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: 26373
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
Comments (1-12) not displayed.
.
.
.
#13. To: Deckard (#12)
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
Am I correct in assuming your 16 years old and a wannabe cop?
It's been ruled by a few different STATE appellate or Supreme Courts. The USSC would never rule that driving on public roadways is a constitutional right... not even if all the justices were Scalia.
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
Am I correct in assuming your 16 years old and a wannabe cop? So why would you, after all these intelligent posts, back and fourth... post such a childish retort? My question was reasonable.
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
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?
No. He sent a private message stating his intent on the day of his last posts.
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
Be honest I drove without a license for over 10 years. I have one now. I didn't get a dui or anything. The insurance just lapsed around Christmas one year. Then they suspended it. I beat them in court on several occasions. Cop didn't show up. They change the charge to no operators license. My funnest was when I went to Fariborn Municipal Court. I found a brief on the internet based on Pennsylvania law. I looked up the appropriate parts and made it conform to Ohio. It was like 35 pages. The Judge ruled against me. I was preparing to choose the jury. Looking over the pamphlet. I was representing myself. They called me to court to discuss the case before jury selection. I remember it very well. The judge told me that I wasn't to bring up the constitution and that she already ruled against my motions. She just ruled against them without explaining why. Anyhow. She asked if I understood that I was not to bring up the constitution in the case. I remember plain as day what I said back. I said "I understand that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. She was mad you could see it in the bitches face. Then I asked her if I could ask a question. I asked her "if the constitution of the United States of America was in effect in her courtrooom. She said "that is offensive I refuse to answer that question". I shot back "Let the record show that the judge has refused to acknowledge that the constitution of the United States oF America is in effect in this courtroom. She was even more pissed. She threw the gavel down and adjourned. They took me back to the room to keep making the jury selection. Not 5 minutes later the prosecutor came in and said they made a mistake in the way that they filed my charges and that they were dropping the driving without a license charge. But they would keep the reckless operation of a motor vehicle charge. Which you don't get a jury trial for. The bitch didn't listen to or consider anything and she found me guilty. What was the reckless operation. My tire went flat and it was on the side of the road. It was a firstone tire by the way before all that stuff about firestone tires broke. Not that that was necessarily the reason. Also something I didn't mention above. When we went to the consultation or whatever you call it when I was before the Judge. They asked if I objected to a Federal Ovserver witting with the prosecutor. I didn't object I wasn't prepared for a question like that. But why would a federal repersentative be there for a case as insignificant as mine. I wondered that afterward. I was prepared. Had poster boards and everything. I was going to smoke them and take up all day, or as much time as possible. Another case. Oakwood Ohio. The Judge kept stopping me from taling with sidebars. I was tryint go tell the jury that they had the right to decide the facts and the LAW. The judge didn't like that. I asked him in the sidebar if he Knew that my position was the same as John Jay's the first supreme court justice. He wasn't going to let me say anything. So I changed stategies. I held up a copy of the constitution. I told the jury this is a copy of the constitution. I guess it is of no effect in this court. Then I ripped it up and rested my case. During jury deliberations I sat in the Judges chamber and talked to him. He was actually kind of friendly. The prosecutor didn't like that at all. One thing I asked him was why is that gold fringe around the American flag? He said "someone has told you something". I don't remember the other details of our conversation. Anyhow the jury came back with a question. I don't remember what it was. Then later the jury found me guilty. Ok one more. I got a public defender. Worst result out ever. I got 30 days house arrest. The public defender was a joke. Another case. Kettering Ohio. The law says there is an exception if there is an emergency. It was a slow winter. My heat went out. I had to get a thermostat to make the heater work. My defense was going to be it was an emergency because my heat was out and I needed money to buy a new thermostat. This was about a week before Christmas. The public defender came up to me and wanted to make sure I wanted to represent myself. I told him how I planned to defend myself. Side note I also had 3 of my cute little kids with me for jury sympathy. The defender said he didn't know if that would work. He asked me if he could get it reduced to no operator license if I would take that deal. I said yes. No operator license just means you didn't have it on you. I took the deal. The Judge asked if I had insurance. I did. They usually have to check. He didn't check and said just mark it that he has it. Merry Christmas. Filing motions to delay the trial and get it near Christmas was also part of my strategy. Ok another. I took an alternative way home from my fishing trip to Lake Cumberland in Kentucky. Instead of going interstate 75 I decided to go the country way. I got caught speeding going 66 in a 55. It was just 65 a min ago and i got a ticket. What was interesting was that I had my SKS along with a 2 liter bottle filled with hollow point bullets in my van. I also had a machete that we were going to use to hack through the woods. The cop told me he could get me for concealed deadly weapon on the machete. But he didn't because he believed me I guess. I plead not guilty. Got my van back with my wife's help. Then drove away never to return. Statute of limitations of probably passed now. I guess you would think I'm a bad boy.
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? Nope, they've never really opined on that percise point, if memory serves. -- SOTUS uses the reasonable regulation dodge to avoid such a 'ruling'. You agree that the SCOTUS has never so opined. Thanks. How clever. We've already established that driving can be reasonably regulated. But is infringing on the 5th (by requiring blood tests) to do so reasonable? No way..
If you are tot be secure in your papers person and effect. That you need a search warrant to get to that. How can requiring you to give that info to the BMV be constitutional. They didn't get a search warrant for that information. Another angle.
One more case. I got my license back. Then was pulled over on the way home. The cop said the computer said I didn't have license. I had one it took me thousands of dollars and a lot of running around. The next day I was still driving as I had a license. A cop at the scene recognized me and pulled me over on the way home from Kroger. That was two tickets in like 3 days. I showed the affirmative action prosecutor that I had a license. She agreed to dismiss the case if I agree to just pay court costs. What I have to pay court costs when you know my license if valid. She said you can take it to trial if you want. I just paid the assholes to avoid missing work and more hassle. I wanted to get a camera in there and record the cunt saying that. But no cameras allowed in building. I would like to punch that cunt in the mouth for being a corrupt piece of shit.
Many times a license that was just reinstated will take 30 days to show the updated status in the states DMV files.
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
Not at all. You live by the choices you make... and suffer the consequences of those choices. I can respect that.
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 was more then 30 days. It was like a year and a half if I remember correctly. I showed them my license and asked if it was suspended for last 10 or so years how did I get one?
I still believe driving is a right. It was just easier and less expensive to get a license. I guess I am less stubborn then I used to be. It feels good not to be nervouse when a cop gets behind you too. :)
Comments (54 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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
#41. To: GrandIsland (#38)
I'm correct in assuming you don't have a drivers license?
#42. To: tpaine (#36)
Nope, they've never really opined on that percise point, if memory serves. -- SOTUS uses the reasonable regulation dodge to avoid such a 'ruling'.
#43. To: tpaine (#41)
#44. To: GrandIsland (#40)
I don't think Palmdale was sudpended. --- It's my understanding he voluntarily quit posting.
#45. To: tpaine (#44)
#46. To: GrandIsland (#38)
Come on Stone, so I'm correct in assuming you don't have a drivers license?
#47. To: GrandIsland (#42)
(Edited)
I'm familiar with this concept. I don't necessarily disagree, but the SCOTUS does.
It's been ruled by a few different STATE appellate or Supreme Courts.
The USSC would never rule that driving on public roadways is a constitutional right... not even if all the justices were Scalia.
#48. To: tpaine (#47)
#49. To: GrandIsland (#45)
#50. To: A K A Stone (#49)
One more case. I got my license back. Then was pulled over on the way home. The cop said the computer said I didn't have license. I had one it took me thousands of dollars and a lot of running around.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#46)
I guess you would think I'm a bad boy.
#52. To: GrandIsland (#50)
Many times a license that was just reinstated will take 30 days to show the updated status in the states DMV files.
#53. To: GrandIsland (#51)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]