The state Supreme Court handed a major victory Thursday to prosecutors in drunken-driving cases, ruling that police officers may obtain a search warrant for a blood test even if the driver has refused to take a voluntary breath test.

The 7-2 decision gives officers broader authority to gather key evidence when they suspect motorists of driving while under the influence, although practical considerations will generally limit blood tests to the most serious cases.

Details.

For years, defense attorneys in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Christine Starr said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it's still the main reason that drunk driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to an NHTSA study. [Texas would loooove to have a 20 percent refusal rate. We are at about 40 percent, even higher for repeat offenders. That is about to go way down with mandatory blood draws.]

Starr hopes the new system will cut down on the number of drunken driving trials. Officers can't hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood - a practice that's been upheld by Idaho's Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Details.

JB-
Where are you getting those stats for Texas? NHTSA? I would love to have those for dragging some judges along.

I e-mailed a couple of the reports to you.

Look for the updated form for download on the DWI Resources page of this site in the next couple of days. We hope to follow it up with a Search Warrant, blood draw affidavit, Crash Data retrieval order and more. It takes a bit, but we will be posting more stuff. E-mail me directly if you have suggestions.