The Associated Press just published this story about a federal program in Idaho and Texas in which officers are trained to draw blood from people suspected of impaired driving. The notion is that blood draws counter the evidence lost as a result of breath test refusals, thereby resulting in fewer trials, more convictions and greater deterrence. And blood draws by officers save time and, perhaps, money, though there are costs for training officers in the art of the needle-stick. Arizona apparently set the trend in 1995 by cross-training some of its officers as phlebotomists, a practice that, according to this report from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), caused defense attorneys to change their advice from "just say no" to "blow, baby, blow." (My words, not theirs.) The report noted "[a] possible concern with having an officer draw the blood is that suspects could feel coerced if an authority figure such as an officer is obtaining the sample." But given that such suspects presumably are forced to submit to a blood draw, is coercion really an issue? The NHTSA report included 2005 refusal rates for 37 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. North Carolina's rate of 20 percent was slightly below the average rate of 22 percent. Which state had the highest rate? Here's a hint: Live Free or Die. New Hampshire drivers refused breath tests at a breathtaking rate of 81 percent. The AP reports that if the Idaho and Texas programs are successful, the NHTSA will [...]
Faculty Coordinators
