Austin DWI - Refusing a Breath Test
The Austin Police Department, along with a number of other metropolitan areas, has started no refusal weekends on major holiday weekends, the most recent being over New Year's. Exercise your right to refuse a blood test? Fine. They'll get a warrant and draw your blood.
Here's why we might want to consider being offended by this practice:
Drawing blood against a person's will is a major invasion - not just of privacy, but of our basic bodily integrity. Normally, there would have to be some compelling government interest to justify an invasion of that magnitude.
And . . . The Legislature (gasp!) apparently thought so too. In fact, they went to the trouble of listing the situations where an officer can take a specimen without consent. And they're pretty serious ones: where someone has died or will die, or where there has been serious bodily injury. They didn't authorize it in your ordinary misdemeanor DWI arrest. And that makes sense. Situations where someone has been seriously hurt justify a procedure that invasive. Your ordinary misdemeanor DWI arrests do not.
Yes, we want to stop the harm caused by drunk driving. But where is the line? How many times have we been told that we need to give up rights in the name of safety? Are we really willing to live in a police state in exchange for a questionable sense of security? For those out there who say yes, or who think this is ok because it only happens to "criminals," consider this: the next person to get pulled over just may be you.

4 Comments:
Once they have your blood are they only able to use if for testing your blood alcohol level or can they run any other tests they want as well?
As DNA sequencing gets easier this is potentially a way for them to match you against every possible crime they have DNA evidence for.
If the blood is taken pursuant to a warrant, then they should only be testing for blood alcohol content. If blood is drawn in a hospital situation, such as after an accident, the hospital may run other tests for medical purposes. The DNA matching you mention is through the CODIS system - only certain labs are certified to upload to CODIS, so not likely they are going to go to the time and expense of testing unless required by statute (and there are a number of laws that require DNA testing of people charged with certain offenses) - more on that in a later post.
While I agree that currently the time and expense of testing are unlikely to result in wide spread tracking of peoples DNA I think that's a short term hindrance at best.
We've already seen Britain attempt to retain DNA evidence of individuals who were arrested but not convicted of any crimes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7764069.stm
And in the US our laws seem to be based around the idea that you don't have any right to your DNA once it's no longer part of your body. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17098608 ) Which I think opens up some rather interesting privacy concerns.
So while the police can't just come up and demand a DNA sample for you any skin, hair, bits of saliva or whatever you leave behind are theirs if they want to take them.
Guess mostly I'm just not sure that we have the laws in place to ensure that we have adequate safeguards in place for DNA privacy whether that’s from the government or your health insurance company.
Just saw this article and thought I'd share since it's on the same topic: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home