Hey hey! Ho ho! No Blood for Acevedo!

In October 2008, the City of Austin began implementing a “No Refusal Weekend” policy to be enforced on holidays, during which anyone suspected of a DWI can and will be forced to submit to a blood alcohol test to definitively determine the suspect’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) which will ultimately be used against them in the court of law.

Non-profit organizations like Texans for Accountable Government and Square Patrol of Austin believe that the “No Refusal” policy is an infringement on our civil liberties, a violation of the Texas Transportation Code and a blatant disregard for the US Constitution. They, as I, appreciate the efforts to eliminate drunk driving, but they disagree with a law officer’s authority to forcibly remove blood from an individual. Square Patrol goes as far as to offer a free designated driver service from 10:00pm to 3:00am, seven days a week. There are ethical ways to reduce drunk driving and convict criminals, but stealing a person’s blood is just not one of them.

Texas Transportation Code, Section 724.011, “Consent To Taking Of Specimen,” allows officers of the Austin Police Department to obtain a blood sample from individuals suspected of driving while intoxicated.

However, Texas Transportation Code, Section 724.013, “Prohibition On Taking Specimen If Person Refuses” details the exception to the rule: “Except as provided by Section 724.012(b) [if an individual is injured, if there is a person under 15 involved, or if the suspect has a previous DWI conviction], a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.”

This means that APD’s "No Refusal" policy is in direct violation of the Transportation Code, and many believe they are asking for a lawsuit.

During “No Refusal” Weekends in Austin, if you are apprehended under suspicion of Driving While Intoxicated and if you refuse a blood or breath test, there is a judge nearby ready to issue a warrant and a nurse waiting to take your blood by force. The extreme levels that authorities are willing to go to, in order to obtain indicting evidence, seems excessive. Why aren’t regular field sobriety tests enough to make an arrest?

I make it a point never to drink and drive; but about a year ago, an old roommate of mine stole my car, went to 6th Street, and sideswiped another vehicle while driving home on IH-35 at two o’clock in the morning. Although she refused the field and breath sobriety tests, she was still arrested and convicted of Driving While Intoxicated. In this case, a blood draw was not necessary for an indictment, and she was not able to slip through the cracks of the legal system, despite prolonging the process by hiring a lawyer in an attempt to have the DWI charges dropped. Whether you refuse or not, you’re still spending the night in jail.


Many claim that regular, non-chemical, field sobriety tests are intended to make you fail. It is true that these tests are difficult to perform, even when sober; they can, therefore, easily result in a wrongful DWI charge. There are three types of field sobriety tests currently used by law enforcement across the nation: Walk-and-Turn (WAT), One-Leg Stand (OLS), and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN).

I contend that no one can walk heal-to-toe in a straight line without wavering, yet this is used to test your “normal” walking ability. I’m a young, healthy 24 year old woman, and I cannot stand on one leg for 30 seconds without appearing inebriated. The only field sobriety test that comes close to being a valid physiological test is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test in which the suspect tracts the officer’s pen or finger from left to right. The officer will be “trained” to watch for jolting of the eyes as they reach maximum deviation at the far left and far right, which occurs in individuals that are intoxicated. However, it wouldn’t take a rookie to misinterpret the results of a test like this, especially if it is dark outside, or if the suspect is nervous or has a flashlight in his eyes.

However, in a well-lit judicial double-wide, or a portable court room appropriately named the "BAT Mobile", these tests may prove to be more accurate. Officers are also told to use their own experience to determine if an individual is intoxicated. The smell of alcohol, slurred speech, or swaying is enough probable cause for a Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI) arrest. Furthermore, Rubberstamping search warrants on-site robs citizens of their Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Since the Austin Police Department has begun the “No Refusal” program, the department has performed 178 blood tests. Of those 178 tested, 70% were found to be twice the legal limit. Are the visible signs of someone twice over the legal limit not enough to make an arrest? I find it hard to believe that blood tests were necessary in such cases where the suspect can’t even focus long enough to make adequate eye contact with an officer. Blood draws are simply not necessary.

This is not about drunk driving at all. This is about our civil liberties. When our government is given the power to infringe upon the rights of criminals, they maintain that same power against all of us. The goal of government is to incrementally inch power away from the people. We can trust that, once removed, that power will not be returned.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)