Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

DWI Blood Draws, and a Urinary Catheter">Warrantless DWI Blood Draws, and a Urinary Catheter

Har­ris County intends to get a search war­rant to draw blood from any­one who, hav­ing been arrested for DWI this (Memo­r­ial Day) week­end, refuses to pro­vide a breath sam­ple (Hous­ton Chron­i­cle). A judge will be on call to sign war­rants and MADD will pro­vide nurses to draw the blood.

In the 1966 Supreme Court case of Schmer­ber v. Cal­i­for­nia the Court approved a war­rant­less blood draw based on prob­a­ble cause for DWI on the the­ory that an emer­gency existed because the accused’s blood alco­hol con­tent might dimin­ish while the police awaited a war­rant. This week­end (when a war­rant can be obtained within 10 or 15 min­utes of a driver’s stop) such an emer­gency won’t exist, so if the police don’t get their PC affi­davits and war­rants right the blood test results will be suppressible.

Mean­while, a Fort Bend County lawyer reports that the Sugar Land, Texas Police Depart­ment, after draw­ing blood, forcibly inserted a catheter into the penis of a DWI arrestee who had refused a breath test.

In Schmer­ber the Supreme Court wrote:

We thus con­clude that the present record shows no vio­la­tion of petitioner’s right under the Fourth and Four­teenth Amend­ments to be free of unrea­son­able searches and seizures. It bears repeat­ing, how­ever, that we reach this judg­ment only on the facts of the present record. The integrity of an individual’s per­son is a cher­ished value of our soci­ety. That we today hold that the Con­sti­tu­tion does not for­bid the States minor intru­sions into an individual’s body under strin­gently lim­ited con­di­tions in no way indi­cates that it per­mits more sub­stan­tial intru­sions, or intru­sions under other conditions.

A catheter is unques­tion­ably a more sub­stan­tial intru­sion than a blood draw. Catheter­i­za­tion is painful, and bears a sub­stan­tial risk of infec­tion. Schmer­ber doesn’t sup­port the Sugar Land offi­cers’ action. Not only did they jeop­ar­dize the pros­e­cu­tion, but they (and the med­ical per­son­nel who helped them) lined them­selves up as the poten­tial defen­dants in a large civil lawsuit.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

Leave a non-anonymous Reply