Bleed for the King
THE AGITATOR
By Rodney Balko
Earlier this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that police in the Dairy State may forcibly take roadside blood samples from suspected drunk drivers. And of course, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 15 years ago that the police can set up sobriety checkpoints to stop random drivers to see if they're driving while intoxicated, even if they've otherwise done nothing wrong.
Now put those two rulings together, and you get the what-the-hell-country-are-we-living-in, but very real, possibility you may soon be driving on a public road, doing nothing out of the ordinary and breaking no laws, then be stopped, questioned, and if the police officer doesn't like your answers, be forced to give him some of your blood. Ponder that for a sec.
Ponder that in many states, you've no right to ask that a physician or trained medical professional draw the blood, either. The cops get to jab you.
Ponder also how we've gotten to the point where many of people will read this, shrug, and feel it's no big deal that we're now required give some of our blood to agents of the government upon command.
It gets worse. Late last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that not only can police require that you give up your blood, if you refuse they may use "extreme force" to extract it. In this case, the officers inflicted permanent physical damage on the suspect. There's also a case pending in Arizona where a forced blood draw done by a cop resulted in a persistent infection in the suspect's arm.
Give MADD its due credit. They've managed to shred the Bill of Rights almost single-handedly, with little more than a brilliant, two-decade public relations campaign. Even the drug warriors have to be envious. theagitator.com |
