Comments on On Forced Specimens in DWI Cases | Austin DWI Lawyer

gustitis@mac.com (Stephen Gustitis) — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:09:26 -0600

Jamie:
Why not force the suspect to also supply a stool and semen sample while they're at it. This stuff is just crazy and morally reprehensible.

kev672@hotmail.com (I was there) — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:53:10 -0600

The article covers little of the story. Arthur was on the WA equivalent of felony parole. He committed several crimes that night (hit and run, 2 cts felony malicious mischief, and was tried and acquitted of felony harassment) in addition to DUI and was believed to have left the home of his domestic violence victim (for whon ther was a no contact condition) immediately before his crime spree. His bizarre and violent behavior (and prior drug use) led his parole officer and hospital staff to believe Arthur was intoxicated on something other than alcohol. Hospital staff needed to know to clear him before he could be booked into the jail. The parole officer needed to establish whether Arthur posed an increased threat to his DV victim or society. (In WA, the parole officers have broad repsonsibilities levied by a state Supreme Court ruling to assess risks and warn and protect "reasonably foreseeable" vcitims.)
As such, the blood and urine draw were sought,despite Arthur's initial refusal. Dspite his claims, neither was taken by force. In fact, he was cooperative with the blood draw and does not even remember it!
The blood and alcohol tests were not intended for, nor used in, his criminal trial.

sashcache@hotmail.com (Mark Johnson) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:36:08 -0600

I am absolutely sure, that on a long enough timeline, law reinforcement is going to get us any kind of analysis any time, anywhere. I'm gonna turn to a San Diego DUI lawyer in a case like that. What are you guys going to do?

hb1949hb@hotmail.com (humberto Bustamante) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:24:28 -0600

How in the world can this williamson County judge rule for the defense of a drunk suspect(who happens to be a state reprsentative)who refuses to take any breath or blood test, but fails a field test, and can still consider others guilty until proven innocent? Where is the equal justice? How can this "judge" remain unbiased in any case? How and why are we supposed to allow him to continue on the bech and make a mockery of social justice?