Isn't There A Law Regarding This?

[RVTECH]

That requires a blood test for 'intoxicants' due to a life threatening car accident?

So Tiger Woods is in an accident yesterday and according to the LA County Sheriff's Dept they did NOT ask for a blood draw.

It seems to me it WOULD be standard practice to perform check for drugs or alcohol on anyone involved in a life threatening accident. And, considering his 'history' and this is # 3, with # 2 he tested positive for a variety of things.

Just wondering if anybody knows the law(s) regarding this.

Read More

 

[mrblond]

celebrity privilege.

 

[Member 34319]

At my old job, my boss got into a car accident with a company car. No blood or breathe test was issued. He drank pretty much all the time. Great guy, just a huge alcoholic. I'm fairly certain he would have blown the limit or higher. He left a sporting event and I'd put money on him drinking before leaving.

I don't know what the procedure is, but I've known of folks like my old boss that simply got lucky they didn't.

In this case, I imagine it has something to do with his celebrity status.

 

[The Heretic]

It is all about who you know, or in some cases, who you are.

Decades ago (mid 70s), I worked for a large furniture store in Salem. They had a warehouse I worked in, mostly as a delivery person, along with a couple other guys. It was a "good old boys" environment. One of the guys was an alcoholic and had a number of times lost his license due to DUII. The job required driving. When it came time to let some one go due to a downturn, they kept the alcoholic who was at that time on probation for DUII, and let me go.

Didn't make business sense, especially from a liability POV, but there you go. I've seen very few times when the decisions for who to lay off were based on an actual valid business rationale, and it was more often based on popularity, or on what the salary/wage of the person they let go would make the most impact on the bottom line - regardless of productivity or how it would impact the quality/quantity of work.

 

[Flopsweat]

Not a fan of TMZ but they seem to have the most detailed account so far:

Tiger Woods Badly Injured In Car Crash, First Video of Him Driving Minutes Before

Tiger Woods was involved in a bad car accident in Ranchos Palos Verdes on Tuesday morning -- with officials requiring the jaws of life to free him from the vehicle.

www.tmz.com

Looks like he was a little agitated when he left, was driving a car that may have been new to him, was driving it faster than normal and wrecked near a spot that is known for traffic incidents.

Update today: No charges.

Tiger Woods Won't Face Criminal Charges for Crash, Sheriff Says

The Sheriff overseeing the investigation into the Tiger Woods car crash says he will NOT face criminal charges over the incident -- calling it a pure "accident."

www.tmz.com

 

[Deerhurst]

Why is this even news? Someone crashed a car. Cool. End of story.

 

[Flopsweat]

Why is this even news? Someone crashed a car. Cool. End of story.

Some suspect that a double standard may have been applied and are interested in learning if that is so. You may not be. It's all good.

Or put another way, why are you commenting?

 

[Hop Sing]

No doubt the hospital will have done a blood screen so (hopefully) things will be on record.

According to a friend of mine who knows the road, the highway is on a geologic fault and the pavement is prone to changing camber, plus has dips and rises, so that could have taken Woods by surprise given he was driving a car that was all foreign (no pun intended) to him. That's no excuse but I know from being on roads in the coast range, stuff like that can throw ya.

Anyhow, his career is likely over so he'll be paying for this the rest of his life.

 

[Soli]

Celebrities, bah.

But of interest (wiki):

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances.[1][2] The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

So, maybe he just said no.

 

[Ruger Rich]

I believe RHIP, I've seen it happen. There is no way of knowing if Woods got special treatment. I do feel secure in
saying had it been me, I would have been tested.

 

[Camelfilter]

No doubt the hospital will have done a blood screen so (hopefully) things will be on record.

....

That would be medical only, not legal (chain of custody & such).

Unlikely to be released, HIPPA (protected personal information). Much liability if it does.

 

[Flopsweat]

Celebrities, bah.

But of interest (wiki):

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances.[1][2] The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

So, maybe he just said no.

In a lot of states they'll suspend your drivers license for a year if you refuse. I would have expected it to make the news if he had, but who knows.

 

[Certaindeaf]

celebrity privilege.

Afraid of being called a racist?

 

[Deerhurst]

Some suspect that a double standard may have been applied and are interested in learning if that is so. You may not be. It's all good.

Or put another way, why are you commenting?

Because the famous person worship is a bit disturbing. They are the same as you and me other than their TV status.

Will you make a thread about me if I get special treatment if I crash my car? What if I make it spectacular?

 

[Flopsweat]

Because the famous person worship is a bit disturbing. They are the same as you and me other than their TV status.

Will you make a thread about me if I get special treatment if I crash my car? What if I make it spectacular?

I would absolutely make a thread about you if you received special treatment. I'd even inject a little barb right in this thread if I thought you were deliberately missing the point, which is that when a particular group seems to often receive special treatment, it's an issue and they should be called out on it.

 

[RVTECH]

Because the famous person worship is a bit disturbing.

How did you interpret 'worship' from my post?

There was hardly any 'Worship' about it - more like contempt as I was critical of the reason(s) they did NOT test him due to his notoriety.

 

[mrblond]

Afraid of being called a racist?

nah, I think it would not have mattered if he was black, white or green. the fact he was a world class golfer was more of the issue.

I have a feeling Tom Brady would have got the same pass

 

[Alexx1401]

Every state, and even some smaller jurisdictions have different laws about this. Since as far as I have heard it was a one vehicle with no one else hurt? Only reason it was worth a report was who was in the vehicle. When he got to the Hospital they would have checked to see what if anything he had in him this is ONLY for their eye's. Only reason is they have to know before they give him anything. This info can NOT be shared without a black robe sign off.
Now if there had been passengers in his vehicle, or he had wiped out other's? Good chance they would have gone for a warrant to check.

 

[1371JarHead]

He was sexting to one of his po0rn0 whores lololol

 

[Alexx1401]

That would be medical only, not legal (chain of custody & such).

Unlikely to be released, HIPPA (protected personal information). Much liability if it does.

At my work I have access to medical information. At least once a year I have to take a "test" so to speak to prove I understand that if I share ANYTHING I see there with anyone else or even look up someone's records for a reason not needed for my job I will be terminated and be liable for legal action my employer will not help me with. Now and then someone "famous" will come through and they again warn everyone with access. You open this persons records you best be able to show you had a reason. One great example was that damn singer that was always in the news for bizarre behavior. She ended up in an ER in LA I think it was? A hand full of people who worked there promptly found themselves out of a job for looking at her records because they could.
When Police come to us with someone they want info on they have to get a warrant before anything is shared with them. They can't just walk in and ask for it.
Where I work it is EXTREMELY hard to get fired. This is the one exception. Dip into records you have no reason to see and you are gone. I warn people I train to NEVER walk away from a terminal they are logged into if they have this program open in their ID. As I have seen some terminated because "someone" used that terminal to look up stuff they had no reason to see. If the terminal was not on camera the employer terminates the one logged in as it was their responsibility.