1、 Qualitative analysis of the act of extracting blood samples in the crime of dangerous driving

Article 105 of the Implementation Regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law stipulates that:

Motor vehicle drivers who are suspected of drinking alcohol, getting drunk, or taking nationally controlled psychotropic or narcotic drugs shall undergo testing and inspection.

Article 22 (4) of the Regulations on the Procedure for Handling Road Traffic Safety Violations stipulates that:

The traffic management department of the public security organs and their traffic police may take administrative enforcement measures in accordance with the law to test the content of alcohol, nationally controlled psychotropic drugs, and narcotic drugs in the body.

Combined with the official documents such as the Public Security Traffic Management Administrative Compulsory Measures Certificate (formatted text) issued by the Traffic Police Detachment during general drunk driving inspections, it is also clear that mandatory blood testing is an administrative compulsory measure. Therefore, in the crime of dangerous driving, the act of forcibly extracting blood samples is considered an administrative coercive measure.

2、 If the public security organs violate relevant administrative regulations during the process of collecting blood samples, can the collected blood samples be used as the basis for determining criminal cases?

Article 52 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates:

The physical evidence collected by administrative agencies during administrative law enforcement and case investigation can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings.

Article 65 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that:

If the physical evidence collected by administrative organs in the process of administrative law enforcement and case investigation is verified by the court to be true and the collection procedure complies with relevant laws and administrative regulations, it can be used as the basis for determining the case.

Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Law also stipulates that:

If the collection of physical evidence does not comply with legal procedures and may seriously affect judicial fairness, it should be corrected or a reasonable explanation should be made; If no correction or reasonable explanation can be made, the evidence should be excluded.

In other words, the physical evidence collected by administrative agencies in the process of administrative law enforcement and case investigation should only be excluded and not used as criminal evidence if the three requirements of "collecting physical evidence does not comply with legal procedures", "may seriously affect judicial fairness", and "cannot be corrected or reasonably explained" are met simultaneously. It is obvious that 'may seriously affect judicial fairness' is the core element among the three requirements mentioned above.

Therefore, although the public security organs violated relevant administrative regulations during the process of extracting blood samples, if the extracted blood samples will not have a serious impact on judicial fairness, they can be used as a basis for determining the case.