Thursday, March 6, 2008

Evidence from a "Forced" Blood Test Tossed by Massachusetts Judge in DUI Case

A Fitchburg, Mass. police officer faced a mountain of incriminating evidence in a May 2007 drunk-driving arrest: a wrecked pick-up truck that he crashed into a telephone pole, a BAC reading of .168, slurred speech, red, glassy eyes and breath that smelled of alcohol.

But the only thing District Court Judge Andrew Mandell was concerned with was how the BAC was obtained. When attorneys filed a motion to suppress the breath test results because blood was taken in a hospital without the defendant’s consent, the judge agreed.

So James Scesny, a police officer with the Northborough Police Department, was found not guilty of the charges and since has applied to rejoin the force.

"Ouch, You Can't Do That"

On the night of the accident, Scesny was transported to Clinton Hospital, where nurses drew his blood. At the time, the officer did not consent to the blood test since he maintained it violated federal, medical privacy laws, according to the Metro West Daily News.

Lawyers for Scesny argued, "When hospital staff mentioned blood alcohol testing to the defendant, he stated he wanted to think about it and that he wanted to contact a lawyer," the motion stated. The attorneys also argued, "Any results from blood drawn by hospital staff for medical purposes is shielded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)."

Clinton District Court Judge Martha Breenan agreed with Judge Mandell that, without the BAC test, remaining evidence was insufficient to convict. The defendant was left with a $250 fine for negligent driving. DUI offenders in Texas and New Jersey wouldn’t have shared the good fortune of Scesny.

Texas, New Jersey Law Not as Sympathetic to DUI Suspect

In Texas, the court authorized police to draw blood by force from motorists suspected of DUI. In New Jersey, an appellate court approved the use of “extreme force” in drawing the blood of a motorist suspected of DUI. The Minnesota Appeals Court ruled the practice is allowable only when a search warrant is obtained from a judge.

No comments: