English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In 2001, I was stopped by the WSP for suspicion of dwi. I was given a field sobriety test and "failed". I was then taken into custody and was given a breathalizer (0.00), and a blood test at Tacoma General Hospital; the blood test came back clean.

A few weeks later I recieved a bill in the mail from the hospital for $250.00. I called the hospital and told them to bill the WSP, and the clerk said WSP refused to pay. I called the WSP and they gave me the same story. It's my understanding that the police are responsible for medical tests for persons in thier custody. I verified this info with my dad who was a retired FDNY paramedic who worked at one of the city jails.

Is there anywhere in the RCW where I can find this information, or find out if this is true or not. I have been trying to get this off my credit for years.

2007-05-16 11:38:11 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

2 answers

If they requested the blood test they own it. If you did, you do!

Generally, most tests which you haven't given consent to but are taking as provided by state law, which allows them to be done, they pay for it. They may refuse but it is a cost that would not have been incurred normally, and in your case, the only reason they asked for it was the 0.00 reading!

I think they pay! Though I could not find it in our law, it was implied! I would take them to small claims court! Or go to the city manager or mayor!

2007-05-16 12:10:40 · answer #1 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0 0

I had to reply to your answer to whatsit on an answer you made about the USA having guns and the guy from Australia saying it was wrong - while I do agree that he is an idiot and makes us all look bad, can I correct you - we are NOT all descendants of criminals, I am actually a descendant of the first free settlers to Western Australia and very proud of this fact.....and most of those "criminals" did things like steal loaves of bread to feed their starving families, etc - it was England's way of getting rid of half of their starving and poor people - the real criminals, murderders, etc, were executed. Sorry - just had to point out this fact, but you were right to stick up for your country and all Australians are not lunatics like him!! Cheers.

2007-05-17 01:29:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers