Jay
09-08-2009, 12:21 PM
I missed this thread.
Started by Watcher:
"Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case"
© 2009, Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
http://www.wpbf.com/health/20703731/detail.html
Lyndawitha Y]i do believe the issues are with the STATE..Indiana I believe...Federal Government or Laws have nothing to do with this man being forced to submit to urinalysis and Blood tests...There was a Warrant apparantly..and the Hospital had to abide by that warrant..so to make this a Federal Issue is a bit over the top.
If I may, federal laws do apply. The drawing of blood IS a search under the 4th Amendment. Draws are permitted under the 4th though, as long as there is probable cause.
The hospital was NOT bound by the warrant, it was a search warrant for the officer, not a court order/subpeona directing the hospital to comply.
I am puzzled why the officer sought a warrant, as IN's implied consent laws give him the authority to seek a blood sample?
http://www.indianalaw.to/Indiana_Implied_Consent_Laws.pdf
Maybe he sought a warrant as a more invasive procedure was going to be done, a catherization? Or maybe IN's Constitution required it?
Someone mentioned in the other thread suing the officer. You can't, he acted under authority of the warrant. Unless the affidavit contained lies, etc., the officer is entitled to "qualified immunity". What I mean is, sure you can sue, as was done here, but the QI immunity must be overcome.
You can bet one of the causes of action is as an UNreasonable search under the 4th AM, yet a Judge approved the warrant? Interesting!!
I wish I could read that lawsuit. It has to have a cause of action as some type of pain infliction out of the ordinary, such as a blood draw. Yet, if the affidavit for the warrant said a catheter was going to put in???
Started by Watcher:
"Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case"
© 2009, Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
http://www.wpbf.com/health/20703731/detail.html
Lyndawitha Y]i do believe the issues are with the STATE..Indiana I believe...Federal Government or Laws have nothing to do with this man being forced to submit to urinalysis and Blood tests...There was a Warrant apparantly..and the Hospital had to abide by that warrant..so to make this a Federal Issue is a bit over the top.
If I may, federal laws do apply. The drawing of blood IS a search under the 4th Amendment. Draws are permitted under the 4th though, as long as there is probable cause.
The hospital was NOT bound by the warrant, it was a search warrant for the officer, not a court order/subpeona directing the hospital to comply.
I am puzzled why the officer sought a warrant, as IN's implied consent laws give him the authority to seek a blood sample?
http://www.indianalaw.to/Indiana_Implied_Consent_Laws.pdf
Maybe he sought a warrant as a more invasive procedure was going to be done, a catherization? Or maybe IN's Constitution required it?
Someone mentioned in the other thread suing the officer. You can't, he acted under authority of the warrant. Unless the affidavit contained lies, etc., the officer is entitled to "qualified immunity". What I mean is, sure you can sue, as was done here, but the QI immunity must be overcome.
You can bet one of the causes of action is as an UNreasonable search under the 4th AM, yet a Judge approved the warrant? Interesting!!
I wish I could read that lawsuit. It has to have a cause of action as some type of pain infliction out of the ordinary, such as a blood draw. Yet, if the affidavit for the warrant said a catheter was going to put in???