I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
This law may make sense in some situations but clearly not in others. This law has the effect of empowering police officers to be doctors who can mandate medical treatment even if the subject refuses. Was this the intent of this law? If so, then police officers ARE in effect doctors in Texas who can force medical treatment on anyone they claim or suspect of something before the person has been proven to have anything requiring medical treatment. Police can see anyone walking down the street, decide they have a quota to fill in terms of putting people in jail, and claim that person is crazy or drunk without any proof, then put handcuffs on them, and force them into an emergency room for observation and make the person pay the hospital bill. This is how this law works, correct? Or can this be challenged in any way? Is Texas truly a Police state where the police can do whatever they want and make any person pay whatever bill they so choose, even acting as doctors when they are not? Under the "Implied Consent" law, how does the subject "imply" they have "consented" to medical treatment they verbally refuse? Isn't this "Assumed Consent" with the Officer assuming consent for any person they decide to take prisoner which they should have just cause to prove but as you know can be for just suspecting something based on their opinion or experience in dealing with others, but not necessarily based on the subject's behavior? The police can MAKE THINGS UP and they do all the time in order to put people in jail, particularly when their pay is tied to the number of individuals they incarcerate.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).