Should a Police Officer be able to draw blood to check for DUI??

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549721,00.html?test=latestnews[/url]

I personally say NO..........and I really don't DRINK, and I have never driven buzzed or drunk........NEVER.

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;382257][url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549721,00.html?test=latestnews[/url]

I personally say NO..........and I really don't DRINK, and I have never driven buzzed or drunk........NEVER.

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a bad idea to me to try and do this out in field, take them to the station or local hospital and do it in a more controlled setting

I reall liked this quote

"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"

What happens if a neddle gets broken off in a suspect that is struggling?

Being a former police officer I would say that this is a very bad idea. There is too much risk for something to go wrong. Just a few would be the possibility of being infected with aids or hepatitus, also your just opening the police officer and the department to lawsuits. Not to mention the risk to the suspect or patient. You aren't able to get a medical history from a drunk and even if you did they are drunk so you couldn't take their word for it. It is just plain stupid and isn't worth the trouble it would cause.

thats a major lawsuit wating to happen IMO. arrest them under suspiction of driving while intoxicated and take them to the hospital or jail and let it be done in a safer enviroment other than the side of the road.
but i agree that if this could happen if you were to be pulled over it would cut down on the amount of drunk drivers. they would know that even if they could fool the breath test they would have to be checked by a blood test that isnt going to lie.

VERY Bad Idea!

Absolutely not. Way WAY over the line.

The police should not be allowed to take blood without a person's explicit permission. Scary that this is even a consideration.

Yes they should be allowed and a Phlebotomist should be allowed to give you a speeding ticket.

I cannot believe this is even on the drawing board.

[QUOTE=mhall;382287]VERY Bad Idea![/QUOTE]

Absolutely! In medical school they taught us that ONLY a doctor can legally "tap" a blood vessel. It is done by nurses and lab technicians but it carries with it a huge liability. Nurses and lab techs say they are covered under the doctor/hospital's license but it's not true. Most believe they are protected but let something go wrong and see how fast a doctor/hospital will tell you they didn't authorize the person to perform the procedure.

Even if a cop is taught the proper procedure for drawing blood, is he going to take the time and make sure the slanted point of the needle is correctly positioned before he goes into the vein or will he just jab? God forbid he should try it in the middle of the night on a dark road. Since medical records are confidential the cop can't legally ask a person if they have HIV/AIDS or if they are a hemophiliac or have hepatitis. Now speaking of hemophilia, once he taps the blood vessel how will he stop the hemorrhaging when it's extremely difficult for even a doctor to do it? What happens if the patient gets a staph infection in the wound because the cop didn't properly cleanse the puncture site before drawing blood or used a contaminated needle? I'm thinking of the deadly flesh eating staph infection. How many cops will it take to hold down a crazed drunk and make him be still enough to hit the vein? Once he does, what is there to keep the drunk from breaking the needle off in the vein?

Cops don't make a salary large enough to afford malpractice insurance and I've never seen a police department that could afford to pay for it on each cop. It costs thousands of dollars per year per person. IMO, the whole idea needs to be tossed or a better plan needs to be developed. Let the cops do their job of enforcing the law and let the doctors do their job of practicing medicine but don't try to merge the two.

A real bad idea. In Ky you have to take them to a hospital to draw blood.

[QUOTE=zx150;382312]A real bad idea. In Ky you have to take them to a hospital to draw blood.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%. Maybe they will have a blood center vehicle on standby.:p

[QUOTE=DJD;382313]Agree 100%. Maybe they will have a blood center vehicle on standby.:p[/QUOTE]

Sounds like one of the more stupid things I have heard of in a long time...police already have enough stress as it is now, can you imagine them trying to find a vein?

A terrible idea. Seems to me they already have the authority to arrest the person, take them to the hospital, and have the blood drawn. Exposing the cops to all that potential liability just doesn't make sense. I was a Critical Care Registered Nurse for 6 years and saw several cases where even experienced phlebotomists left hematomas behind. It just happens. All it takes is for the person to twitch a little bit at the wrong time. And that was on people who were cooperating. Having cops doing it forcefully, IN THE FIELD, introduces way too many issues. To me, this is a no-brainer.