Isn't There A Law Regarding This?

[Certaindeaf]

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.

This is why I just make stuff up.

 

[Flopsweat]

This is why I just make stuff up.

"Nancy Pelosi has had 6 facelifts. True story."

 

[made in china]

18 months ago I was in a bad accident with a pothead who was smoking pot when they head-on impacted my truck.

Police at the scene even commented on the smell of weed. When I asked them to pursue it, they said they'd only bring out the drug impairment expert if it was a possible/was a fatality. Too much red-tape to bring drug impairment expert out for every fender bender.

Oh, and then there's the West Coast privilege of not prosecuting druggies.

I would say since Woods didn't kill or seriously hurt anyone they just applied the same procedure that they do for every other drug head in CA.

 

[Flopsweat]

18 months ago I was in a bad accident with a pothead who was smoking pot when they head-on impacted my truck.

Police at the scene even commented on the smell of weed. When I asked them to pursue it, they said they'd only bring out the drug impairment expert if it was a possible/was a fatality. Too much red-tape to bring drug impairment expert out for every fender bender.

Oh, and then there's the West Coast privilege of not prosecuting druggies.

I would say since Woods didn't kill or seriously hurt anyone they just applied the same procedure that they do for every other drug head in CA.

Weird. Do they still pull people over for DUI and test them?

 

[L84Cabo]

The police have a wide degree of latitude on this and there is no law mandating that they do a blood draw.

Moreover, the reports I've read said that the police were with him before the extrication. I'm guessing that either a) they did not smell or detect intoxicants and they reported that he was lucid and responsive...so they didn't feel the need for a blood draw, or B) They did think he was drunk but cut him a break either because he'd been through enough and didn't hurt anyone, or because he's Tiger Wood.

We will never really know for sure.

 

[made in china]

Weird. Do they still pull people over for DUI and test them?

This is my biggest gripe about legalizing/tolerating all of these drugs.

Alcohol level can be determined by a breathalyzer that any officer can use.
But for other drugs, there's no mechanism for road-side testing. For me, this should have been a "no-deal" prior to legalizing pot. They should develop a way to test on the roadside/traffic stop before legalizing it.

 

[Flopsweat]

This is my biggest gripe about legalizing/tolerating all of these drugs.

Alcohol level can be determined by a breathalyzer that any officer can use.
But for other drugs, there's no mechanism for road-side testing. For me, this should have been a "no-deal" prior to legalizing pot. They should develop a way to test on the roadside/traffic stop before legalizing it.

The pot test is easy. Offer them pork rinds. If you're high enough to eat them, you're stoned.

 

[clearconscience]

I would say since Woods didn't kill or seriously hurt anyone they just applied the same procedure that they do for every other drug head in CA.

I would say this is the case. No one seriously injured or died, and it wasn't noticeable by responding personnel then they won't pursue it.

He was probably driving too fast and on his phone.

Either way he can probably kiss what remaining golf career he had good bye. He'll be teaching rich trophy wives in Florida in a year

 

[Flopsweat]

I would say this is the case. No one seriously injured or died, and it wasn't noticeable by responding personnel then they won't pursue it.

He was probably driving too fast and on his phone.

Either way he can probably kiss what remaining golf career he had good bye. He'll be teaching rich trophy wives in Florida in a year

It may take him a while to burn through that $800 million. And that's after Elin got her cut.

 

[Soli]

I'm old. "Teaching" is the current slang?

 

[Certaindeaf]

"Nancy Pelosi has had 6 facelifts. True story."

It was believed he said "Jesus take the wheel" before the crash so it was out of his hands and OK.

 

[Hemlock]

Early morning accident? Maybe not drinking. BUT, recovering from what? fifth back surgery. What kind of pain meds do you think he was on.
Pissed that he was late for an appointment. Oh. Lets check his phone calls time line.
Lots of indicators of high speed. A witness that said he almost ran into him even before the accident.
Must have been "a squirrel ran across the road and I swerved to miss it."
And on another note. What kind of tin crap was that SUV. Dang motor was almost in his lap!

 

[Alexx1401]

Weird. Do they still pull people over for DUI and test them?

Yes and as mentioned alcohol is far easier to test for as they all have portable units to test with. These will not hold up in court but, they will give probability to detain to test.
Everything else falls under "impaired". This includes both legal and illegal drugs. If someone's driving gets attention they can stop and talk. If the Officer feels the driver is impaired then they have can test. They have some who are certified at doing this test roadside. If one feels they are impaired they can then ask for blood. People can and have been cited for taking prescribed stuff if it impaired them. Lots of stuff has that warning on it, do not drive or operate machinery and such. If they feel at test the driver is impaired enough to be a danger they can cite them and it's just like drunk driving if they are convicted. If they hurt or kill another while impaired then it's the same as if they were drunk and did this.
I remember when
WA made pot legal they had some kind of saliva test for THC but since I have not tried the stuff in over 40 years I never paid any attention to how that worked. Will have to ask an LEO about it at work if I think of it. See if they carry some kind of test for pot like they do for alcohol.
After I sent this I remembered one of our over worked Moderators is an LEO, so No_regerts, you all have a portable test for pot?

 

[dfisher1981]

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

Good news, since nobody else was smart enough to answer your original question, I decided to find the answer for you:

Law section

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

It is NOT standard practice to ask for a blood draw just for being in an accident, life-threatening or not. That would open up millions of Americans to unlawfully having their 4th Amendment rights violated every time they have a fender bender, because who is to make the determination (and what are the criteria) that an accident is "life-threatening"?

It IS standard practice to ask for a blood draw or urinalysis for someone who is suspected of DUI, meaning the police had enough probable cause to arrest you for DUI.

I'm surprised so many freedom loving people on this forum would want to hand the police the authority to decide who gets their blood drawn and tested without probable cause. People here are just as petty as the other side, you just want to score points even if it means doing backflips on constitutional rights like the 4th Amendment.

 

[FourTeeFive]

He's got quite a car collection including nice sports cars, but for this he was driving a loaner Korean large SUV for the event. Probably just lead-footing it and thinking he can drive it like any other car. Ooops.

 

[Alexx1401]

Good news, since nobody else was smart enough to answer your original question, I decided to find the answer for you:

Law section

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

It is NOT standard practice to ask for a blood draw just for being in an accident, life-threatening or not. That would open up millions of Americans to unlawfully having their 4th Amendment rights violated every time they have a fender bender, because who is to make the determination (and what are the criteria) that an accident is "life-threatening"?

It IS standard practice to ask for a blood draw or urinalysis for someone who is suspected of DUI, meaning the police had enough probable cause to arrest you for DUI.

I'm surprised so many freedom loving people on this forum would want to hand the police the authority to decide who gets their blood drawn and tested without probable cause. People here are just as petty as the other side, you just want to score points even if it means doing backflips on constitutional rights like the 4th Amendment.

Sadly the vast majority of even the gun owning community decided they are fine with loss of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This great police state hoax proves just how easy it was and will be, to just tell people your rights are what we tell you they are.

 

[Flopsweat]

...
I'm surprised so many freedom loving people on this forum would want to hand the police the authority to decide who gets their blood drawn and tested without probable cause. ...

I don't think anyone was saying that. I certainly wasn't.

 

[made in china]

I'm surprised so many freedom loving people on this forum would want to hand the police the authority to decide who gets their blood drawn and tested without probable cause. People here are just as petty as the other side, you just want to score points even if it means doing backflips on constitutional rights like the 4th Amendment.

I think you joined these forums just to throw barbs at people you don't agree with.

Only a very few people on this forum suggested that. Most of us never tried to insinuate that.

I think the real intent of the OP was to ensure or question if famous people get treated the same as plebs. It's a very similar sentiment many people are asking these days about similar situations.

I would say "the other side" is FAR more petty than most people here, seeing as how they operate on emotion, not facts.

 

[Cavedweller]

It IS standard practice to ask for a blood draw or urinalysis for someone who is suspected of DUI, meaning the police had enough probable cause to arrest you for DUI.

I'm surprised so many freedom loving people on this forum would want to hand the police the authority to decide who gets their blood drawn and tested without probable cause.

So, wrecking one's vehicle in a high speed roll-over accident after crossing the median and the opposing lane of traffic doesn't constitute probable cause?

 

[RVTECH]

I think the real intent of the OP was to ensure or question if famous people get treated the same as plebs.

Thank you for the support but my REAL intent was to get a clarification about the specific laws regarding blood draws related to incidents like this - but of course the 'celebrity' issue was a thought as well.

So, wrecking one's vehicle in a high speed roll-over accident after crossing the median and the opposing lane of traffic doesn't constitute probable cause?

No, the accident itself would not constitute probable cause. The accident is not the 'offense' - but the end result of something that was done by the driver that resulted in it (drinking, drugs, texting, etc.), and I quote the ORS, Probable cause means that there is a substantial objective basis for believing that more likely than not an offense has been committed. - which then resulted in the accident.