As it stands now the 1st refusal gets your license taken away for a year "admistratively" and thats all. A second or beyond refusal gets your license taken away "Admistratively" for 18 months - AND - you get an additional criminal charge. If its your first refusal it's just a ticket. Second or more refusal and your misdemeanor (or felony if its serious crash or more than 3rd DUI in 10 years) is in conjunction with a misdemeanor "Refusal to submit to testing".
As it stands now there is no way to force a blood draw except in DUI cases where a crash occurred with serious injury (making it a felony case). The change just makes it lawful to force a blood draw if there is Probable Cause to believe someone is impaired WITHOUT the serious crash occurring first.
I see it as a very good proactive step in the right direction. They will not be randomly forcing blood from anyone. They will have multiple clues to make probale cause affidavits that they believe you are under the influence long before any needle is put to a vein. It is all sworn to in court, and I guarantee no cops I know would risk their career, home, and family as well as their freedom to make a BS DUI arrest. It is the same thing as we have now - except the "suspected impaired driver" cannot legally refuse the breath test or it becomes a forced blood test. If you are not impaired it will never go that far and you will be out of the checkpoint in a minute or two.
If the people don't drink and drive (or dope up and drive) and there is nothing to worry about. Use a designated driver (friend - taxi - etc) or drink at home. I have no sympathy for drunk driving arrestees, only the victims of the impaired drivers when a crash occurs. It is a conscious decision to drive after becoming impaired, no one forced the person to get behind the wheel at gun point.
|
Threaded Mode
