New Member
Let me introduce...I'm a 30+ year veteran RN (Registered Nurse) in the operating room (recently retired). Consents are a big deal, particularly in cases where a person is judged to be unfit to make decisions. As an extremely meticulous judge of valid or invalid consents and consenting processes, I made it my top priority to ensure that the process and the consent were within the parameters of being medically and lawfully sound. After all, as a nurse, I do not have the luxury of qualified immunity should I make a mistake and is why I carry millions of dollars in malpractice insurance.

Law enforcement has adopted the use of implied consent and unfortunately, their 'slip' is showing. They are doing it WRONG. In case you are unaware, many states, if not all, proclaim that upon the acceptance of your driver's license, you are implying consent to officers should they use their 'discretion' (God help you) to determine a blood alcohol level is indicated, and don't be surprised if the officer whips out his 'phlebo-kit' and pulls out a tourniquet and a hypodermic needle. In some cases, when there are five and six officers, it gets pretty brutal for those suspects who resist, refuse and will not cooperate. Those possessing this special skill in needle wizardry are called 'Phlebotomy Officers". He is paid more for his special skills and he may be on patrol, stationed at the precinct or he may be summoned to the 'field' at the behest of another officer who needs a blood draw. If there are no phlebo officers around, the department may develop policy to call members of the Fire and Rescue team to draw the blood. Why don't they just get a doctor or nurse to draw the blood? Good question...and there is an answer coming...


Implied consent can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. So, your DUI suspect can simply withdraw the 'implied consent' as represented by his driver's license.

Implied consent can only be applied under 'exigent circumstances'. What would be the 'exigent circumstances' for an officer to draw blood? The suspect is not injured, although may need some assistance. He isn't in distress, injured or bleeding. What would be the exigency here? The officer's need for solid evidence does NOT meet the criteria for exigency. Law enforcement has made this provision of law a convenience in serving their need for evidence, rather than the purpose of preserving life, limb and well being of a person.

Implied consent, used in this way, violates constitutional law and violates the person's rights. You have a right against self-incrimination. You have a right to be secure in your person, papers and property. Blood is property and tissue theft is a felony. Forcibly drawing blood from a person in the interest of other people is a true abomination of both man and the law. There are just lines you DO NOT cross.

We all take oaths too. This has created one hell of an obstruction for law enforcement officers who are hell bent on getting that blood alcohol level. Breathalyzer tests get thrown out as 'iffy', but blood on the other hand is the holy grail of solid proof and wins the case.

Venipuncture is an invasive procedure that is used to obtain blood directly from the blood vessel. This procedure requires a doctor's order. Here is yet another dilemma for law enforcement officers. Who are the medical doctors providing their signature to the order? I want their names. No reputable medical doctors would write orders for medical procedures on someone that he does not supervise, inspect and assess. Who can carry out a doctor's order? Only those nurses and staff authorized can legally act on a physician's order. To my knowledge there are no law enforcement officers who are authorized to 'act' on the order of a physician. A judge is NOT a physician and is NOT authorized to order blood draws. He may order a warrant to set some things in motion but that is the extent to which the judge can act.

Doctors and nurses are bound by ethics and law to keep a person's information above top secret. Law enforcement continually get rejected when asking for lab results. We can't tell you. Stop asking. Come back with a warrant...even then it's likely going to be questionable.

Remember the nurse in Utah? Alex Wubbels. That case was all about blood. Officer Jeff Payne roughed up the nurse, handcuffed her and arrested her for obstruction because she would not comply with his 'lawful order' for blood evidence against her unconscious patient who was also Payne's DUI suspect. You can hear Payne claiming exigent circumstances and implied consent. So how did that end up? Payne was fired after 20+ years on the force, his supervising Lt. was demoted and took Payne's place....and the nurse ran away with the spoon and half a million dollars. There's a REASON law enforcement got severely spanked on that deal. They're doing it wrong.

That's not all. Payne (previously and EMT) can be seen on hospital surveillance footage entering the hospital with a 'phlebo-kit' in hand. I guess you might say he was going to be prepared to get what he needed even if he had to do it himself. This whole case is disturbing but then when it occurs to you to ask, "What would make Payne think he could just walk in there, lugging germs from the filthy trunk of his unit...into the room of a patient who is burned over 80% of his body? No skin=no protection from germs. It's absurd! Law enforcement should keep their skills confined to the corpse on the table of the medical examiner's office. It is so obviously an egregious conflict of interest to have officers going outside their scope of practice. Are they prepared to accept the consequences should they cause phlebitis that turns to gangrene and amputation? I doubt they even know there is a risk...and because they are so clearly outside their scope and that it is such a conflict of interest...qualified immunity will not save them...it doesn't save doctors and nurses either.

The intent and purpose of implied consent is to assume a person unable to care for self would consent, if able to measures that either improves their condition or saves their life. Police blood draws for alcohol do neither of these things. Performing their own blood draws allows them to circumvent HIPAA and all the other medical laws that prevent them from doing just what they are doing. It is illegal. They are breaking the law. It needs to stop. I am all for getting drunk drivers off the road, but it most assuredly does not require their blood to accomplish that. You simply cannot break the law over there to uphold it over here and then call it justice. It is incumbent upon law enforcement to figure out how to uphold their oath and the law without breaking either one. That is THEIR dilemma to solve.

As for the rest of us, we don't want to see 6 cops pile on top of an uncooperative DUI suspect having his blood drawn. Bad things can happen. Edward Bronstein uttered the words, "I can't breath" two months BEFORE George Floyd made them famous. I predicted they would eventually kill someone...and they did. Law enforcement needs to stay in their own lane here.
Last edited:
it gets pretty brutal for those suspects who resist, refuse and will not cooperate.

Booze and stupidity go hand in hand. If they are stupid enough to drive drunk and stupid enough to resist I have no sympathy for their consequences.

Implied consent can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. So, your DUI suspect can simply withdraw the 'implied consent' as represented by his driver's license.

Really? I notice you don't provide any citations to back up that statement.

Implied consent can only be applied under 'exigent circumstances'.

Again, citation please. You are proffering "legal" opinions without citations.

And I didn't bother to pay attention to the rest of your diatribe because it is unsupportable nonsense.

For two cents, I would lock the thread but I am curious as to what others think about your rant.
3 misconceptions people have about Alabama DUI arrests
On Behalf of Beckdefense | Oct 5, 2023 | DUI |

Those arrested for a driving under the influence (DUI) offense in Alabama often feel embarrassed and hopeless. They imagine that there is no option other than pleading guilty and believe that their guilty plea will likely mean they will face challenges for years to come.

Someone might begin spiraling into depression in the early moments after their arrest before they ever even leave state custody. They may convince themselves that their only choice is to plead guilty.

While it is perfectly natural to have an emotional reaction to a DUI arrest, those who correct their personal misconceptions about DWI charges might feel more comfortable taking the necessary steps to try to avoid a conviction.

Misconception 1: Breath tests are irrefutable evidence
Even drivers who know they were fully sober or had far too little to actually be drunk may feel despair when they hear the results of their chemical test.

All too often, people jump to the conclusion that the courts will simply accept the test results and rush toward a conviction. However, there is plenty of evidence that chemical breath tests can fail. False positive results can occur for a host of different reasons, which means that challenging the accuracy of the breath test could help someone prevent a conviction.

Misconception 2: Criminal trials are the only option
The idea of going to court and trying to establish one's innocence can be very intimidating even for someone who firmly asserts that they did not break the law. People may plead guilty as a way to bypass a traditional criminal trial in Alabama. What they may not realize is that there is a possible alternative.

Alabama has DUI courts that focus on helping to rehabilitate those accused of impairment at the wheel because of a substance abuse disorder. People could go through the DUI courts to avoid both standard criminal penalties and a criminal record.

Misconception 3: No one takes a defendant's word over an officer's
A defense attorney only needs to establish a reasonable doubt about whether or not someone actually committed a crime. Raising questions about how a police officer gathered evidence or the way that they perceived the situation could actually help someone avoid a conviction. Maybe there is a medical explanation for why someone acted a certain way, or perhaps there is a question about whether the officer actually had the necessary probable cause to pull someone over in the first place.

The courts can sometimes eliminate certain types of evidence from criminal proceedings because police officers violated the law or someone's civil rights when they conducted a traffic stop.

Anyone who is facing DUI charges could potentially have multiple ways of defending against those accusations. Debunking myths and misconceptions can help people employ a more level-headed response to Alabama DUI charges and to pursue a stronger defense strategy as a result.

3 misconceptions people have about Alabama DUI arrests | Beckdefense

! ==============================================!

Implied consent: What does it mean in Alabama?
On Behalf of Beckdefense | Sep 15, 2023 | DUI |

Like many other states, Alabama enforces implied consent laws. These laws pertain to drivers who are said to be under the influence. In many cases, they are under the influence of alcohol, but it's important to know that police officers do stop people from driving under the influence of illegal drugs, prescription medications and things of this nature, as well.

In any case, implied consent simply says that any driver who gets behind the wheel of a vehicle is consenting to a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test in the event that they are arrested under suspicion of impairment.

By virtue of being a driver at all, you are saying that you will take a test if it is requested post-arrest by a law enforcement officer. What this means is that an officer's request that you take a roadside breath test or a blood test at a police station is not just a request. You have already said that you will do so, and under the law, you are required to do it.

Can you still refuse?
Yes, you can refuse the test. The police officer is not going to force you to take it. Some drivers do refuse, knowing that they don't want to fail the test and have that on their record.

However, it's important to know that you can face ramifications just for refusing the test. Whether you are completely sober or well over the legal limit, if you refuse it, you could still be arrested and lose your driver's license. The ramifications become more severe, with a longer license suspension, for each subsequent refusal.

All of this can be very complicated if it's happening to you for the first time, and you may be worried about your future. This is why it's so important to understand all of the legal options you have at your disposal. Seeking legal guidance as proactively as possible is very important, as a result.

Implied consent: What does it mean in Alabama? | Beckdefense

Alabama's Implied Consent Law
[Effective August 1, 2021]

Alabama's DUI statutes create an additional sanction and penalty for anyone that refuses to submit to a chemical test of their blood, breath, or oral fluids following a lawful arrest for DUI. This law is known as the "Implied Consent Law" and requires all motorists who operate a motor vehicle on a public highway to submit to a chemical test when directed by a law enforcement officer. This statutory requirement exists whether the motorist is licensed in the state of Alabama or another state, or is an unlicensed driver. See, Code of Alabama, 1975, section 32-5-171.

Refusal to submit to an evidentiary test when properly directed by a law enforcement officer will result in a 90-day driver's license suspension, with no chance at obtaining a restricted license during that time.1 The 90 day suspension of driver license for test refusal is in addition to any suspension or revocation action that may result from conviction for DUI.

By law, the prosecutor is authorized to use a refusal to submit to a breath test as evidence in the criminal court case, arguing under Alabama DUI law that the refusal is an implied admission of guilt. A skilled DUI defense attorney will be needed to file a challenge to the alleged test refusal in order to keep the motorist's license from being suspended, as well at trial to rebut the argument of "implied guilt" because there may be valid reasons why an innocent driver might refuse to submit to or complete a chemical test.

1 If the refusal is the or subsequent refusal in the past ten years, the driver license or privilege will be suspended for one year.
As for the rest of us, we don't want to see 6 cops pile on top of an uncooperative DUI suspect having his blood drawn. Bad things can happen. Edward Bronstein uttered the words, "I can't breath" two months BEFORE George Floyd made them famous. I predicted they would eventually kill someone...and they did. Law enforcement needs to stay in their own lane here.

I commend your passion, but must admonish you for being somewhat confused about the ENTIRE process/protocol.

Perhaps, after reading this little tidbit, you can begin your remediation.

Blood Draws for Law Enforcement
Posted on November 22, 2021in News
Below is an important message for the AERO community from the ADPHOEMS:

Good morning,

Act 2021-498 was signed into law by Governor Ivey and went into effect on August 17, 2021 which states that physicians, paramedics, registered nurses, and phlebotomists may draw blood in the field for chemical analysis. This law does not fall under OEMS because it does not involve emergency medical care and was put in place by ALEA. Therefore, OEMS will not be regulating this program and cannot advise you on matters such as cost or any contracts or agreements that may be needed in order to execute this procedure.

Paramedics are already allowed to draw blood in the field if necessary however the provider service may be required to obtain its own CLIA waiver in order to do so. However, an agency should not dispatch ambulances (emergency or non-emergency) to traffic stops or delay patient care in any way on an emergency call, such as an MVC or AMS, to perform this procedure. Please consult your legal council for further advisement.

Any provider service that wishes to contract with a local or state law enforcement agency to provide this service may do so; however, this does not take precedence over the provider service's license obligations as outlined by the OEMS rules.

Mr. Jamie Gray, BS, AAS, NRP

State EMS Director

Blood Draws for Law Enforcement – Alabama EMS Region One