There was a bill like that last session but it was killed in committee.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=79R&Bill=HB3241

[This message was edited by david curl on 02-28-07 at .]

We looked at Williamson County felony DWI cases for 2006. Of the 131 felony DWI cases that were disposed by prison or probation, 89 of the defendants had refused to provide a breath or blood sample. That means almost 70 percent of the felony DWI-third or more drunk drivers hid the evidence in their cases.

Not surprisingly, of those who provided a breath or blood sample, the BAC level was quite high. Only 10 of the 42 breath or blood sample cases had a BAC of less than .15. And one lucky defendant hit a .37 and spent the night in the hospital.

So, tell me again why we allow repeat drunk drivers hide the evidence of their intoxication?

How about letting us know what the stats are in your jurisdiction?

Lawmaker, District Attorney Back Tough DWI Bill
KXAN-TV, Austin

On Wednesday in Ohio 51-year-old Jess Brown received the maximum sentence of 16-and-a-half years behind bars after 20 driving-while-intoxicated convictions.

That's the worst drunken driving record in Ohio history, but everything is bigger in Texas.

One Texan has had more DWI convictions than that - 23 to be exact!

That's one of the reasons a local lawmaker and district attorney are working on a tougher state law to keep habitual drunken drivers off the roads.

A proposal would make it mandatory for people with three or more DWI arrests to provide a blood sample or breath test. Under state law, drivers can refuse to take a blood-alcohol test.

Carlton Mathis, who has been convicted twice for DWI, refused to provide a breath or blood sample, and this month a jury found him not guilty.

"It was obvious he was in the car," said John Bradley, Williamson County District attorney. "It was obvious he was driving. It was obvious he had a criminal history that made him a felon, but the jury did not have sufficient evidence to decide intoxication, because this man refused to provide a breath or blood sample."

That is why Bradley is behind a DWI bill to keep drunken drivers off Texas roads.

"If someone commited a rape, would we let them hide the physical evidence that we use for DNA? No. So, why are we letting repeat drunk drivers hide this evidence," said Bradley.

A similar bill was filed in the last session that would require anyone pulled over for a DWI to take a blood-alcohol test. This revised bill just focuses on repeat offenders.

"When you have somebody on a third occasion out on our roadways, intoxicated, putting lives at risk, I think it rises to some level of scrutiny to look at what they're doing," said Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Williamson County.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving said the group would also support this bill.

The Williamson County District Attorney's Office reported more than 130 disposed felony DWI cases last year. Of those, 67 percent refused to take a blood-alcohol test.

TO SEE THE VIDEO OF THE NEWS STORY, Click Here.

[This message was edited by JB on 02-28-07 at .]

Terry, that may be the law somewhere, but I do not think it is Wisconsin. See Wis. Stat. sec. 346.63. But, Wisconsin still does not have our problem because of the decision by their Supreme Court in Faust, 682 N.W.2d 371 (cert. denied), which approved non-consensual blood draws without a warrant based on fear of dissipation/destruction of the evidence.

In a perfect world, all drunk drivers would have to give a sample. But we don't live in a perfect world and we learned last session that such a bill simply isn't going anywhere. So let's take what me might can get this session (HB 1810), and live to fight another day. I say we all get behind HB 1810 and if it passes, we'll certainly be headed in the right direction. We spent some time and pulled our felony DWIs for the last 14 months or so. 60% refusal! Those stats (which are probably similar or worse across Texas) will get the attention of the public AND the Legislature.

I think Terry has confused Wisconsin with Minnesota -- that's who defines DUI to include refusal. Very clever, when you think about it, but IMO, that type of law has about 0.001% chance of being passed by the Texas Legislature.

Facts is facts, folks.

Bill would require samples from DWI suspects
05:26 PM CST on Friday, March 2, 2007

By RUDY KOSKI
KVUE News

There is an effort underway to close a loophole in Texas law that keeps drunk drivers behind the wheel.

Except in cases of death or serious injury, DWI suspects do not have to provide a breath or blood test sample. State Representative Dan Gattis has submitted a bill to close that loophole.

It would make it mandatory for all felony offenders to provide either a breath or blood test sample. Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley believes doing this will save lives.

"The idea is to collect the physical evidence against them so juries and judges don�t have to guess if they are intoxicated," Bradley said.

Currently those who refuse to provide a breath test have their drivers licenses suspended, but that is only a temporary set back, and some are able to obtain a special use license.

"Texas' program for collecting evidence in DWI's is a national disgrace. It is an utter disaster in collecting evidence that juries need," Bradley said.

In 2006, there were 131 repeat drunk driving cases in Williamson County. Eighty-nine of those charged refused to provide a breath or blood sample.

The bill is now being held in a state House committee.

Shannon, are you saying that the Texas Legislature disagrees with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which said in Mellett, 642 N.W.2d at 784: "the legislature has a compelling state interest in protecting state residents from drunk drivers, and an important part of the implementation of that interest is the testing of those whom officers have probable cause to believe have been drinking and are driving while impaired"? Or maybe just that lives are not as important to Texans as Minnesotans (i.e. the principle is less compelling here)? I would note that the offense of "refusal to submit to chemical test" is actually a separate offense from "driving while impaired" under Minnesota law. Sec. 169A.20 Minn. Stats. But, the concept seems to have some merit depending on what we really want to accomplish on our roadways.

No, Martin, I'm just saying that facts are facts. I deal in "whats," not "whys."

And let's remember that we've got it better here than in other states on certain aspects of DWI.

p.s. - Let's try to keep the conversation focused on the merits of the topic in the original post, folks. Editorial comments about politicians are better suited for other websites.

HB 1810 is set for a hearing on Tuesday, April 10, in the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee upon adjournment. It's time to hear from police, prosecutors and citizens who are tired of watching repeat DWI suspects work the system and deprive juries of evidence of intoxication. Are you going to be there?

HB 1810 has finally passed out of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committe and is now headed to Calendars.

MANDATORY BLOOD TESTS PRAISED
Nearly a year after state law was changed to require all suspected drunken drivers to submit to blood withdrawals for alcohol-content testing, prosecutors say fewer people are fighting the charges against them.
Legislators debated the issue of mandatory blood tests for years until finally approving them in 2006, making South Dakota just the second state to pass such a law.

Prosecutors used a simple but effective argument in lobbying the Legislature: Driving while intoxicated was the only crime in which some suspects were allowed to withhold evidence.

"The best piece of evidence is the defendant's degree of intoxication, and that's the blood test," said Dave Nelson, Minnehaha County state's attorney.

For the full article, click here.

I understand all the pros, but has anyone heard any compelling cons for this sort of law? I mean, assuming we already allow the person to be cuffed and taken to jail, and we're only talking about the ones who refuse a breath test and who have been convicted before, then who is arguing that someone should have the legal authority to refuse to provide a sample under those circumstances? Especially since the blood test would presumably demonstrate exculpatory evidence in every single case of actual innocence. Who is standing up for the right of the guilty to withhold evidence, and more importantly, what the heck are they saying?

Not that it's compelling, but I guess the con argument looks something like this:

http://dwi.austindefense.com/2007/02/articles/blood-test-cases/forced-blood-draws-in-austin-dwi-cases/

From the hyperlinked article above:
"It seems like an overly invasive procedure to obtain evidence. The invasion into the body is a much more significant invasion than what we usually think of in terms of searching for evidence."

Yeah, which is why you should blow into the Intoxylizer. If you'd just give a breath test, like you said you would when you took your drivers license, then no needles.

The defendant had no problem invading the space of an innocent pedestrian or other driver.

Besides, if the defendant wouldn't have swallowed the evidence in the first place, we wouldn't have to use these procedures to get it out of him....Of course, if he hadn't swallowed so much of it in the first place...

For an update on the backlog of blood testing, watch this news story.

Of course there are always for profit crime labs that can turn BAC in just days. Of course should the case go to trial and you need testimony, thats going to cost you more money.

"If police violate the rights of the suspect, civil lawsuits provide an adequate remedy"


I seriously doubt that. Civil suits are usually not even an option in all but the most extreme or unusual cases. Now, if you want to argue that civil suits against police should be made easier... I really don't see much chance that civil remedies, as they exist, could ever hope to replace remedies in place in the criminal arena (such as suppression).