Wednesday, September 16, 2009

More thoughts on the "Mandatory Blood Sample" law in Texas...

Well, let's see here...as I've previously posted, Texas now has a law stating that officers can use force to extract a blood sample from those merely suspected of Driving While Intoxicated, provided certain conditions have been met.

Okay, before I go any further, I will reiterate the fact that I fully understand the dangers of drunkenness on a public street. For those reading up on this blog for the first time, my brother was killed by a drunk driver. It happened in the wee hours of January 1, 1996.

In the spring of 2002, I was stopped on HWY288B for the "offense" of driving 4mph over the speed limit, by a DPS State Trooper named Robert Dornak. Yes, the very same Robert Dornak that lied about the report of a traffic accident involving the death of a Deputy Sheriff who was improperly standing in traffic on a foggy morning. The very same Robert Dornak that "voluntarily resigned" after it was alleged that he had falsified his time cards.

Because I had no money to hire an attorney and was under the impression that it was somehow "cheaper" to plead out, I took a plea bargain and claimed Nolo. Sadly, for every dime I would have spent on an attorney to fight the case, that money was given back to the state in the form of probation fees, "drug and alcohol awareness" classes, my court-ordered fine, time missed from work for community service and probation meetings, insurance premium increases, et cetera.

NEVER plead out on a criminal case, unless you are guilty and you know it. If you are guilty, I have no pity on you. If you are innocent, FIGHT IT WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT AND THEN SOME!

Four years later, I was stopped after being seen by another Texas Department of Public Safety Officer. His name is Adrian Barlow. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. Barlow. Remember that name, folks...because if you run into him, STAY AWAY FROM HIM. He is a liar, and will not hesitate to arrest you if it can help to run his numbers up.

You see, Trooper Barlow claims that he saw me driving without a seatbelt. From a moving car. In the middle of the night. Measurements were taken, of my car and a standard Ford Crown Victoria of the current model as driven by Trooper Adrian Barlow. At the speed claimed by the trooper, he would have had less than TWO TENTHS OF A SECOND to see such a thing.

Of course he tried to pretend like he was pulling me over for not wearing a seatbelt, and tried to act like he didn't see me pulling out of a bar, but the video showed otherwise. It also showed how he lied his ass off about me being "confrontational", having "slurred speech", and "being off-balance". Regardless, none of these really became an issue until he asked me if I had ever been arrested for DWI before. Not "convicted", but merely "arrested"...and yes, if you're wondering, I very openly admitted to the fact that I had been arrested for DWI. Oh yeah, I also very clearly heard him make the call on the radio for my arrest record, prior to asking me that question.

Regardless of these two lying tax leeches and their willingness to completely disregard the rights afforded me by my state and federal constitutions, there is one little fact that we must address here.

Now, it is "lawful" for an officer to hold me down at gunpoint for the purposes of drawing blood from my arm, if he claims that I am Driving While Intoxicated. Interestingly enough, mere "probable cause" is enough to allow an officer to draw blood from me by armed force, but not enough from my best friend...even if we were pulled over in identical circumstances.

It has nothing to do with age, race, creed, sex, or anything of the sort. Nothing, of course, other than the fact that I have a prior conviction for Driving While Intoxicated. However, at the time of my plea agreement, there was no such thing as a law saying that I might have blood evidence seized by an officer in the absence of a warrant, as the result of my conviction. There was no such law in place. In the absence of a previous conviction and other circumstances such as a child in the vehicle at the time, the officer must obtain a warrant to draw blood.

IS THIS NOT AN EX POST FACTO LAW?

No comments:

Post a Comment