Chicago DUI lawyer warns of police taking your blood--by force

This Chicago DUI lawyer has posted here, here, and here about DUI blood draws. Regardless of your opinion on the subject, I find it odd that there is distinct and understandable concern about government sponsored health insurance reform (leaving out Veteran's Programs and Medicare) but we are perfectly okay with the police taking a person's blood by force?

September 11, Nampa, ID

Nampa police say a new program that allows trained officers to draw blood to determine whether drivers are under the influence of alcohol or drugs is both cost-effective and more accurate.

By doing the procedure in-house at one of two Nampa stations, instead of at local hospitals like Mercy Medical Center, the department will save about $300 per blood draw, Sgt. Matthew Pavelek said. And by avoiding hospital waits, officers hope to get a more accurate blood-alcohol content reading, he added.

No other police departments in Idaho have implemented the program, first pioneered in Arizona the past 13 years. But the practice has been expanding to other states including Texas.

"The National Highway Association chose us, I assume, because we're the two largest police agencies in the state, and they're doing some studies to see how it affects drunk-driving behavior before and after the blood draws," Pavelek said.

Under the new program, trained Nampa officers can conduct blood draws on suspected DUI motorists who do not consent to breath or other chemical testing during impaired-driver related investigations.

Somehow, I think the majority opinion in Schmerber v. California,384 U.S. 757 (1966) (the U.S. Supreme Court case that permits blood draws for DUI's) holds the key to how most of us actually feel about this:

Finally, the record shows that the test was performed in a reasonable manner. Petitioner's blood was taken by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices. We are thus not presented with the serious questions which would arise if a search involving use of a medical technique, even of the most rudimentary sort, were made by other than medical personnel or in other than a medical environment—for example, if it were administered by police in the privacy of the stationhouse. To tolerate searches under these conditions might be to invite an unjustified element of personal risk of infection and pain.

See, in Schmerber the defendant was already in the hospital being treated for injuries from an auto accident when his blood was taken. Accordingly, the Justices thought that was very, very different than the police taking your blood back at the station.

PS Thanks Sonya.