I'm inclined to try to help the police as well but I also know that the police will say lots of things about what they think they're allowed to do and demand and they are sometimes wrong and that sometimes the rules that apply to them don't apply (or indemnify) us.As a former cop, I am more than happy to help bring down an intoxicated driver. Don't want this drunk guy to take out some innocent family someday....
Pretty much the same here.
The Hospital General Counsel made it clear to us that if the police present us with a body search warrant, we are require to draw the patient's blood, even if the patient refuses. It is, however, not up to us to make the patient comply. It is up to the police to restrain or do what ever they think they can do to allow us to draw that blood.
The difference is a doctrine called "Evanescence of Evidence." The information the state would get from interrogating you presumably isn't different information depending on when they ask, or whether your lawyer is there, so your lawyer should be there. Your fingerprint will be the same fingerprint 12 hours from now; the crucial difference is the BAC will not. Therefore, the blood gets drawn now. Otherwise, there's no way to prove you were above the legally-defined BAC at the time of your alleged offense.My concern stems from belief that this is heavy-handed government slowly chipping away at our Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment clearly says that citizens can refuse self-incrimination. I realize that the judicial system has ruled mandatory blood draws constitutional, but SCOTUS has ruled a lot of things Constitutional or Unconstitutional that I disagree with. I see no difference between being forced to comply with verbal interrogations and being forced to comply with blood draws, DNA, or fingerprints prior to conviction.