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: 27590
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
#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.
Another bad effect of marijuana - you might choke to death!
How do we know she wasn't spitting on the officers in her drunken rage... as the reason for the hood?
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
The woman ran two red lights. She was a repeat offender with a prior DUI conviction. She could have easily caused a tragic duplication of this: I will present truth from whatever source truth can be found. Your constant failed attempt to defend the indefensible is reprehensible. Just wanted to add that.
Yet you post leftist screeds from the ACLU and other sources here on a daily basis. Hypocritical asshole.
There is such a thing as truth and I am able to find it. You are also able to find truth but you never do. Truth can be known, it always exists. I post truth when and from whatever source I find it. That is not being hypocritical.
Your version of it. Bugger off you bloody SPLC puppet.
There is such a thing as truth and I am able to find it. Your version of it. As surprisingly as you may find it, there is only one version of the truth. A single version of truth is not difficult to find ... you only need look for it.
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?)
Yep. That was my first thought.
What about the "sock puppet" accounts you have set up on this forum. Was that done to "post the truth"?
If the lady is easily proven to be drunk and unable to safely drive a vehicle by such old fashioned tools as observation, there is no reason to force her to "donate" blood to prove it. DUI laws and processes to prove guilt exist to make police able to get more taxes, not make the roads safer. If society wants fewer drunks on the roads harming others, put more police on the job and train them to watch for signs of drunks driving with their eyes and nose. As far as I am concerned, taking of blood or forced breathalyzers are violations of the 5th amendment. It doesn't matter if a person has an accident because they were fat or drunk, they had an accident. Now if they can be proven to have caused the accident, the reason they did so is not relevant and should not be related to punishment. If say they were sitting at a light and someone rear ends them, are they at fault because the cops give her a test that she fails?
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.
You are correct. They are a plain violation. Problem is today we have liars and pieces of shit for judges all the way up to the supreme court.
There are a few things, medically, that can look like intoxication. A blood BAC or a breath test is imperative. Besides, most states write into their law that an operator can't refuse, upon PC for a DWI arrest. Driving is not a right... it's a privledge.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
In NY, blood draws are only forced in cases of FATAL MVA's or the possibility of a fatality via extream serious injury.... should the person refuse. A court warrant still has to be signed for the forced blood draw. Can't speak for other states... But NY is as libtard as they come.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Indeed they are. The 5th exists, but GrandIsland, gatlin, and misterwhite claim that States have the power to ignore it. No, it is imperative that the States honor the 5th. Constitutional rights trump police investigations. Another constitutionally debatable 'law' and concept. Our right to travel is beyond dispute. (Or should be) -- Thus, our mode of travel (our right to drive) should only be subject to reasonable regulations, which do NOT include blood tests. Can you agree?
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 see, this was a condition of the continuing debate. That you aren't the final say in grey areas. You know as well as I do the the USC has ruled forced blood draws NOT a constitutional violation. I can't debate you if you intentionally spin facts.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I agree. Make the determination based on the officer's observation -- the way the person was driving, their appearance, alcohol on breath, slurred speech, etc. If, as a result of those observations, the person is arrested for DUI, then THEY may request the officer to perform a DUI test to prove their innocence.
Only one hole in your plan, the defendant doesn't have to prove Jack-shit. You're opening up a whole can of constitutional worms.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
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 5th exists, but GrandIsland, gatlin, and misterwhite claim that States have the power to ignore it. No, it is imperative that the States honor the 5th. Constitutional rights trump police investigations. I'm not 'the final say', the Constitution is.. Try to refute the words of the constitution, not mine. And if you look at their 'rulings', the opinions are NOT unanimous. There is dissent, and they can be overturned. I'm giving you constitutional facts, not spin. -- But if you claim there's spin, specify it, if you can. - I claim you can't. Another constitutionally debatable 'law' and concept. Our right to travel is beyond dispute. (Or should be) -- Thus, our mode of travel (our right to drive) should only be subject to reasonable regulations, which do NOT include blood tests. Can you agree?
Actually it is a right. The right travel. If you can't drive you can't survive or can barely survive. You should be to lose that right if you do something like drive drunk. But the default position should be/acutally is that driving is a right. There were several court cases confirming this before the entire system became corrupt. So corrupt it is facing collapse.
You're right. He doesn't have to. He can go to court and listen to the officer describe why he was arrested for DUI -- weaving all over the road, eyes red, speech blurred, reeking of alcohol -- and as his defense offer ... diddley-squat. My plan offers him a choice and retains his rights. Rather than being forced to take some DUI test, the arrest is based on the officer's observation. If the driver knows he's not impaired, he can insist on a DUI test (breath or blood) and settle the matter with the officer right then and there. Or not. Justice is served and no rights are violated. Why not?
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?
I'm familiar with this concept. I don't necessarily disagree, but the SCOTUS does. We can't make our own rules based on individual opinions. It's a slippery slope
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Driving is not a right... it's a privledge. -- GrandIsland Another constitutionally debatable 'law' and concept. Our right to travel is beyond dispute. (Or should be) -- Thus, our mode of travel (our right to drive) should only be subject to reasonable regulations, which do NOT include blood tests. Can you agree? We agree. - It puzzles me why anyone would disagree... Nope, they've never really opined on that percise point, if memory serves. -- SOTUS uses the reasonable regulation dodge to avoid such a 'ruling'. We made our own rules in the Constitution, based on individual rights. You slippery States Rights advocates opine that majority rule is the way to go. It's not.
Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
Come on Stone, so I'm correct in assuming you don't have a drivers license? Be honest.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
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.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Comments (41 - 69) not displayed.
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.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#5. To: GeorgiaConservative (#0)
in Austin ... cops to put a bag ... difficulty breathing ... choke hold pressure points on her neck, until her body went limp
#6. To: Gatlin (#1)
She also was in possession of marijuana
#7. To: GeorgiaConservative (#0)
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.
#8. To: Deckard (#4)
(Edited)
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. Flowers and candles were placed Thursday night at the intersection in Redondo Beach where an alleged DUI driver plowed into families who had just attended a school Christmas program, killing three women and leaving nine others injured, including five children. Margo Bronstein of Redondo Beach was arrested on suspicion of felony vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, police said Thursday. Source.
He taught that his kingdom is a kingdom of truth, inhering or contained in love, an essential element which dominates the love. The truth which controls the love is holiness, justice, truth or honesty, impartiality and altruism. Every one that is of the truth, wherever there is a human spirit anxious to, attain to the possession of truth and righteousness, let his eye be directed to me.
Yellow journalism is abominable. Defend her if you wish … I will not!
#9. To: GeorgiaConservative, GrandIsland, (#7)
A cloth spit bag/sock/mask. The spit bag, or spit mask, or spit hood, or spit sock, spit net serves a reasonable goal. It protects law enforcement personnel from the potentially deadly bodily fluids of an aggressive detainee. The cheap, disposable device can be quickly pulled over the offender’s face, and just as easily removed. Dallas police used the mask on a 25-year-old man they were detaining on warrants. He’d resisted officers, and tried to spit on them. The mask was clearly a good call in this case after learning that the man tested positive for HIV and hepatitis.
#10. To: Gatlin (#8)
Yellow journalism is abominable.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#11. To: Deckard (#10)
Yellow journalism is abominable.
Yet you post leftist screeds from the ACLU and other sources here on a daily basis.
Hypocritical asshole.
#12. To: Gatlin (#11)
There is such a thing as truth and I am able to find it.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#13. To: Deckard (#12)
#14. To: Deckard (#4)
"And Gatlin cheers the further implementation of the police state."
#15. To: GrandIsland (#7)
"How do we know she wasn't spitting on the officers in her drunken rage... as the reason for the hood?"
#16. To: Gatlin (#11)
I post truth when and from whatever source I find it.
#17. To: GrandIsland (#7)
#18. To: misterwhite (#14)
#19. To: Abcdefg (#18)
a violation of the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment
#20. To: jeremiad (#17)
If the lady is easily proven to be drunk and unable to safely drive a vehicle by such old fashioned tools as observation, there is no reason to force her to "donate" blood to prove it.
#21. To: Abcdefg, AKA Stone (#18)
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 agains
#22. To: GrandIsland, jeremiad, Y'ALL (#20)
Jeremiad --- If the lady is easily proven to be drunk and unable to safely drive a vehicle by such old fashioned tools as observation, there is no reason to force her to "donate" blood to prove it. ---- As far as I am concerned, taking of blood or forced breathalyzers are violations of the 5th amendment.
GrandIsland --- There are a few things, medically, that can look like intoxication. A blood BAC or a breath test is imperative.
Besides, most states write into their law that an operator can't refuse, upon PC for a DWI arrest. Driving is not a right... it's a privledge.
#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.
#25. To: tpaine (#22)
(Edited)
No, it is imperative that the States honor the 5th. Constitutional rights
#26. To: GrandIsland (#20)
"If the lady is easily proven to be drunk and unable to safely drive a vehicle by such old fashioned tools as observation, there is no reason to force her to "donate" blood to prove it."
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
f, as a result of those observations, the person is arrested for DUI, then THEY may request the officer to perform a DUI test to prove their innocence.
#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.
#30. To: GrandIsland (#25)
GrandIsland --- There are a few things, medically, that can look like intoxication. A blood BAC or a breath test is imperative.
You see, this was a condition of the continuing debate. That you aren't the final say in grey areas.
You know as well as I do the the USC has ruled forced blood draws NOT a constitutional violation.
I can't debate you if you intentionally spin facts.
Besides, most states write into their law that an operator can't refuse, upon PC for a DWI arrest. Driving is not a right... it's a privledge.
#31. To: tpaine, GrandIsland (#30)
Driving is not a right... it's a privledge.
#32. To: GrandIsland (#27)
"the defendant doesn't have to prove Jack-shit."
#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.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#31)
Actually it is a right. The right travel. If you can't drive you can't survive or can barely survive.
#36. To: GrandIsland (#35)
(Edited)
A K A Stone ---- Actually it is a right. The right travel. If you can't drive you can't survive or can barely survive.
GI --- I'm familiar with this concept. I don't necessarily disagree, but the SCOTUS does.
We can't make our own rules based on individual opinions. It's a slippery slope.
#37. To: tpaine, GrandIsland (#36)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
#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
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]