I just heard that our state police are using a new sort of roadblock/drunk check this holiday weekend (new to me, at least), which makes me a bit uneasy.
The technique, dubbed "No Refusal," allows police to use paramedics to draw blood from DWI suspects who refuse to take an on-site brethalyzer test.
From the Times-Picayune:
Paramedics will be on call to draw blood from DWI suspects who refuse breath tests.
First, officers must get search warrants from magistrates, who also will be on duty all weekend for the effort, said Jefferson Parish prosecutor Norma Broussard. Officers will fax affidavits to the magistrates, who will review whether the officers have probable cause and decide whether to sign the search warrants.
"I hope the word gets out," said Broussard, who oversees parish courts for Jefferson Parish District Attorney Paul Connick Jr. "If you drink, don't drive. We will have the evidence we need to prosecute.''
Although this is a new phenom to a provincial like me, the technique is actually a couple of years old, pioneered, apparently, in Texas, easily the national champ in per-capita DWI fatalities. The procedure has been used enough in the Lone Star State to engender the expected legal challenges.
A quick search has yielded no results on the results of those challenges, but authorities in Orleans neighbor Jefferson Parish are confident that it will survive any court fight:
Broussard said similar drunk driving campaigns have been waged in Texas and have been upheld in court.
She said another legal challenge to the "no refusal" campaign is pending in Lake Charles, where authorities have used similar methods to trim drunk driving.
"It is constitutional," Broussard said. "Any police officer can apply for a search warrant."
I am quite ambivilent about this new development in law enforcement. While I loathe those who cavalierly put their own and others' lives at risk by operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (or telephoning, texting, reading, eating, smoking, hairdressing, etc.), I am also a firm believer in the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which protect citizens, even guilty fuckwads, from becoming vulnerable to a State gone power-mad.
So I'm putting the question to you, my thoughtful fellow-kossacks: is a forced blood test for DWI a reasonable and legal precaution needed to protect the public from idiots who cannot regulate their own behavior or a heinous breach of the protections granted us by our wise Founders?
I honestly can't say I know.