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.

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