sent it to hundreds of cops in my County.

I remember when I was working the streets and the per se limit changed from 0.10 to 0.08. We were scratching out "0.10" and writing in "0.08" on forms for MONTHS.

Things are looking up...

I would greatly appreciate it if some one would e-mail me a THP-51 or maybe post a link.

STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION - MANDATORY BLOOD SPECIMEN THP-51 (Rev. 9/09)


Name of Arrestee ________________________________________________________________________________________

Date and Time _______________________________________________________________________________________

Location ________________________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the provisions of Texas Transportation Code, sec. 724.012, the undersigned peace officer requires that the above-named person (hereafter "suspect") give a specimen of blood under the provisions of Texas Transportation Code (TRC), Ch. 724, Subchapter B.

Acting in my capacity as a peace officer, I have arrested the suspect for an offense under Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code, based on my reasonable belief that the suspect was operating a motor vehicle or watercraft while intoxicated. The suspect refused my request to voluntarily submit to the taking of a specimen. When I arrested the suspect, I reasonably believed that (check one OR MORE):

__ Accident with death, serious bodily injury, or hospital treatment for bodily injury. The suspect was involved in an accident that I reasonably believe occurred as a result of the suspect's intoxication. When I arrested the suspect, I reasonably believed that as a direct result of the accident:
- a person other than the suspect has died or will die;
- a person other than the suspect suffered serious bodily injury; or
- a person other than the suspect suffered bodily injury and was transported to a hospital or medical facility for medical treatment

__ DWI With Minor Child Under 15. A child under 15 years of age was a passenger in the vehicle operated by the suspect while intoxicated.

__ Prior Conviction for Specified Offense. At the time of the suspect's arrest, I possessed or received reliable information from a credible source the suspect had previously been convicted or received community supervision of an offense under Section 49.045 (DWI With/Child Under 15), 49.07 (Intoxication Assault), or 49.08 (Intoxication Manslaughter), Texas Penal Code, or an offense under the laws of another state containing elements substantially similar to the elements of an offense under those sections.

__ DWI 3rd. At the time of the suspect's arrest, I possessed or received reliable information from a credible source that on two or more occasions the suspect had previously been convicted of or placed on community supervision of an offense under Section 49.04 (DWI), 49.05 (FWI), 49.06 (BWI), or 49.065 (Amusement Ride W/Intoxicated ), Texas Penal Code, or an offense under the laws of another state containing elements substantially similar to the elements of an offense under those sections.

Therefore, I now am invoking my authority under TRC, Section 724.012(b), to require the suspect to submit to the taking of a specimen of the suspect's blood as required by TRC, Section 724.012(b).

Pursuant to my authority under TRC, Section 724.012(b), this is an ORDER FROM A PEACE OFFICER to you to draw a specimen of blood from the suspect. As provided by TRC, Section 724.017, the person who takes a blood specimen under TRC, Chapter 724, or the hospital or medical facility where the blood specimen is taken, is immune from civil liability for damages arising from this ORDER to take the blood specimen if the specimen is taken according to recognized medical procedures, although TRC, Section 724.017 does not release a person from liability for negligence in the taking of the specimen. Under TRC, Section 724.017, the taking of a blood specimen from a person who resists the taking of the specimen does not in itself constitute negligence and may not be considered evidence of negligence. A person whose blood specimen is taken under TRC, Chapter 724, is not considered to be present in the hospital for medical treatment or screening unless the appropriate hospital personnel determine that medical treatment or screening is required for proper medical care of the person.


__________________________________________
Officer's Signature / Agency


__________________________________________
Printed Name Badge or ID No.


__________________________________________
Name of Person Form Delivered To


__________________________________________
Name and Occupation of Person Taking Specimen

[This message was edited by JB on 09-08-09 at .]

At the end of the second paragraph, it should read "check one or more" instead of "check one". It is Richard Alpert's sugggestion and it is a good one.

Thanks!