I thin the question pertained to the arresting Officer supposedly knowing that the place he brought the guy to for a Blood Draw would have somebody not certified to do so perform the draw.

Had the doctor performed the blood draw instead of somebody from the medical lab, then it would have been deemed to have been a legal draw.

 

Originally Posted by BadPiggy
Yes.
And the arresting officer conveniently took him for blood alcohol testing from someone that wasn't certified.
Sooooo...the drunk driving charge disappears.

Funny how that works, huh!


Originally Posted by mike5511
So you KNOW he did that on purpose with malicious intent!



Originally Posted by Badpiggy
Yes, he did.
The alcohol wasn't forced down his throat.
You're barking up the wrong tree if you're going to try to justify a drunk, cop or not.



Badpiggy, I think mike5511 was referring to the cop that took the intoxicated officer to an unqualified location for a BAC, but the answer is the same. It wasn't an accident. The officer knows the procedure and chose to screw it up. Bad choice on his part.

 

Everybody loves to hate the cops. Till they need one.

 

The fact that the other officers "didn't expect he was drunk" on the scene, and then they take him to a place that has NEVER done a blood draw for IMPD for investigating an accident.. It just stinks to high hell...

I think every officer on the scene, should have been fired, not just demoted, they didn't think he was drunk , so how would they be expected to tell if anyone is drunk EVER, he should have been breathalyzed on scene..

 

I was in accident reconstruction for over 7 years.....have been in crime scene for nearly 4. We never......NEVER give an on scene breathalyzer on a subject when the filing of criminal charges is a distinct possibility. It is ALWAYS a blood draw....part of the reason being that if blood is drawn, there is always some left over for when the defense asks for a second test. You don't have that option if you opt for a breathanalysis.

Did they know in advance that the blood draw would be thrown out? I don't know....but if an investigation proves that they DID know, then those that knew what would happen need to be disciplined. If they DIDN'T know? Then due process (yes, the same due process of law that EVERYBODY is entitled to) played out.

 

If he was breathalyzed on scene could they then take his blood after that?

 

Bill, "breathalyzed" at the scene is not the correct term. The unit used on scene or in the field is a preliminary breath test (PBT) it's results(the numeric result) in most states are not admissable in a court of law, only a pass or fail. Therefore those units are not required by most departments to be standard issue. Physical tests administered on scene like the walk and turn, one leg stand, and horizontal gaze nstagmus, are what determines whether a suspect is arrested or freed to leave. That being said, every department in every state have their own policy and procedures. In our state, any motor vehicle operator involved in a fatal crash suspected or not must submit a sample of blood, breath, and or urine for impairment testing. Bill to answer your question, yes but the only tests admissable in court must be performed by a certified breath test operator or for blood or urine nurse, lab tech, phlebotomist or doctor.

 

RICO the whole bunch. That's what THEY do.

 

++1 It's a given that in most jobs, people "cover" for each other and not always a bad thing, BUT in the covering come the consequences. No doubt he "should" have known better and my gut tells me he more than likely did, but in the event he really didn't, then he shouldn't have been on the street in the first place, should he?

 

So it is ok to generalize most cops as bad because of SOME getting away with crimes they commit? MMMM so would you accept a generalization about the military when the news reports of wrong doing from time to time. Just not right is it!!!