Allowing Police to Draw Blood At Roadside on Suspected DWI Cases is a Horrible Idea

     The recent article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle  proposing to allow police officers at traffic stops to use a syringe to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver should be placed in the category of "worst ideas EVER".
     While drunk drivers are a menace and a hazard, there is no reason, at least in New York state, to authorize police officers to perform what is essentially a medical procedure.  I don't care how much training officers might get, the prospect of cops taking blood samples at the side of the road is a horrible idea under any measure of common sense.  Aside from the hazard of injury to the motorist by an ill-performed procedure, which could include transmission of AIDS or HIV, the risks alone to the officer drawing the blood outweigh any perceived advantage to the prosecutors or the public.  If you were the police, would you want to take blood from a potentially intoxicated and/or potentially violent individual in the confines of the back seat of a police car?

     In New York, police authorities may take a person suspected of drunk driving to appropriate medical professionals who can draw the blood under proper conditions.  The law also provides for the blood to be drawn under authority of the court in certain situations.  The law also allows police to arrest individuals for drunk driving without proof of the individuals blood alcohol content.  Why put the health of police officers and motorists at risk  when there is no reason to do so?
     As a lawyer having represented many, many people injured in accidents caused by drunk drivers and the families of those killed by drunk drivers, I can tell you that I can't think of a single instance when I have been prosecuting a personal injury case against a drunk driver where a difference would have been made in the case of the cop on the scene drew blood.  Such a procedure isn't needed in New York and is not worth the risks to all invovled.

Dram Shop Case Against Waterfront Bars May Be On Target

     I believe folks  need to take personal responsibility for their actions, particularly when they screw up.  The family of Cori Mitchell, a 28 year old father of four children, and their lawyer, believe that four waterfront bars along Lake Ontario, near Rochester, New York, screwed up in serving alcohol to Howard Eddy, the night he crashed his speed boat into a pier on Lake Ontario near the mouth of the Genesee River.  Eddy was highly intoxicated at the time of the accident, killing three passengers, including Mr. Mitchell.  Mitchells' family has sued the bar owners, claiming they are responsible for his wrongful death.
     The law in New York provides that any establishment that serves alcohol to a visibly drunk individual may be liable for the personal injuries, including death,  that may be caused subsequently by the drunk.  This is known as the Dram Shop Act, set forth in the General Obligations Law.
     If newspaper accounts of Mr. Eddy's actions are correct, at least four different bars served him alcohol sometime between 11:00p.m. on June 27, 2008 and 2:00a.m on June 28th, just prior to the crash.  Mr. Eddy plead guilty to manslaughter in Monroe County Court concerning that incident (he had a blood alcohol level of .20), and was sentenced to state prison.   Will Mr. Mitchell’s family win?  Probably not against all four of the bars, but he might have a good argument against  those bars who served him just prior to the boat trip.  While no amount of money will bring Mr. Mitchell back or assuage the grief of his family, perhaps it will cause bar owners and employees to think twice before serving the next Howard Eddy.
     What do you need to learn from this?  Well, if you are a bar or restaurant owner or employee, make certain you do not serve anyone whom you believe may be intoxicated.  Err on the side of caution and cut the customer off, with a smile.  For the rest of you, if a family member or loved one is injured by a drunk, either on the water or on the road, and you believe the drunk may have become intoxicated at a bar or restaurant, it is critical that a detailed, immediate investigation must be conducted of all customers and employees at the bar/restaurant upon learning of the accident.  Competent experts must also be retained. 
     By the way, under the Dram Shop Act, you can’t sue the bar or restaurant owners for your own injuries caused by your intoxication.  If you get drunk and hurt yourself, its your fault.  Deal with it.