Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I always thought that the police had to get a court order to force someone to provide evidence like bodily fluids, DNA, etc.. Also, I always thought that you could refuse a breath alcohol test. I also thought that many attorneys recommend that you refuse the test if arrested for DUI. I guess I was wrong as this case shows.
In any event I think this type of situation could be somewhat avoided by not requiring those charged with a crime to provide evidence against themselves, at least without a court order. I guess I don't trust the methods the police use or the hospital/lab personel they choose to get their evidence.
|
you are correct about the court orders and refusal of breathalizer. at least in my neck of the woods. i dont believe getting one would be a big deal though it might be a bit more difficult after hours.
the cops may not have even needed the blood alcohol level for their case. the hospital may require it for any patient under the influence. the cops could just as easily summoned the person after they process them at the station. most police departments (again, in my neck of the woods) wont hold very drunk individuals in their holding cells. drunk people do die unexpectedly occasionally. the hospital they brought him to may have a policy of obtaining the alcohol levels of any drunk individual. the main reason for that would be liability. they let an obviously intoxicated patient leave and they go get hit by a bus, its the hospitals fault for releasing them.
if the person was resisting, the cops would assist.
then, they wouldnt need a court order. they could just subpeona the results from the hospital when the case came up.
individuals under the influence are not capable of making informed consent, hence the implied consent.