CA Forced Blood Draw

[analwelfare]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

California

I was present in a home where a search warrant was served for a weapons violation. I was sleeping (early in the morning) when the door was kicked/rammed in. I was removed from the bed and taken to the living room while a "weapons" search was enacted. Before they left the premises, an officer thought that I appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamines. I was taken to the police station and asked to submit a urine test. I said that I would provide a sample, and made two attempts in a small time frame. I was unable to produce without more time and liquids, and advised them of that fact. They did not have a female officer on duty in that "section" of the station, and said that I had enough time and they didnt want to call the female officer from the front again because I was given enough time. They told me that I would be taken to the hospital and made to give blood. I said that I was afraid of needles, and had not refused their urine test, and I expected that I had the right to refuse a blood test since I had agreed to give them a urine test. They said they didnt have time to "play games" with me, and took me to the hospital for a blood draw. They told me to sign a consent form, which I refused to do, as I was not consenting to a forcible blood draw. They threatened me with numerous "additional" charges, including obstructing justice, if I did not sign the consent form. I still refused, and was handcuffed to an examination table while a nurse took my blood. I have done a lot of research, and somehow cannot find an answer to the simple question: can a police or sherriffs department in the state of California take a forced blood sample from someone who was not operating a motor vehicle, and is not suspected of being intoxicated with alcohol? Thanks for taking the time to read this and (hopefully) respond.

PS-- Next time I make a response to a case, Ill make sure to look at the date. Sorry, my bad...

 

[CdwJava]

They told me that I would be taken to the hospital and made to give blood. I said that I was afraid of needles, and had not refused their urine test, and I expected that I had the right to refuse a blood test since I had agreed to give them a urine test. They said they didnt have time to "play games" with me, and took me to the hospital for a blood draw. They told me to sign a consent form, which I refused to do, as I was not consenting to a forcible blood draw. They threatened me with numerous "additional" charges, including obstructing justice, if I did not sign the consent form. I still refused, and was handcuffed to an examination table while a nurse took my blood. I have done a lot of research, and somehow cannot find an answer to the simple question: can a police or sherriffs department in the state of California take a forced blood sample from someone who was not operating a motor vehicle, and is not suspected of being intoxicated with alcohol?

Yes. Law enforcement can compel blood in this situation. So long as the draw was done in a medically approved manner and the actions of the involved parties do not shock the conscience of the court, the draw is good.

From CPOLS (published by the CA Attorney General):

In the case of drawing of blood for testing for alcohol or drugs, warrantless searches are permitted, incident to a lawful arrest, if

- there was probable cause to arrest the suspect for a crime in which the existence of alcohol or drugs in the bloodstream would be relevant in a criminal proceeding, and

- the blood is drawn by trained medical personnel in accordance with accepted medical practices. (See Mercer (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 760.)

No more is required (1) because the "evanescent" quality of the evidence automatically provides exigent circumstances, i.e., the level of alcohol or drugs in the blood becomes less simply due to the passage of time and (2) because, as explained earlier, blood testing is considered so common, safe, reliable and relatively non-intrusive. (Schmerber (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 770-772; Ford (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 32, 35, 39.)

Although the seriousness of the crime under investigation is a factor in determining the need for a bodily intrusion search, such searches are permissible even for a misdemeanor that did not involve violence or result in an injury (Lee (1985) 470 U.S. 753, 762-763), including DUI arrests (Kraft (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 890, 899). "When motorists who are arrested for driving while intoxicated refuse to take chemical tests of their blood alcohol content, the police may compel them to take a blood test." (Sugarman (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 210, 214; McHugh (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 202, 212.)​

So, what do you expect it will test positive for?

- Carl

 

[analwelfare]

California

I went to court on this case a few days ago. They did file charges on me for being under the influence of methamphetamines. I selected to go Pro Per on this case, and was shown the results of the blood test. To answser your question, I did not expect that it would be positive for meth (or anything along those lines, as I do not use illegal drugs), and it wasnt. They did show that I tested positive for Morphine, as I have a valid prescription for an opiate. This brings up a whole nother problem-- how can they charge me with being under the influence of methamphetamines based on the recorded symptomology (high pulse, large pupils, etc.) when the only "drug" I have present in my system would indicate the exact opposite if I was, in fact, "under the influence" at the time. I dont know. Im not worried about the case, its so ridiculous that I can obviously beat it with ease, I just wanted to challenge the illegal drawing of blood without my consent (if it was illegal, which it apparently is not), or at least fight this practice and get it thrown out. Thanks for your assistance. I really appreciate it! You guys are doing a great service here!

 

[CdwJava]

I can't speak to the training and experience of the officer or officers conducting the test, so I have no way of knowing their experience or lack thereof. There are also medications and other drugs that a typical drug screen will not test for. So, if there was something synthetic and unusual on board, it might have missed being scrutinized.

As for the practice of a forced blood draw, it won't be thrown out so that's right out. But, if the evidence is not there, I would suspect the charges against you should be dropped forthwith unless the officer(s) have some tremendous experience or other evidence to bring to bear..

- Carl

 

[skylerhouse]

This goes back to internal possession, which sadly is easily misinterpreted. Refresher:

Here's the way it works. No, internal possession is not a crime. Therefore drugs within your body do not qualify as possession, and the only way you can be arrested for physically being high is if you're charged with something like Public Intoxication or OWI/DUI. Therefore, you could only be charged if you were in Public or Operating a Motor Vehicle (OWI/DUI {which in some jurisdictions is even illegal on private property}).

Catch 22 - If you're are held on a separate charge, aside from possession of drugs, and they hold you long enough for you to produce the drugs (let's say you swallowed them in a tied-off balloon for transportation purposes), then you could be charged with possession of the drug, as well as receiving charges for bringing the drugs into a correctional facility. Some Law Enforcement Agency's have also been accused of making people believed to have swallowed drugs to "cough them up" by physically force regurgitation. Which could very clearly be construed as assault, but whatever it takes for the $5 bust, right?

If you were seriously asleep, how would that lead them to believe there was meth use? Do you have a witness to the fact that you were asleep? If the warrant was for weapons violation, it couldn't even be used to seize drugs. The thing with warrants is they must list the items in which law enforcement expected to find on the property. But it doesn't have to be specific. They could say "colt 45" or simply "any firearm." In addition the warrant has to include locked safes or a separate warrant would have to be issued.

Bottom line, if you can prove you were asleep, there was no real probable cause for the blood draw. So unless at that point your blood was listed on the warrant, then all you have hear is a bunch of angry cops that just got punked! You may also want to look into what's called "false positives" which is to say, substances other than drugs that react in a drug test. Fro example, if you consumed an excessive amount of poppy seeds (commonly found in muffins) a drug test would likely come back positive for opiates, specifically heroin.

My advice for real, get a lawyer, find new friends and stop doing what ever the hell it is you're doing. If they want you, they'll get you eventually. And you know as well as I do those cops didn't show up there in the middle of the night because your a good christian man. Wake up, Dude!

 

[tranquility]

I agree with getting an attorney. While some sign may be similar, if the reason for the forced blood draw was listed as meth, I bet the reason they suspected meth is because of the purpose of the search warrant. If you are found not guilty or the charges are dropped, the officer who made the meth determination may have some explaing to do.