Even when the warrant has been obtained, the blood draws are still forcible for those who would otherwise still refuse. The full report on WAGA-TV can be viewed here.
The footage shows suspects being strapped, most forcibly, to gurneys whereby a nurse then draws their blood in order for the blood alcohol level to be tests and the results used against them in a court of law. The Blaze reported, “One of the anchors calls the footage obtained by the station showing such situations as disturbing video.”
David Boyle, a defense attorney, told WAGA-TV, “… that level of invasive procedure into somebody’s body is ridiculous, especially for investigating a misdemeanor.” Boyle also stated the practice of forcible blood draws, even with a warrant, is “really intrusive.”
Douglas County Sheriff Phil Miller said, “It is what it is. If they’re not guilty, they’re not guilty. If they’re guilty, they’ve got to face the consequences.”
According to the report, the reason deputies began getting the warrants to draw blood in 2006 was due to more people taking advice to not submit to any field sobriety tests making law enforcements job more difficult. In Gwinett County, every DUI suspect is strapped to a gurney and put in a head grasp, whether they are compliant or not. Lt. Col. Carl Sims of the Gwinett County Sheriff’s Department stated strapping individuals down to a gurney is a precaution authorities must take even though strapping someone down who is not resistant to the blood draw might not look good.
Are you kidding me? Not look good? That’s an understatement.
Everyone should know that drunk driving is against the law; but, not only that, it is incredibly irresponsible, ignorant and just plain stupid. Irregardless, holding someone down to forcibly perform an invasive procedure, such as obtaining blood even with a search warrant, after refusing to provide incriminating evidence against oneself, stamps out the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and promotes illegal restraint. Yes, those forced blood draws incriminated almost all of those suspected and drunk drivers do kill a lot of people.
However, Benjamin Franklin put things into perspective when he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
What about those individuals who were innocent. Regardless of agreeing to the procedure, individuals were still forcibly restrained for venipuncture. Georgia may not be the only state that has adopted this law – and Georgia law is conflicting in and of itself as indicated in the news report.
With Georgia law enforcement and the Supreme Court ruling in favor of this practice, how long do you think it will take them to apply this type of thinking to other rights that are inalienable? And yes, I am thinking of the Second Amendment. According to law enforcement in one county, statistics show a large number of individuals are killed by drunk drivers; therefore, in order to keep the public safe, it is in the best interest of everyone to trample the Fifth Amendment and expand on the Fourth Amendment. Does this sound familiar to the gun control argument?
While I understand the search warrant to be in compliance with the Fourth Amendment, I don’t think the founding fathers anticipated it being used to invade someone’s body. Imagine the implication this has. What if the police suspect you of carrying illegal substances in a body cavity? You deny it and refuse to prove it. Well, no more Fourth and Fifth Amendment. Law enforcement will get a judge to issue a search warrant and your body cavities will be invaded albeit after you have been forcibly strapped down.