Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case

Hush · Post by **Hush** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:21 pm

http://www.newsnet5.com/health/20703731/detail.html

They go to far. Hush

Forced Catheterization Used In DUI Case
Suit Claims Police, Hospital Acted Improperly

POSTED: 8:59 am EDT September 3, 2009
LAWRENCEBURG, Ind. -- An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit claiming that police forcibly withdrew blood and urine from his body during a drunken driving arrest, WLWT-TV reported.

According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunken driving in March.

A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.

Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.

Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard's attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will.

"It has to be executed reasonably," said attorney Doug Garner. "No one would say this is reasonable behavior. It's reprehensible that anyone could think that this is appropriate."

The blood test showed that Lockard's blood-alcohol level did not exceed Indiana's legal limit, police said.

Garner said the police officer did not apologize, but instead charged Lockard with obstruction of justice.

"He took it too far. He thought he could do whatever to me," Lockard said.

The suit names the Lawrenceburg police department and Dearborn County Hospital, in addition to Miller and Dr. Ronald Cheek.

"I would hate for this to happen to someone else," Lockard said. "It was the most humiliating thing that has ever happened to me, ever."

Blaubart · Post by **Blaubart** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:31 pm

This is SOP in Germany, but this is America. (Isn't it?) There is no way that this guy isn't going to get paid.

Tyris · Post by **Tyris** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:35 pm

That officer should be executed.

-T

hemi · Post by **hemi** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:02 pm

Oregon DMV has a law similar with one important difference. It's known as implied consent. The driver of a vehicle whether or not has a valid drivers license understands that they are subject to a breath, blood or urine analysis @ the request of a police officer if suspected of DUII.

The key difference in our law and what is being said of this case is that you have every right to refuse the test. Just be it known that a refusal is an automatic revocation of your driving rights/license for 1 year as well as steep fines. Failing a breath/blood/urine test is like 90 days suspension if I remember correctly from the academy. YOU HAVE TO BE A DUMBASS TO REFUSE THE TEST!! You can fight a DUII test in court, you will NEVER win a case in court on your refusal of said test.

Yep, here it is:
from here: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid ... sons.shtml

Implied Consent
Oregon's implied consent law means that by driving a motor vehicle you have implied you will consent to a breath, blood or urine test if a police officer requests you to take such a test. The officer can request you to take a test if the officer has arrested you for DUII. Refusal to take a test is admissible as evidence in court. You will fail a test if your blood alcohol reading is 0.08 percent or more. If you are under 21, you will fail the test if you have any amount of alcohol in your blood. An implied consent suspension is separate from any suspension you may receive as a result of a DUII conviction.

If you have a valid Oregon Driver License in your possession, the officer will confiscate it and issue a 30-day temporary driving permit. After 30 days, the suspension is in effect and the temporary driving permit is no longer valid.

If you receive a notice of intent to suspend from a police officer under Oregon's Implied Consent Law, you are entitled to a hearing. You must request the hearing in the manner, and within the timeframe allowed in the notice of intent to suspend.

Suspension lengths vary. If you are arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants and you:

* Take a breath test and fail it - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for 90 days. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year.
* Refuse to take a breath test - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for three years.
* Refuse to take a urine test - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for three years. The suspension for refusing a urine test will not start until any other implied consent suspension (even from the same arrest) is over.
* Refuse to take a blood test while receiving medical care in a health care facility following a motor vehicle collision - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for three years.
* Fail a blood test while receiving medical care in a health care facility following a motor vehicle collision - DMV will suspend your driving privileges for 90 days. If you have any prior alcohol-related entries on your driving record within five years, DMV will suspend your driving privileges for one year. This suspension will begin on the 60th day after DMV received the report that you failed the test. DMV will send a suspension notice to the address on your driving record to inform you of the suspension dates. The officer will not confiscate your driver license and issue a 30-day temporary driving permit. You are required to return any license in your possession to DMV when the suspension begins.

DMV will also suspend your driving privileges if any of the actions occurred while driving in another state. (ORS 809.400)

If any of the actions occurred while driving a commercial vehicle suspension times may vary.
Related OregonStatutes:

ORS 813.100, ORS 813.110, ORS 813.120, ORS 813.130, ORS 813.131, ORS 813.132, ORS 813.135, ORS 813.136, ORS 813.140, ORS 813.150, ORS 813.160 and ORS 813.404, ORS 813.410, ORS 813.420, ORS 813.430.

GlockandRoll · Post by **GlockandRoll** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:18 am

Tyris wrote:That officer should be executed.

-T

Publicly.

TheCowboyofKhaos · Post by **TheCowboyofKhaos** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:51 am

GlockandRoll wrote:
Tyris wrote:That officer should be executed.

-T
Publicly.

Kill him via massive amounts of IV alcohol..

Ben B. · Post by **Ben B.** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:34 am

I hate drunk driving, but I fucking hate "implied consent". Thought Police tactics all the way.

GlockandRoll · Post by **GlockandRoll** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:11 am

TheCowboyofKhaos wrote: Kill him via massive amounts of IV alcohol..

Just squirt it up his ass... it will kill him.

Twinsen · Post by **Twinsen** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:39 am

Wow. When innocence is proven, go the extra mile and try to get whatever you can! He's not drunk? Well, take him and strap him down and shove a pipe up his dick.

The correct charges are:
kidnapping
rape

GlockandRoll · Post by **GlockandRoll** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:44 am

Twinsen wrote:Wow. When innocence is proven, go the extra mile and try to get whatever you can! He's not drunk? Well, take him and strap him down and shove a pipe up his dick.

The correct charges are:
kidnapping
rape
torture
abuse of power

Fixed it for you.

Twinsen · Post by **Twinsen** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:03 pm

Yeah, that works. I'd really want the rape one to stick though. The whole sexual offender status and all.

GlockandRoll · Post by **GlockandRoll** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:08 pm

That is true.

Bits · Post by **Bits** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:51 pm

"Oregon's implied consent law means that by driving a motor vehicle you have implied you will consent to a breath, blood or urine test if a police officer requests you to take such a test."

I read this as, "a police officer may request that you take a sobriety test consisting of one and only one of the following: breath, blood, or urine."

If it was the intent of the legislature that the cop could keep fishing, the law would read "and," not "or."

Lockard consented to a breath test, this satisfies the requirements per the law. Anything after that was solely to satisfy the cop's power trip.

IMO execution is a bit much, but I think a public flogging is definitely in order.

Ben B. · Post by **Ben B.** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:33 pm

Lockard's case occurred in Indiana. The OR implied consent is a side issue.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:36 pm

The PO-PO do forced blood tests now.........it was only a matter of time.

I just got a mdeical journal that the PO-PO are now going to be drawing thier own samples to avoid chain of custody issues........

Thanks M.A.D.D.!

Bits · Post by **Bits** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:11 pm

Ben B. wrote:Lockard's case occurred in Indiana. The OR implied consent is a side issue.

Ah... my bad. I blame the scotch.

Still... that's messed up. 4th Amendment, anyone?

MicroGuy · Post by **MicroGuy** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:23 pm

Tyris wrote:That officer should be executed.

-T

Not any more it's not, didn't you hear the campus police saying so??

I don't see the issue. The guy came in under, that's it. If the cop STILL doesn't believe so, re-run the tests. Use another machine. Forcibly inserting objects into ones body, isn't acceptable.

If ANYTHING, just suspend the guys DL for not submitting to a VOLUNTEER test.

And people ask us, "what rights have you lost!!??"

I don't think it's so much we're losing specific "rights", as it is a collective issue. It's a LOT of small things, that add up to a dictatorship operation.

Ben B. · Post by **Ben B.** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:55 pm

Bits wrote:
Ben B. wrote:Lockard's case occurred in Indiana. The OR implied consent is a side issue.
Ah... my bad. I blame the scotch.

So did the police...

steve7478 · Post by **steve7478** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:07 am

When is too much power and control too much? Oh wait here it is.

I don't want to say anything else that might be used against me in a court of law.