The Woodlands, Texas (Montgomery County Monitor) - Last night from 10:00 p.m. until approximately 4:00 a.m. The Woodlands was the location for the latest DWI “No Refusal Event” run by the Montgomery County District Attorneys Office.
This multi-agency processing included a mobile laboratory from the Houston Police Department, complete with equipment needed to draw and test both blood and breath samples. For those that refused to give samples, an on-call judge issued warrants, giving officials legal authority to collect samples.
A relatively new item, HawkEye goggles, were used to capture small irregular eye movements. These irregular eye movements are exaggerated in an individual under the influence of a central nervous system depressant such as alcohol. According to Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney, Warren Diepraam, these goggles, “are an incredible tool to take in front of the jury to show…” the intoxication level of the subject.
Blaze Anthony Benson was one of the approximately 14 subjects arrested and processed during the early morning hours. Earlier in the evening, around 11:00 p.m., radio reports indicated a “car surfing” incident occurred on or near Kentucky Oaks Drive, south of FM 2854 in the Old Kentucky Farms area. Due to the severity of his injuries, the surfer was flown by air ambulance downtown. The driver of the vehicle, Blaze Anthony Benson was arrested and brought to The Woodlands for processing. According to his jail record, Benson was charged with intoxicated assault with a $25,000 bond amount.
For more details and information concerning Benson’s possible link with a State Representative please go HERE
How many more liberties are the police going to take away? How can they ethically force an individual to submit to a blood sample test?! This is just another example of government overstepping the line on individuals rights. As for the goggles, I would hope t expect that evidence to never hold up in any court, solely on the grounds that any number of substances can cause the reactions seen by the goggles in the human eye.
I’m still on the fence with regard to the constitutionality of forcibly obtaining blood specimens. I am also concerned with the ever increasing encroachment on our liberties but it must be tempered against the need for laws that protect the general public.
I don’t share the hope that evidence from these goggles will be found inadmissible in a court of law. While the presence of nystagmus can be caused from a variety of medical conditions including multiple sclerosis, stroke, and brain tumors a defendant would need to demonstrate that such a condition existed at the time of the arrest. Also nystagmus, to my knowledge, has never been used as the sole determination of an actor’s intoxication but rather in conjunction with other evidence such as field sobriety exercises, witness/LEO observations, demeanor, evidence of consumption (bottles), etc. It’s the combination of all these factors that eventually sway a court to rule against a defendant. Although it will be interesting to hear arguments that will be made to keep such evidence (goggles) out of a court. From a defendant’s perspective I would prefer the use of goggles as opposed to relying on an individual’s subjective finding as to whether nystagmus is present. That is unless I was guilty.