Politely refuse despite No Refusal

This year, many counties are adopting the No Refusal Weekend policy as a full-time tactic in DWI enforcement.  As you may recall from previous posts, the No Refusal Weekend policy calls for police and prosecutors to apply for a warrant to draw the blood of any DWI suspect who refuses to take an evidentiary breath test.  If the judge or magistrate signs the warrant, the suspects blood will be drawn against their will and will be tested for alcohol and other chemicals that may cause impairment, and will be used against them at trial.

When the DWI laws were created Legislator's recognized the personal nature of a persons breath, blood and urine, and were opposed to forcing someone to provide such samples against their will.  That is why they created a mechanism under the law that allowed citizens to refuse to give such samples to the police.  

It seems that nowadays, however, politicians are more concerned with catering to the special interest groups to get elected than they are the civil rights and liberties we have long enjoyed in this country.  Groups like MADD and other government mouthpieces say that forcibly taking the blood of suspected DWI drivers will force more people to plead guilty than to try their case to a jury.  The belief is that jurors are more likely to have a higher confidence in blood draw cases than in breath test cases.  I submit to you that the thinking behind this program is as flawed as the science behind every area of DWI law - from the field sobriety tests to the breath and blood tests.

Skilled trial attorneys like myself, and the attorneys that work for me, spend a lot of time and money getting the training necessary to understand the science behind these tests, and understanding how to test the validity of each test through effective trial preparation and cross-examination techniques.

Blood tests are not more reliable than breath tests in many ways.  The old adage of computer science is "junk in, junk out."  That saying refers to the fact that a computer program can only produce accurate results if the information from which it derives its conclusions is accurate when it is entered into the program.  The same is true for blood testing.

Blood tests can be accurate if, and only if, all of the procedures necessary to prevent false positives, cross-contamination, correct data interpretation, and proper storage are in place and effectively monitored for deficiencies.  If these procedures are not in place, then a jury cannot have confidence in the results of such tests because any one of these values can cause false positives and/or false negatives.  

Unfortunately, we are finding out more and more across the State of Texas, and across the nation, that police and lab personnel that handle this crucial scientific evidence are committing mistakes that calls into question the validity of thousands of cases.  Jurors typically do not like to convict someone unless they have a high degree of confidence in the persons guilt.  No one wants to think they have sent an innocent person to jail.  

If you're stopped for a DWI it is best that you politely decline to participate in the investigation that the State of Texas brags will cost you a minimum of $10,000 to get out of if you are found guilty.  If they get a warrant for your blood, then give it to them politely.  There is no need in getting yourself hurt when they are going to get it anyway.  Instead, hire me, or one of the qualified attorneys that works for me and let us go about conducting an ethical and vigorous legal and factual defense of your case.  You don't need an attorney to plead guilty.  You need an attorney to challenge the perception in the mind of the police, prosecutors, and even some judges that you are guilty.