Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Cops Put Bag On Woman’s Head, Strap Her To Chair And Choke Her To Draw Blood For DUI Test
Source:
Prison Planet
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/lawsuit ... o-draw-blood-for-dui-test.html
Published: Feb 09, 2015
Author: Prisonplanet.com
Post Date: 2015-02-10 00:46:24 by GeorgiaConservative
Keywords: police, cops
Views: 27568
Comments: 69
A woman is suing a host of parties after it emerged that cops in Austin, Texas, forcably took her blood for a DUI test, in a scene that sounds more like something that would occur at a Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Caroline Callaway was arrested by a police officer after she refused to take a breath test during a routine traffic stop. Ms Callaway was taken directly to the Travis County jail where the shocking events unfolded. Callaway’s attorney told reporters with Courthouse News that despite only “passive and verbal resistance” she was taken “to a small padded room, where she was surrounded by officers and strapped into ‘the chair,’ with her legs, wrists and shoulders restrained.” Callaway, who had informed the police that she suffers from anxiety disorder and uses medications for the ailment, then “began to involuntarily tremble from anxiety and fear.” This prompted the cops to put a bag, known as a “Tranzport Hood,” over her head to deprive the senses, in some backwards notion that this would have a calming effect. All the hood did was cause Callaway to panic further as she could not see what was happening and had further difficulty breathing. A contracted nurse was on hand to perform the blood draw, but according to the complaint, “the needle popped out because of Ms. Callaway’s shaking and blood spewed onto one of the officers.” “(D)efendants continued the abuse determined to take Ms. Callaway’s blood. In order to stop Ms. Callaway from trembling, one of the officers used choke hold pressure points on her neck, until her body went limp.” the complaint further notes. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 63.
#1. To: GeorgiaConservative (#0)
(Edited)
Author: Steve Watson - Prisonplanet.com. She also was in possession of marijuana, ran two red lights. More states are authorizing forcible blood draws for motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Forcible blood draws occur when police hold down a DUI suspect who is unruly or struggling and medical personnel withdraw a blood sample. Texas state statutes specifically allow the procedure.
Gatlin, I've personally seen you post threads that came directly from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), so you have absolutely zero room to be talking about 'questionable sources'.
Did you ever show where anything I posted was incomplete (contained only partial facts) or untrue? The answer to that is, no ... because I never did. I repeat: She also was in possession of marijuana, ran two red lights. More states are authorizing forcible blood draws for motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Forcible blood draws occur when police hold down a DUI suspect who is unruly or struggling and medical personnel withdraw a blood sample. Texas state statutes specifically allow the procedure. Steve Watson intentionally left out some pertinent facts in order to further his agenda. That, Georgia Cracker, is yellow journalism.
And Gatlin cheers the further implementation of the police state. Why not - he believes the government owns your mind and your body. Oh BTW Gatslime - your constant shilling for the SPLC is reprehensible. Just wanted to add that.
Forcible blood draws are legal, passed by the Texas legislature (consisting of representatives of Texas citizens) and signed by the Texas governor. If this is the way Texas citizens want to run their state, it's their business, not yours. If the citizens object, they can write their representative. If a majority do so, the law will be overturned. Unless, of course, you believe the rest of us should tell Texas what to do? Not a big fan of federalism, are you? (I bet you are on other issues, aren't you?)
I don't drink or drug, but have always wondered why forcible blood draws aren't a violation of the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment proscription against compelling any person "in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". She was obviously compelled to provide evidence against herself. Might have something to do with the lowered BAL required to constitute an offense of the law. Normally the dash cam or jail videos will show a jury if the defendant is obviously intoxicated or impaired. The blood draw can get convictions on people who are at 0.08% BAL and not obviously impaired. Just a guess, though.
How about fingerprinting, a DNA mouth swab, a photo, voice recording, or even appearing in court? All could be used as self-incriminating evidence against the defendant. The court has ruled that the 5th amendment is "a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from a defendant." Very narrow. I think the defendant can make a better 4th amendment case. To me, a forcible blood draw is a gross violation of privacy, both in the way it is obtained and the amount of personal health information it gives the government. What if the DUI test involved an examination of your liver -- would the court allow a doctor to perform surgery?
Now here is what the Fifthe amendment ACTUALLY is. Words have meanings. If you don't understand a word get out a dictionary or ask somene. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I don't care what some corrupt black robe says.
You mean you don't care what five corrupt black robes on the U.S. Supreme Court say. Seems to me that if they're corrupt they should be impeached -- not ignored. Are those five still corrupt when they rule in favor of an issue you support?
Are those five still corrupt when they rule in favor of an issue you support? What I am saying is that I live by moral code not the law. I don't break the law because most laws are just. Murder, theft etc. If 5 corrupt judges come to the truth then it is still the truth. You would have to give me an example to tell you if I disagree or agree. I can accept that everything isn't my way. I don't like it when they obviously violate the constitution.
The law IS the aggregate moral code of society. Given that we'll never get 320 million people to agree 100%, the practical solution is to go with the majority. Although you're free to be more moral than the aggregate, being less moral has consequences. "I don't like it when they obviously violate the constitution." It's not that obvious to me. As I pointed out in my post #23, there are a large number of ways by which an individual could incriminate themselves. Hell, simply having them appear in a line-up can be construed as self-incrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Founders were referring to verbal communication.
The court has ruled that the 5th amendment is "a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from a defendant." Very narrow. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Founders were referring to verbal communication. Those two opinions of yours on the 5th, --- contradict each other and don't make sense. --- Can you explain? s Our supreme law, the Constitution, protects us from 'majority rule', --- by insisting that there are individual rights that cannot be infringed by any 'practical solution'. --- Can you admit that truth?
It appears not... Poor fella. He must be so heartbroken about palmdales suspension, that he's struck dumb.
I don't think Palmdale was sudpended. It's my understanding he voluntarily quit posting.
Misterwhite must be so heartbroken about palmdales suspension, that he's struck dumb. We all know you don't spend much time thinking, but what gave you the idea that his leaving was voluntary? Do you mean after Stone gave him a temporary suspension, he quit LF in a snit?
Kewl.
There are no replies to Comment # 63. End Trace Mode for Comment # 63.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
She was convicted of an earlier charge in 2012.
Officers can take blood from citizens with a warrant signed by a judge.
#2. To: Gatlin (#1)
(Edited)
Author: Steve Watson - Prisonplanet.com.
#3. To: GeorgiaConservative (#2)
...directly from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)...
Author: Steve Watson - Prisonplanet.com.
She was convicted of an earlier charge in 2012.
Officers can take blood from citizens with a warrant signed by a judge.
#4. To: Gatlin, GeorgiaConservative (#3)
More states are authorizing forcible blood draws for motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Forcible blood draws occur when police hold down a DUI suspect who is unruly or struggling and medical personnel withdraw a blood sample. Texas state statutes specifically allow the procedure.
#14. To: Deckard (#4)
"And Gatlin cheers the further implementation of the police state."
#18. To: misterwhite (#14)
#23. To: Abcdefg (#18)
"why forcible blood draws aren't a violation of the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment proscription against compelling any person "in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
#24. To: misterwhite (#23)
The court has ruled that the 5th amendment is "a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from a defendant." Very narrow.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#24)
"I don't care what some corrupt black robe says."
#29. To: misterwhite (#28)
You mean you don't care what five corrupt black robes on the U.S. Supreme Court say. Seems to me that if they're corrupt they should be impeached -- not ignored.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#29)
"What I am saying is that I live by moral code not the law."
#34. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL, ---- Can he, - will he reply? (#33)
Misterwhite (#23)
The law IS the aggregate moral code of society. Given that we'll never get 320 million people to agree 100%, the practical solution is to go with the majority.
#39. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL, ---- Can he, - will he reply to post 33? (#34)
#40. To: tpaine (#39)
He must be so heartbroken about palmdales suspension
#44. To: GrandIsland (#40)
I don't think Palmdale was sudpended. --- It's my understanding he voluntarily quit posting.
#63. To: tpaine (#44)
Do you mean after Stone gave him a temporary suspension, he quit LF in a snit?
Replies to Comment # 63.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]