I previously noted the case of the Austin Police Department SWAT officer who rolled his car and was arrested for DWI.
Over the weekend, the Statesman ran an article about some changes APD is making in the way the SWAT team is run; officers will no longer be on call 24-7, but will have a week of downtime every third week, among other things.
I don’t know if these changes are good or bad, but I did want to highlight one thing from the article:
Court documents have said that he refused all field sobriety tests, and investigators then sought a court order for blood samples. Results of the blood tests are not yet available.
I object to forced blood draws and to compelled field sobriety tests (and breath tests) as a 5th Amendment violation. However, given that the courts seem to disagree with me (stupid horse-brained Supreme Court), it does make me somewhat happy to see that, in this case, an APD officer got treated the same way as a regular Joe who refused the tests would have been.
This good feeling should last until Balko posts his next round-up.
The Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply, because he’s not testifying against himself.
The applicable amendment is the Fourth, meaning they need a warrant.
What I had in mind, Joe, when I mentioned the 5th Amendment, was compelled field sobriety testing and compelled Breathalyzer testing (by compelled, I mean, “submit to these tests when you’re stopped or we’ll take your license away”) which to me are violations of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The blood draws, which I also object to, at least have the cover of requiring a warrant, as I understand it, before blood is drawn.
(Not directed at Joe, but do I need to make it clear to anyone reading this that I don’t like drunk driving or drunk drivers? Good. I didn’t think so.)
I can see the point, but I don’t see it as self-incrimination, because it’s not testimony. The lose-your-license thing is ripe for abuse, though.
I’m not going to make that loathsome “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you should have no objection to being searched” argument, because if I haven’t done anything wrong, why do you need to search me?
But if the cop has reasonable suspicion to think that someone’s been drinking, whether they refuse to take a breathalyzer or not, then there are probably grounds to ask for a warrant. And if the cop’s going to bother a judge, I’m going to assume it’s pretty obvious that they’re impaired.
And for a cop to do this to another cop, for a single-car accident with no injuries, at a time when they’d have to get the judge out of bed, he must have been pretty smashed.