PDA

View Full Version : Question...? DUI



CIVSERV
09-28-2004, 11:28 AM
are blood tests and or breathalyzers mandatory for conviction concerning a stopped vehicle?

thanks.

Delta784
09-28-2004, 12:41 PM
No.

As a matter of fact, the great majority of OUI cases are based solely on the officer's observations and other physical evidence (empty beer cans, etc.).

We deal with drunks every single day. If we say someone is drunk, that should be prima facie evidence that they are drunk. :D

retdetsgt
09-28-2004, 12:41 PM
No, but they are important for a drunk driving conviction.... I'm don't know what you mean by stopped vehicle, but convictions happen all the time for DUI w/o a blood test or Breathalyzer.

CIVSERV
09-28-2004, 12:49 PM
truck went down a one way the 'wrong way', 2 cars in pursuit, truck pulls in parking lot.
officers notice intox., the indite. if for, wrong way on a one way, 2 simple assults, 1 aggravated, DUI. duh judge, who i sometimes work with told me they didn't give any tests,
1 night in the slammer,$2000 bond.

got any guess's on punishment/conviction? PA case.

Delta784
09-28-2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by CIVSERV
truck went down a one way the 'wrong way', 2 cars in pursuit, truck pulls in parking lot.
officers notice intox., the indite. if for, wrong way on a one way, 2 simple assults, 1 aggravated, DUI. duh judge, who i sometimes work with told me they didn't give any tests,
1 night in the slammer,$2000 bond.

I can't make any sense out of that.

Are you sure you haven't had a few yourself? :confused:

CIVSERV
09-28-2004, 02:17 PM
I don't drink. And...I'm in my gov't office. duh!

The guy left a bar. On the way home he drove down a one way street the wrong way. This was the original reason for the 'stop'. It was a 2 cop car short chase. He didn't stop on the one way for the cops so he pulled into a parking lot. When he got out of the truck, or they pulled him out, I don't know which..(I wasn't there), they noticed he was drunk. So...they wrote him up for a DUI and going the wrong way down a one way street. Then when they went to cuff him, somewhere during the process, they wrote him up for one count of aggravated assault and two counts of simple assault. He must have struggled....dunno. He spent the night in jail, his bail was 10% of 20 grand....$2000. I spoke to the magistrate, cause I work with these guys when I'm out in the field and he told me that the cops didn't test his alcohol level. I wondered if you had a guess on how court would go. Understand???

Now you can appoligize to me ;-)
A straight and well behaved civil servant.

Tennsix
09-28-2004, 03:37 PM
In Indiana, a chemical test ins't required but evert attempt should be made to obtain it. We can offer any test (blood, breath, urine, etc). If a test does not jive with the suspect's condition, we can do a different test. If a suspect refuses any test (even if it is not the first one offered) he/she may be charged with refusing to take a chemical test. As a result, their driver's license is suspened for one year in addtion to what the court might impose. The license would remain suspended for one year, even if the suspect's is acuitted or charges are dimissed.

kirch
09-28-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Delta784
I can't make any sense out of that.

Are you sure you haven't had a few yourself? :confused: Glad to see I wasn't alone. CIVSERV, your second attempt was much better.

Here in WI, this is how it goes:

1. Officer makes observations that lead him to suspect OWI. For example, odor of intoxicant, slurred speech, driving behavior (swerving, speeding, driving like an ***, etc.), admission by driver of alcohol consumption and so on.

2. Officer conducts Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, including Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, Walk and Turn test, One Leg Stand test and anything else he chooses to throw in for good measure. We usually add the PBT (preliminary breath test).

3. Officer makes arrest decision based upon observations and results of SFST.

4. Officer arrests driver and transports to facility for chemical breath or blood test.

5. Before driver is tested, driver is issued citation for Operating Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated, $705, 6 points.

6. Driver completes chemical test (usually breath).

7. If chemical test shows driver is below .08, driver is still charged with OMVWI. Same goes if driver is able to get chemical test results thrown out.

8. If chemical test shows driver is at or above .08, driver is issued citation for Prohibited Alcohol Content. PAC violation supercedes OMVWI but the fine and point assessment is the same.

Tennsix
09-28-2004, 04:21 PM
Indiana:

1. Officer develops PC for stop.

2. Officer observes driver (odor of alcohol, slurred speech, etc).

3. SFST's including PBT

4. Advise driver of "implied consent" to consent to a chemical test and the consequences of refusing.
A. Consents to test and transported to testing site.
B. Refuses test-loses license for one year and is arrested for
operating while intoxicated (OWI).

5. If suspects tests-arrest is made
A. .05%-07% with impairment
B. .08% or more

6. Arrest is made after the test result.

7. Jailed

That is a typical OWI, generally speaking. That does't account other circumstances.

CIVSERV
09-28-2004, 05:05 PM
My reason for asking what the consequences would be is -because- the cops did not administer -any tests-. _That part_ of the story, as it were, was why I was curious,
due to the client and his lawyer thinking the DUI charges would not stick. I -know- the proceedure of DUI testing, I work in a police station in a different state. Thank you my men for your responses, but my curiosity is over the cocky attitude of the indited man and his lawyer thinking the DUI would not stick. It's a first offense as well.

Yours truly,
CivServ

SRTSniper226
09-28-2004, 06:19 PM
CIV;

I can only speak for my state but DUI should stand whether subject was tested or not as long as the officer did his job. However, since it is first offense if he has a good attorney it will probably be plead out and reduced to reckless after probation, DUI school, and some fines depending on judges mood and the story behind the aggravated assault.

Delta784
09-28-2004, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by CIVSERV
Now you can appoligize to me ;-)


Apologize for what? For pointing out that your post looked like it was typed by a drunken chimp? :confused:

Tennsix
09-28-2004, 06:58 PM
To get out of drunk driving case (in my area) will cost about $7,000-$10,000. so, it is still a costly endeavor any way you look at it.

SuperSix5
09-29-2004, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by Delta784
Apologize for what? For pointing out that your post looked like it was typed by a drunken chimp? :confused:

On behalf of drunken primates everywhere, that's offensive. Monkey's are very good typists, even intoxicated. Who do you think types up all the those fortunes in cookies? :p

BlackTalon
10-18-2004, 01:14 PM
Here in Michigan, if a person refuses to submit to testing (SFST, Breath Test, etc.) and you can articulate reasons that make you believe the person is intoxicated (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, odor of intoxicants, bad driving, etc.) you get a search warrant, signed for blood, from a judge. You then take the person to the nearest hospital and have blood drawn. When it's done you book the person at jail and send a report to the prosecutor, who then waits on the results of the blood draw. Nobody arrested gets away, without providing a test for the presence of alcohol in their system.

Danny Ponder
10-18-2004, 05:13 PM
Most police cars are now equiped with video cameras.
While the officer is performing the field sobriety test the video camera is video tapeing him stagger,fall and acting like an idiot. The tape is a very helpfull tool in obtaining a conviction.

Deputy Joe
10-27-2004, 09:44 AM
Since it is first offense, it is most likely a civil citation. Less proof is going to be needed to convict him in court.

If the officer was able to note in his report things like the odor, slurred speech, glassy or bloodshot eyes, staggered gait, swaying while standing....... the arrest is most likely going to be a good one.

It sounds like this bonehead was not willing to cooperate with any tests that the officers were going to give.

raleigh03
11-17-2004, 09:12 AM
you don't need blood tests or an intoxilyzer. All you need is pc for making the stops, then perform your SFST's (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests) Including HGN if you're certified. Also, enter the video from your in car camera for evidence. I have had 17 DUI's since june of this year. Make sure sure you take good notes and give all your evidence to the magistrate when giving pc for the stop and arrest.

Good luck

Mullet
11-27-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Tennsix
Indiana:

1. Officer develops PC for stop.

2. Officer observes driver (odor of alcohol, slurred speech, etc).

3. SFST's including PBT

4. Advise driver of "implied consent" to consent to a chemical test and the consequences of refusing.
A. Consents to test and transported to testing site.
B. Refuses test-loses license for one year and is arrested for
operating while intoxicated (OWI).

5. If suspects tests-arrest is made
A. .05%-07% with impairment
B. .08% or more

6. Arrest is made after the test result.

7. Jailed

That is a typical OWI, generally speaking. That does't account other circumstances.

Shouldn't this read?:
"B. Refuses test-loses license for one year and is arrested for
operating while IMPAIRED." Since he could be impaired for any number of reason not just intoxication.

Tennsix
12-01-2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Mullet
Shouldn't this read?:
"B. Refuses test-loses license for one year and is arrested for
operating while IMPAIRED." Since he could be impaired for any number of reason not just intoxication.

Given the topic, impairment by alcohol/drugs (including Rx drugs) is implied.

If I am investigating a person for OWI and I have cause to belive he/she is intoxicated (with or without impairment) I will arrest them for OWI, if they refused a chemical test.

If the driver is impaired for some other reason then another charge might be aplicable. Something along the lines of reckless driving maybe. An exception would be an illness such as diabtic problems or epilepsy. If there is any doubt, the suspect is taken to the hopital. If he is ill, he gets the helps he needs. If he is drunk, he gets arrested.

Indiana does not have "Driving While Impaired" We have "Driving While Intoxciated" OWI means driving while intoxicated.

KRACKZ
12-04-2004, 01:35 AM
CAMERA IN THE PATROL CARS HAVE BEEN VERY USEFUL IN GETTING A CONVICTION AGAINST DUI/DWI. I PERSONAL JUST A SHORT TIME AGO WORKING IN AN UNMARKED VEHICLE WITH A PARTNER, WE A TRUCK GO THROUGH THREE STEADY RED LIGHTS PASS SEVERAL CARS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE STREET (NO WE WERE NOT IN PURSUIT IN FACT WE DIDN'T EVEN TURN OUR LIGHT ON YET) FINALLY HE STOPS AT A RED LIGHT LIGHT ONLY BECAUSE A MARKED UNIT WAS ACROSS STREET. WE PULL HIM OUT HE CAN;T EVEN STAND UP OR SPEAK. ALL INFRACTION ON TAPE AND ALL HIS ACTION ON TAPE. FURTHERMORE IN HQ, HE KEEPED HIT HIS HEAD ON THE WALL STATING WE BEAT HIM IN THE STREET. TAPE CLEARED US AND HE GOT 2YS.

milcop
01-02-2005, 05:49 AM
CAMERA IN THE PATROL CARS HAVE BEEN VERY USEFUL IN GETTING A CONVICTION AGAINST DUI/DWI. I PERSONAL JUST A SHORT TIME AGO WORKING IN AN UNMARKED VEHICLE WITH A PARTNER, WE A TRUCK GO THROUGH THREE STEADY RED LIGHTS PASS SEVERAL CARS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE STREET (NO WE WERE NOT IN PURSUIT IN FACT WE DIDN'T EVEN TURN OUR LIGHT ON YET) FINALLY HE STOPS AT A RED LIGHT LIGHT ONLY BECAUSE A MARKED UNIT WAS ACROSS STREET. WE PULL HIM OUT HE CAN;T EVEN STAND UP OR SPEAK. ALL INFRACTION ON TAPE AND ALL HIS ACTION ON TAPE. FURTHERMORE IN HQ, HE KEEPED HIT HIS HEAD ON THE WALL STATING WE BEAT HIM IN THE STREET. TAPE CLEARED US AND HE GOT 2YS.

I would hate to be the one to chop this guys IR's.


I know it was probably a long day for him, im just bustin balls.

nwlangdon
01-07-2005, 03:56 AM
I have a question regarding the process in each of your states in regards to the dui breath testing. I just finished my dui training in the academy and in Colorado the suspect has to be given the breath test with in 2 hours of the observation of driving. Now before they can give the test the suspect has to be watched uninterupted for 20 mins immediatley before the test so that he does dont try to mask or create a higher BrAC when given the test. If he burps or verps during the 20 mins, he gets a warning, and the time starts over, if he does it again its a refusal, with automatic arrest and charges being filed

Is that the norm across the board with other states too.

Tennsix
01-07-2005, 09:32 AM
Indiana is pretty much the same. We have a three hour window. We also have to wait 20 mins before taking the test. We just have to ensure that the suspect does not place and foriegn marterial in his/her mouth. We can offer any test (breath, blood, urine, etc). The suspect may not refuse one test in lieu of another. Additionally, if the suspect exhibits a degree of impairment not consistant with test results the officer may offer another test. So, if the suspect is extremelely impaired but registers .04% BrAC the officer may seek another type of test. The suspect will be charged with OWI-refusual if he/she declines the second test.

ebpd
01-08-2005, 01:18 AM
HMMMMM. Lets see. All of that in PA, probably received ARD and 18 months probation, maybe $1000 dollar fine to go with it!

Where at in PA?

PeteBroccolo
01-10-2005, 06:30 PM
The following are sections of the Canadian Criminal Code (a compendium of a variety of criminal violations, enacted by the Federal Government, but administered and enforced by the various Provincial and Municipal Governments):

- 253(a): operating, OR having the care and control, of a motor vehicle, train, watercraft or aircraft, while impaired by alcohol, or a drug;

- 253(b): as above, but while their blood alcohol concentration exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood;

- 254(2): authority for a Peace Officer to DEMAND that a person, whom s/he suspects of having consumed alcohol found to have been O OR H-T-C&C as above, submit suitable samples of their breath for analysis on an Approved Screening Device (like USA PBT, I believe);

- 254(3): authority for a PO to DEMAND that a person, whom the PO has reasonable and probable grounds to believe has committed 253(a) OR (b) (evidence of 253(b) usually gained via 254(2)), within 3 hours of an alleged offence, to submit:
- - (a) suitable breath samples for analysis on Approved Instrument (Breathalyzer 900 or 900A, Intoxilyzer 5000C, Datamaster C most often used);
- - (b) to blood samples being drawn, by a physician, or under a physician's direction by a nurse or technician, if the suspect is incapable of submitting samples due to health, or injury;

- 254(5): offence for 254(2), (3)(a) or (3)(b);

- 255: penalties for 253 or 254, dependent as to recency, and frequency, of previous offences AND whether or not bodily harm or death occured, including MANDATORY, Canada-wide prohibition orders from operating (motor vehicle, train, watercraft or aircraft);

- 255.1: BAC > 160 mg% is an aggravating factor in sentencing per 255;

- 256: authority for a PO to obtain a Warrant for blood to be drawn, within 4 hours of the alleged offence, if a physician believes that the suspect is incapable of understanding a demand per 254(3)(b) AND that this will NOT further aggravate the suspect's condition or injuries;

- 257: protects the physician from criminal charges for not agreeing to take, or cause to be taken, samples per 254(3)(b) or 256 AND from being sued by the suspect for injuries caused by drawing the samples;

- 258(1)(c): per 254(3)(a), if the analysis of the 1st sample occurs within 2 hours of the alleged offence, was done with an AI, by a Qualified Technician, and the QT followed all of the proper procedures, then the QT may issue a Certificate of Analyses, setting out the results of the analyses of the 2 samples of the suspects breath, and if there is no evidence to the contrary accepted by the Court, the lowest BAC of the 2 analyses on the Certificate will be accepted by the Court as the suspect's BAC at the time of the offence.

Most Provinces also have provisions in their traffic laws for licence suspensions for drinking and driving, either where the suspect is charged 253(a) or (b) or 254, or their BAC was below the 253(b) limit, but above a level set in that legislation.

In Saskatchewan,, licences marked:
- "Probationary" are those drivers with less than 2 years driving experience;
- "Provisional" are those drivers who had been convicted for 253 or 254 CC, completed the CC Prohibition, are still subject to an administrative suspension by the licence issuer, but have successfully completed a Driving Without Impairment re-education program;
- "Learners" are at least 15 years old and taking instruction through a school program, or are at least 16 years old and taking some other formal driving education program
and THOSE drivers MUST maintain a ZERO BAC. Failure to do so, but NOT involving 253 or 254 CC, will result in an automatic, immediate, suspension of their licence, on behalf of the issuer, by the Police for a minimum of 30 days for any of the 3 - EXCEPT for the "Provisional", who will lose her/his for the REMAINING BALANCE of the administrative suspension.

ALL drivers, no matter WHERE they are from or licenced by, IF they are charged in Saskatchewan with 253 or 254 CC, lose their driving privileges in Saskatchewan for 24 hours, then are granted a 7 day permit to drive, followed by an automatic 90 day administrative suspension by the licence issuer.

The Saskatchewan licencer issuer, who ALSO issues vehicle registrations AND the included basic drivers and vehicle insurance coverages, can also disqualify a person from continuing to drive due to too many infractions, especially by Learner, Probationary or Provisional drivers, failure to pay fines, bad cheques used to pay for licences and registration, or failure to make alimony and child support payments.

In Saskatchewan, ALL driving prohibition orders, licence suspensions, or driving disqualifications, either by the Police, licence issuer OR the Courts are added onto CPIC. Court Prohitions are accessible Canada-wide via CPIC; administrative suspension or disqualifications are accessible Province-wide-only via CPIC.

Sorry for the long-winded detail!

nomisk
02-08-2005, 08:56 AM
It sound to me that the driver was combative and FST's could not be preformed by driver. Officers observations of drivers impairment will have to be well documented for court case. Being the driver was charged with assault during this event is a good indicator that he was too drunk to do the FST's and the case would have to stand on it's own. However, In my state (Ca.) you must make every attempt to get the driver to do the FST's. However, we do force blood draws if we get a refusal to the manditory blood/breath tests.

Just my thoughts.

Cruiser
02-13-2005, 03:34 PM
You do not 'need' to perform any test. The tests are just a tool in the investigation. You must be able to explain why you stopped him, why you suspected alcohol or drugs might be involved, your personal observations of the person, his/her demenour and attitude, if he complies with the FST and how he performs, if he complies with the breathalizer test and what the results are. (If they refuse the license is automatically yanked for 6 mos in SC even if all charges are dropped or dismissed), if you obtained a blood test if it was volentary or a warrant was issued and the result, and all of the observed behaviour during the arrest. As one pointed out, most units now have camera's in them which you also need to save for court. We had a camera in the BA room and that was very useful in my time. Often just showing the tape to the defendant and his attorney makes for a plea of guilty. <G>
Jim

piglet
02-15-2005, 12:39 PM
Some people actually get lawyers to fight the d.U.I. i absolutely love the commercials on television here. "did you have to do stupid tests?" " we can fight for your rights!"

Such bull crap, here is a way they can fight the charge, DON'T drink and drive!

I got one the other night. pulled in at the convience store and parked long ways across 3 parking spots. Well shoot, i watched and sure enough he was drunk. i asked him why he parked that way. And he said i was just trying to be cute. Well dumba** you got your license taken for a year for being cute! Was it worth it? He said "I guess not." :confused:

ODUMatt
02-15-2005, 01:22 PM
I have a question regarding the process in each of your states in regards to the dui breath testing. I just finished my dui training in the academy and in Colorado the suspect has to be given the breath test with in 2 hours of the observation of driving. Now before they can give the test the suspect has to be watched uninterupted for 20 mins immediatley before the test so that he does dont try to mask or create a higher BrAC when given the test. If he burps or verps during the 20 mins, he gets a warning, and the time starts over, if he does it again its a refusal, with automatic arrest and charges being filed

Is that the norm across the board with other states too.


Pretty much the same in CT. Two test of the same type 30 minutes apart. If they try to disrupt the test, they are given a refusal. If they fail the breathalizer their license is gone for 3 months. If they refuse it's gone for 6 months (first offense).

Cruiser
02-16-2005, 12:38 AM
No sure of the current rules in SC but back in the day we also watched them for 20 minutes making sure they placed nothing in their mouth or todded their cookies etc. The arresting officer was not the officer to administer the test and the BA operator was not even allowed to see the suspect until he arrived at the testing place. He was given his warmings etc and if he wanted an attorney we would wait a 'reasonable' amount of time which was no more than an extra 15 minutes on top of the first 20. They did the BA or they lost their license for 6 months period. Of course they were still charged. If they blew a very low amount and it was obvious they were stoned we got a search warrent for bolld and took them to the ER. If just below the minimum they were still charged with DUI but we knew it wouldn't end up in a conviction. We couldn't 'unarrest' them <G> If they blew a .30 or higher we tested again in 30 minutes and if it was still rising then we took them to the ER for alcohol poisoning. They highest reading I ever did was a .38 The highest reading I ever saw on a BA was .47. This young lady did live but barely as we did mouth to mouth and chest compressions to keep her alive until we got her to the ER. She had been raped after she had been held down and a fifth was poured down her throat. She was 14 yrs old and healthy which is probably the only reason she lived.
Jim

kellymccleavy
02-21-2005, 04:07 PM
Don't take any tests offered. Talked to a good criminal lawyer that specializes in DUI cases, and take your fine and suspension (at worst). You will not, I repeat not, be convicted of DUI or the long-term effects of multiple DUI convictions. Refusal convictions sometimes carry heavier short-term penalties, but less problems down the road.

Curt581
02-21-2005, 04:42 PM
Don't take any tests offered. Talked to a good criminal lawyer that specializes in DUI cases, and take your fine and suspension (at worst). You will not, I repeat not, be convicted of DUI or the long-term effects of multiple DUI convictions. Refusal convictions sometimes carry heavier short-term penalties, but less problems down the road.
Kelly, you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

In my state, refusal of any chem test is against the law. The fact that a driver refused the test can be used against him in the subsequent DUI trial. Such refusals also count in determining prior DUI/OWI convictions. Having arrested several Illinois residents for this offense, I'm pretty sure Illinois law is similar.

I've lost a handful of OWI cases in 15 years, mostly during "stop motion" hearings, or have had a jury come back with a bizarre finding. It happens. However, in every arrest I've had where the driver refused a test, the driver was later found guilty of DUI. Every defense attorney I've had the 'pleasure' of meeting says take the test, refuse the questions. So go ahead and refuse. See where it gets you.

As for your post, and this is just my own opinion, but I think it's problematic that any police officer, or 'officer of the court' would advise anyone to violate the law.

Cruiser
02-21-2005, 04:43 PM
Absolutely stupid advice.

kellymccleavy
02-21-2005, 05:33 PM
Absolutely stupid advice.

If anyone is in doubt consult legal counsel and determine whether my advice is in line with their recommnedation. The absolute worse thing you can do is submit to any testing, including field testing.

Tennsix
02-21-2005, 05:41 PM
In my area, refusing subit to testing is agianst the law because the implied consent statute. You might skate on an OWI pinch but legal fees could run you $10,000.

kellymccleavy
02-21-2005, 05:46 PM
In my area, refusing subit to testing is agianst the law because the implied consent statute. You might skate on an OWI pinch but legal fees could run you $10,000.

Agreed. It is absolutely against the law and going to get you convicted, but the long-term or multiple offense issues will not cost you a 30-year conviction or lifetime ban.

Cruiser
02-21-2005, 05:47 PM
Well Duh! That's how they make a living charging you to defend them and they get paid win or lose. Ask them if they will still represent you if you only pay them if they win? :D You will immediately lose your license for 6 months to a year depending on the state you are stopped in and you insurance will go up and you will still get convicted as your refusal to perform anything will certainly be brought up and the jury will almost certainly come to the conclusion that if you could have passed it and kept your license and gone on your way instead of losing your license and spending the night in jail....What do you think they will decide? I also agree with Curt that any real police officer who encourages someone to break any law is not worthy of wearing a badge and yes, refusing to take the BA test is a violation of law.

Tennsix
02-21-2005, 05:50 PM
Agreed. It is absolutely against the law and going to get you convicted, but the long-term or multiple offense issues will not cost you a 30-year conviction or lifetime ban.

In my humble opinion, if a person has to worry about being a habitual traffic offender he/she has issues. PUT THEM ON THE BOOKS!!!!! :cool:

So, are you saying that convictions without a chemical test will not count? I am not sure I understand.

Im Indiana, a second OWI conviction in five years is a felony. Beyond that, you are looking at Habutial which could mean a 10 year-life suspension-even without test results.

kellymccleavy
02-21-2005, 05:52 PM
I also agree with Curt that any real police officer who encourages someone to break any law is not worthy of wearing a badge and yes, refusing to take the BA test is a violation of law.

I was simply answering a question honestly and openly. Cruiser you were quick to defend a bad LEO on tape, but quick to jump on a BAC refusal. This is the exact hypocrisy we need to root out.

kellymccleavy
02-21-2005, 05:54 PM
In my humble opinion, if a person has to worry about being a habitual traffic offender he/she has issues. PUT THEM ON THE BOOKS!!!!! :cool:

Agreed, the real root problem is not being dealt with. I don't want anyone drinking and driving - it could be my family they hurt.

Curt581
02-21-2005, 07:11 PM
If anyone is in doubt consult legal counsel and determine whether my advice is in line with their recommnedation.

Yes, it is within your rights to consult legal counsel... after the fact. You have no right to counsel at the time you are asked to submit to the test. You are advised of the Implied Consent law and the penalties for refusal at the time of arrest. If you refuse, you violate the law. In my state, the penalties for refusal are harsher than if you took the test and failed. I suspect it's the same in Illinois. And your refusal does NOT preclude your being charged and found guilty of operating impaired. On the contrary, the odds of being found guilty of DUI/OWI actually increase.


The absolute worse thing you can do is submit to any testing, including field testing.
You are absolutely wrong. I've gotten numerous convictions based strictly on my observations and the fact that they refused testing. All that money in legal fees wasted.


Agreed. It is absolutely against the law and going to get you convicted, but the long-term or multiple offense issues will not cost you a 30-year conviction or lifetime ban.


Agreed, the real root problem is not being dealt with. I don't want anyone drinking and driving - it could be my family they hurt.
So you would (erroneously) advise someone to refuse testing, so they could avoid having convictions on their record, thereby allowing them to continue to drive intoxicated without being labelled a habitual traffic offender? How exactly is that dealing with the root problem?

My final point was that it is improper and unethical for you, "kellymccleavy", who claims to be police officer, to advise anyone to violate the law. I am aware of two attorneys in my area who have been disbarred or sued for legal malpractice, for giving the same type of "advise".

I seriously doubt that you are a law enforcement officer. Most police officers know better than to make statements like this. If you are, you probably won't be for long.

Edit: Never mind. A 'self-appointed civil soldier'. In other words, a half-wit.

Tennsix
02-21-2005, 07:17 PM
Agreed, the real root problem is not being dealt with. I don't want anyone drinking and driving - it could be my family they hurt.

I understood him to imply they should be locked up.

Curt581
02-21-2005, 07:18 PM
I was simply answering a question honestly and openly. Cruiser you were quick to defend a bad LEO on tape, but quick to jump on a BAC refusal. This is the exact hypocrisy we need to root out.
And you were quick to convict and sentence a police officer without a proper investigation and without a fair trial. Were you out sick the day they covered "Equal Protection Under the Law" during your academy training?

Talk about "hypocrisy"! :eek:

Edit: Whoops, my mistake. "Self-Appointed" means you don't need any training. What was I thinking?

Tennsix
02-22-2005, 08:01 AM
I saw this in the Squad Room:

Captain Greg Blankenship 47 of the Butler County Sheriff's Department resigned after his 2nd OMVI arrest in 2 yrs. He was found passed out 3 AM Sunday at the drive thru window of a Steak N Shake by Hamilton Police.
He was reported to be glassy eyed and had slurred speech and refused a breathalyzer test.
He had pled guilty in 2003 to OMVI and had been then placed on final warning status by the Butler County Sheriff that any other incident would result in his firing.

He had served as head of the Sheriff's Vice and drug unit. He refused media requests for comment.

For me, this is a tough one to comment on. On one hand, he is a police officer and I feel we should support him. On the other hand, it seems he might have a drinking problem and that should be addressed. Do you think the officers (or should have) done more such as taken him home or called a taxi?

Curt581
02-22-2005, 09:18 AM
I saw this in the Squad Room:
Captain Greg Blankenship 47 of the Butler County Sheriff's Department resigned after his 2nd OMVI arrest in 2 yrs. He was found passed out 3 AM Sunday at the drive thru window of a Steak N Shake by Hamilton Police.
He was reported to be glassy eyed and had slurred speech and refused a breathalyzer test.
He had pled guilty in 2003 to OMVI and had been then placed on final warning status by the Butler County Sheriff that any other incident would result in his firing.

He had served as head of the Sheriff's Vice and drug unit. He refused media requests for comment.

For me, this is a tough one to comment on. On one hand, he is a police officer and I feel we should support him. On the other hand, it seems he might have a drinking problem and that should be addressed. Do you think the officers (or should have) done more such as taken him home or called a taxi?
I'm sure to catch some heat over this, but...

No. He's already had one kick at the cat. By taking him home, you just set the stage for the next incident. What if he kills somebody next time?

His drinking problem should have been addressed after his first arrest. A second offense and a refusal should put him out the door. He apparently doesn't want AODA help yet. That Sheriff should follow through with his "next time" threat.

Cruiser
02-22-2005, 01:49 PM
I believe he has in fact resigned which is the honorable thing to do provided he has enough time to retire. I hope he gets the help he really needs before it's too late and keeps the support of his friends in the department wile he is fighting his demons.

south
02-23-2005, 03:46 AM
Aw shoot, Looks like Ol' Kelly got his dern self banned. I wonder if he refused the tests? :D

Vodicka4343
03-02-2005, 12:33 AM
I have a question regarding the process in each of your states in regards to the dui breath testing. I just finished my dui training in the academy and in Colorado the suspect has to be given the breath test with in 2 hours of the observation of driving. Now before they can give the test the suspect has to be watched uninterupted for 20 mins immediatley before the test so that he does dont try to mask or create a higher BrAC when given the test. If he burps or verps during the 20 mins, he gets a warning, and the time starts over, if he does it again its a refusal, with automatic arrest and charges being filed

Is that the norm across the board with other states too.
it is the same in Nebraska

jricks
03-30-2005, 03:28 PM
Kentucky is almost identical. 2 hrs from the time of arrest or incident (wreck or other Probable Cause if not seen driving), 20 minute observation at the testing sight, plus 10 minutes (within the 20) to call a lawyer if desired.

aikido kid
04-05-2005, 10:10 AM
In New York State you don't. If you look like a drunk, smell like a drunk, walk and talk like a drunk, then your probably drunk. This point is made real clear if the officers car has a camera. However, and i love this, even if you are not found guilty of criminal charges for DUI your refusal to take a sobriety test will result in your drivers license being revolked. haha.

MCSO99
05-04-2005, 07:12 AM
In Ohio the suspect has the option to submit to a chemical test (breathalizer) but if the person refuses it is an automatic 6 month license suspension. If they take it and fail then they only get about a 3 month suspension after they plea it down. Yet still most of my arrests have led to a test refusal.

KPD-3K14
05-04-2005, 08:42 AM
The arresting officer has 4 hours to do Chemical test after the initial "stop." After transport to the testing facility (usually located at the jail) there is a 15 min. observation period. From what I've read in this column the rest is pretty much the same. A test is not quote on quote needed but the officer should make a reasonable attempt.
Unfortunately, from my experience if a subject is charged with DUI and Refusal to submit to chemical test one is always dropped in a plea bargain. My feelings are they should get more jail time for the Refusal part. The consequences are the same for both and are as follows:
1st offense- 3 days, $1,500 fine
2nd offense- 20 days, $3,000 fine
3rd offense- 60 days, $4,000 fine
2 priors since January 1, 1996 or 10 years prior to 3rd offense is a Felony which is 120 days and not less than $10,000 fine.

I'm also curious to know if these penalties are about the same for other states.

aikido kid
05-04-2005, 12:18 PM
in NY after 2 DUIs it's a felonly. 1 year in prision and up to $1,000 fine.

Puget Sound
05-04-2005, 03:45 PM
This is how DUI arrests should be done. (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/tazered.html)

:p

DaveinUtah
05-04-2005, 04:01 PM
This is how DUI arrests should be done. (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/tazered.html)

:p


I love that video.

Officer: Sir, roll over on your stomach
Suspect: I can't you f*cking hammered me.

ROFL :D

Puget Sound
05-05-2005, 04:56 AM
I love that video.

Officer: Sir, roll over on your stomach
Suspect: I can't you f*cking hammered me.

ROFL :D


"...or you're gettin' it again!"

Looks like a young deputy who handled himself really, really well.

MchenryEMA
05-05-2005, 02:11 PM
I can't make any sense out of that.

Are you sure you haven't had a few yourself? :confused:

ohh snap!!!! you got called out on that one
snap snap snap!

DaveinUtah
05-06-2005, 07:56 AM
I have a strange question about this. I am sorry if you have already covered this. I am anemic and have a slight inner ear problem. A dozen or so times a year, my iron level drops to the point where I lose my balance often and drop things. I also get spacey and fumble with words I talk. On more than one occasion, I have fallen out of my truck. I am like a bumbling idiot.

I have often worried that if an officer were to see this, and then start asking me questions, and make me do the line walks, I might look suspiciously drunk. If I explained my situation, the officer would probably not believe me since you all hear lies all the time. Could I ask him/her to do a breath test to prove that I am not drunk? Should I get a note from my doctor and keep it in the car, in case?

Sounds like someone I know with diabetes when they get low blood sugar. But, the lack of a smell of alcohol would tell a lot.

retired
05-14-2005, 06:22 PM
I have a strange question about this. I am sorry if you have already covered this. I am anemic and have a slight inner ear problem. A dozen or so times a year, my iron level drops to the point where I lose my balance often and drop things. I also get spacey and fumble with words I talk. On more than one occasion, I have fallen out of my truck. I am like a bumbling idiot.

I have often worried that if an officer were to see this, and then start asking me questions, and make me do the line walks, I might look suspiciously drunk. If I explained my situation, the officer would probably not believe me since you all hear lies all the time. Could I ask him/her to do a breath test to prove that I am not drunk? Should I get a note from my doctor and keep it in the car, in case?

A breaath test alone will not determine if someone is under the influence. remember, a person can be under the influence of something other than alchohol.

GangstadanDT
05-25-2005, 07:40 AM
a breathalyzer is performed,on the officer's observations.If he/she sees a smelly,dude,who cant talk right,red eyes,a breathalyzer is performed.breathalzers are only used when the cop sees a supiscouis dude behind the wheel.doing a breathalyzer oin a random person doesent seemaint it rightg,?

Dude
05-25-2005, 02:49 PM
breathalzers are only used when the cop sees a supiscouis dude behind the wheel.doing a breathalyzer oin a random person doesent seemaint it rightg,?

I think someone needs to do a breathalyzer on you.

CHPMarine
05-27-2005, 06:32 AM
A breaath test alone will not determine if someone is under the influence. remember, a person can be under the influence of something other than alchohol.


that is very true... but also, just because someone may be a bumbling idiot, does not mean they are under the influence. as an officer you must articulate through signs and symptoms which type of drug you believe the person is on. if you cat articulate it well enough, you cant make the arrest. it usually involves having recieved advanced drug training or be a drug recognition expert to be able to recognize the signs.
if you cant find anything, they are probably just under the influence of stupid.

retired
05-29-2005, 01:41 PM
that is very true... but also, just because someone may be a bumbling idiot, does not mean they are under the influence. as an officer you must articulate through signs and symptoms which type of drug you believe the person is on. if you cat articulate it well enough, you cant make the arrest. it usually involves having recieved advanced drug training or be a drug recognition expert to be able to recognize the signs.
if you cant find anything, they are probably just under the influence of stupid.


Thank you for the education. ;) :)

CHPMarine
06-01-2005, 04:03 AM
it was geared toward the other guy with the question... I know you are well aware. the original DRE program came out of LAPD before the CHP adopted it and spread it statewide, so I'm sure you got alot of that while you were still working...

USAcop
06-01-2005, 08:18 AM
I have a strange question about this. I am sorry if you have already covered this. I am anemic and have a slight inner ear problem. A dozen or so times a year, my iron level drops to the point where I lose my balance often and drop things. I also get spacey and fumble with words I talk. On more than one occasion, I have fallen out of my truck. I am like a bumbling idiot.

I have often worried that if an officer were to see this, and then start asking me questions, and make me do the line walks, I might look suspiciously drunk. If I explained my situation, the officer would probably not believe me since you all hear lies all the time. Could I ask him/her to do a breath test to prove that I am not drunk? Should I get a note from my doctor and keep it in the car, in case?

The first roadside maneuver is the Nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes). This is when your eyes follow the officer waves in front of your face. You will pass this if you haven't been drinking.

Nystagmus is by far the most useful. Sometimes people get real nervous and screw up the tests. Being nervous doesn't affect nystagmus.

I am not a big believer in cameras for proving DUI's at the lower levels (.08).
Too many people watch COPS on tv and they only seem to arrest way intoxicated people.

Sharp1
06-09-2005, 10:26 PM
I love that video.

Officer: Sir, roll over on your stomach
Suspect: I can't you f*cking hammered me.

ROFL :D

Ha ha!
Do you think he'll 'sober up' if he gets tazered enough???

Drunkcop
06-17-2005, 05:50 PM
I have a question regarding the process in each of your states in regards to the dui breath testing. I just finished my dui training in the academy and in Colorado the suspect has to be given the breath test with in 2 hours of the observation of driving. Now before they can give the test the suspect has to be watched uninterupted for 20 mins immediatley before the test so that he does dont try to mask or create a higher BrAC when given the test. If he burps or verps during the 20 mins, he gets a warning, and the time starts over, if he does it again its a refusal, with automatic arrest and charges being filed

Is that the norm across the board with other states too.

It is in Tennessee. There is no real policy if he does it the second time, but I sure won't wait around for another 20 minutes. Plus if I think he's working the system, it's a refusal and off he goes. There are too many who wait 19 minutes, burp, wait 19 minutes, burp, wait 19 minutes, complain of chest pains, etc etc. I try to get them to jail before they think of the chest pain ploy, because at that point we are required to call the paramedics.

jakflak
06-19-2005, 02:43 PM
You have to blow into the machine if arrested for DUI in Alaska. If not, you get another criminal charge.

CHPMarine
06-22-2005, 03:36 AM
we have to give 15 minutes. if they burp, or anything else and cant blow.... too bad, off to the hospital for blood. if they refuse the blood also, we hold them down and take the blood by force, plus they get an automatic 1 year license suspension, whether or not they get convicted for the DUI.

wayno1806
06-30-2005, 06:07 AM
In California 23152 (a) VC: Drive vehicle while under influence of alcohol and /or drugs. (Administrative penalties: DMV suspension, or restriction)

23152(b) vc: It is unlawful for any person who has .08 percent or more, by weight of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. (criminal)

visit my website: www.*****************************

wayno1806
07-10-2005, 07:03 AM
In California:

23152 (a) VC: driving impaired by alcohol (Misd.) more of a dmv administrative punishment.

23152(b) vc: .08% or more. Misd.

Yes, blood or breath is required. Under implied consent law... I forgot the VC section.

www.*****************************

CHPMarine
07-15-2005, 05:14 AM
23612 VC implied consent

wayno1806
07-16-2005, 04:44 AM
In California:

23152 a vc: driving while impaired - Misd. no breath or blood required
23152 b vc: .08% or higher - misd. yes to breath or blood, and urine

DMV: Admimistrative implied consent law requires all CA driver to submit to a breath or blood alcohol screening test. If you fail to submit to one or the other, you will lose your license automatically for up to 1 year. (special permit to drive to and from work is usually given, from the DMV hearing officer)

www.*****************************

CHPMarine
07-19-2005, 01:12 PM
actually... breath or blood is required for all dui. if they are arrested, they get the option of breath or blood. if they are driving under the influence of a drug, they would only get charged with 23152(a) VC, and would get to take a breath test if they so chose, but then we can make them take a blood or urine for suspected drug use. if it is a dangerous type drug like meth or cocaine, then the charge of 11550 of the Health and safety code also gets added. 11550 HS is being under the influence of a controlled substance. and marijuana does not count as a controlled substance in california. the only reason for the 23152(b) section is to show that they were above a certain limit. if over the B section, both charges are used, which means they were driving under the influence of alcohol... and... had a BAC over .08%.

this past weekend was "refusal weekend" it seemed like everyone refused to consent to a chemical test. one guy we had to put in leg restraints and a spit sock. i had protective gloves on all night saturday. the great thing about our state's dui laws is, we can hold them down and take the sample, and their lawyer cannot do anything to get them out of the suspension, because it isnt a matter of guilt in the offense or not, it only has to do with not submitting to the test.

mickmack111
07-27-2005, 04:29 AM
I love how CIVS think that if they don't blow, they won't get convicted. How do you think that looks in court. Usually, the innocent have no problem cooperating. Those damn attorneys!!

ConcernedCitize
08-01-2005, 01:47 PM
Interesting Discussion and I would like to add my two cents to the forum. I was recently a defendant in the state of Florida charged with DUI. I was arrested because a sheriffs deputy decided I did not perform FSE's properly. I was placed under arrest prior to any chemical tests. When I was able to perform a chemical test I had a BAC under .02. I spent the night in jail and the state took my case to court. Even though I took the states chemical test we were never permitted to use those results in court.

The state of Florida attempted to try me on the fact that "my normal faculties" were impaired. I was able to win the case because of inconsistencies in the police report and the officers testimony not because of the passed chemical test.

I can say from first hand experience that there needs to be no chemical or blood tests and even if there is a passing one involved you can still fight for the conviction.

Drunkcop
08-01-2005, 05:16 PM
On more than a few occasions I have gone ahead and made the arrest despite a lower than 0.08 BAC. As the defense attorneys are so fond of pointing out, the breath test is simply one piece of evidence in the 'totality of circumstance' which leads the officer to form an opinion as to the driver's impairment. The Tennessee State Troopers routinely arrest despite whatever the BAC shows. Under TN law, if you consent to the breath test there is nothing that says you have to take any additional tests. But if I form an opinion you also have other substances such as illegal narcotics or prescription medications in your blood in addition to alcohol which is in fact impairing your ability to drive, then a conviction is certainly possible.

CHP Marine, as a DUI officer, I can tell you I sure wish we had your state's laws.

ConcernedCitize
08-01-2005, 07:29 PM
Drunkcop,
This is such an interesting discussion and your response kind of surprised me. You mentioned that if you form the opinion that there may be other substances besides alchohol a conviction is likely to result. Are you giving the defendants a test to prove your theroy or are you attempting to go to court on your opinion?

I know in the state of Florida the arresting officer must prove your normal faculties are impaired if you test below the limit. This can be a very difficult task for the arresting officer because in all liklihood the officer never met the defendant until that time and how would he know what is "normal" by that person if they never met.

Drunkcop
08-02-2005, 11:54 AM
Drunkcop,
This is such an interesting discussion and your response kind of surprised me. You mentioned that if you form the opinion that there may be other substances besides alchohol a conviction is likely to result. Are you giving the defendants a test to prove your theroy or are you attempting to go to court on your opinion?

I know in the state of Florida the arresting officer must prove your normal faculties are impaired if you test below the limit. This can be a very difficult task for the arresting officer because in all liklihood the officer never met the defendant until that time and how would he know what is "normal" by that person if they never met.


No, I said a conviction is certainly POSSIBLE. If a defendant registers below the legal limit for BAC, BUT his performance on the Field Sobriety Tests and any other observations I make concerning his faculites indicate to me that he is impaired for some other reason such as narcotics, then the arrest is justified. In TN (and most other states I believe) even being under the influence of your own prescription drugs will get you a ride if you are impaired as a result of those drugs. The substance isn't the issue, it's your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Absent of the instrument test, you are correct in that I would have to have a substantial amount of other eveidence that you were impaired. But in my state an officer cannot ask for a breath test unless there is reasonable suspicion that the subject is under the influence. Remember, DUI arrests were made long before there were electronic instruments available. The breath instrument is a tool, but my well articulated opinion based on my observations, training and experience is a huge part of the case. Add that to FST evidence (on video) and sometimes the breath test becomes unnecessary.

As far as the 'normal behavior' of a subject is concerned, I've had this one tried on me before. It doesn't seem to work with our courts for a couple of reasons. Just as you say I have no basis for the subjects baseline normal behavior, the courts hold that I can use society's 'normal' behavior as a baseline since I do not know the defendant personally. If the defendant on the scene could not remember where he was going or where he was coming from, but can recall it perfectly in court, are we to believe he suddenly became smart or that he was temporarily stupid on the scene, possibly from some substance in his bloodstream ? Or that "You F***** cop" on the scene becomes 'Yes, officer' in court? :eek:

...and unless the defendant shows up in court smelling like beer, staggering, and with slurred speech, the judge and jury are going to conclude that his behavior in court is his 'normal', not what they see on the video and hear from my testimony.

Attorneys try to challenge officer's training as a matter of routine. It's the department's resposibility to make sure all those training records are in order. As a DUI officer, I have had specialized training and we have an officer who is the keeper of records and can produce our entire training record whenever asked.

Drunkcop
08-02-2005, 12:08 PM
statements like this really make me wonder whether or not some LEOs actually understand the reasons why our country has that little thing called civil rights....

i understand that LEOs have to put up with a lot.... drunks, druggies, stupid people, never exactly knowing when violence might happen in the context of their jobs....

fortunately, the right to refuse exists.

think about all the carry over into other parts of our lives if these rights were
not protected by our wonderful Constitution. and if we didn't have people who stand up for individual liberty.

and it's a sad thing to think that sometimes lawyers are the only thing that stand between innocent people being run over by a system that through the attitude of some of its SERVANTS lends itself to automatic presumption of guilt.


I would bet 111's comments are born out of frustration with the citizens and lawyers who try and work the system.

The other innocent people out there also have civil rights. It's also a sad thing when lawyers pervert the system and twist the Consitution to allow a guilty person to go free. Cops DO stand up for individual liberty, and if you threaten the liberty of others in this world you are going to have to deal with us.

Yes, you have the right to refuse and take the resulting charge. But, he's exactly right. If you have nothing to hide, why refuse? The fact is, most people who refuse do so because a lawyer somewhere told them to refuse, because it's easier to muddy the waters when the printout isn't sitting there as Exhibit A for the prosecution. Read my reply to Concerned Citizen. A DUI stop done correctly makes the breath test readout a lot less important. Refusal adds to your impression of guilt, and if I present adequate evidece other than that test you will be convicted.

ConcernedCitize
08-02-2005, 02:13 PM
Drunkcop, Are you running a chemical test on those you arrest that you suspect are under the influence of drugs???? I am sure you have been doing your job for a long time and have made hundreds if not thousands of DUI arrests. Was there ever a time you felt you were wrong after making the arrest and how did you handle it?

Again I find this to be a very interesting discussion

Drunkcop
08-02-2005, 06:00 PM
"
I still have a sour spot for traffic enforcement, though. I honestly think that LEOs should spend less time generating revenue and more time hunting the bad guys.



Our job is to protect the public. The DUI who wipes out a family on the way back from a picnic IS a bad guy. You're barkin' up the wrong tree, pal.

Me wonders about your attitude when you got stopped. Eh?

Drunkcop
08-02-2005, 06:31 PM
Drunkcop, Are you running a chemical test on those you arrest that you suspect are under the influence of drugs???? I am sure you have been doing your job for a long time and have made hundreds if not thousands of DUI arrests. Was there ever a time you felt you were wrong after making the arrest and how did you handle it?

Again I find this to be a very interesting discussion


Yes, if I suspect drugs and not alcohol, and it's MY choice. In TN, anyone who drives on the public roads has given thier implied consent to take ONE chemical test if the officer has reasonable suspicion they are DUI. We either give a breath, blood, or urine test. Breath and urine can be done at the scene, so blood is rarely done unless there is a serious accident. Blood can be screened for both drugs and alcohol. So, based on my observations I ask for whichever test I think is appropriate. If you refuse, there is an additional charge, and it does NOT get you out of the DUI charge (see the previous post). However, if you blow .000 and I later found drugs in the car, I can ask you for a urine sample but cannot charge you with refusal if you will not consent to the 2nd test. So, yes there is somewhat of a skill in choosing the right test, especially if the driver is under the influence of more than one substance. And I might add the field tests of urine are not admitted as evidence at trial. They are only probable cause. Positive field test samples are sent to the TBI for laboratory analysis. The lab results are admissible in court.

Now, as to your question, No I have never regretted an arrest on those grounds. What you may not realize is that we release many individuals after a negative chemical test and if they have done marginal on the FST's. There are many times I have had reasonable suspicion to go ahead with the chemical test, but the results of that test plus the marginal performance on the FSTs did not in my opinion add up to 'probable cause' to arrest. Our SOP says that if the officer feels there is not enough evidence to sustain the conviction and the driver does not appear to be a danger, then the individual can be released.

What I do feel bad about is those individuals who are just having a string of bad luck. Arresting the guy who is going through marital problems, just lost his job, AND gets busted for DUI isn't my idea of a good time. But that doesn't mean I let him go if he's impaired. I won't take him home, either. I am usually not talkative to my defendants, but guys like those I try to listen a bit and see if I can offer up any encouragement.

DUI's with kids in the car get NO slack from me, and the child endangerment charge is a given on my scenes. But one of the toughest things in the world is to arrest Daddy in front of a child, especially if there's no one to come and get him or her, and DHS has to do it. I give them stuffed toys. I've had grandparents, etc take the toys away from the child and throw them at me screaming. Try taking that home with you at night.

BTW I appreciate your intelligent discussion.

ConcernedCitize
08-03-2005, 04:09 PM
Drunkcop,
Thank you for your response. I am glad to know that you are able to do the right thing and release when someone is not impaired or are not any danger once the tests are completed.

If I had you as the deputy who pulled me over back in April 2005 I would have been sleeping in my own bed and not the Orange County Jail. I never felt so dis-respected in my life before that night. I had to receive verbal jabs from at least 20 other sherrifs deputies who would come through the DUI center and get in my face about drinking and driving like they were better than me. I was the one guy who was honestly telling the truth that I was not drinking or using drugs and my tests proved that yet I was still treated like one of those dinks who was. I am pretty certain this deputy had his mind made up when he pulled me over that he was going to arrest me and I have a pretty good hunch on why he did it as well.

The scariest part about the entire episode was when I found out that none of my chemical tests were permitted to be used as evidence. The prosecution used what DUI defense attorneys do all the time to get chemical tests thrown out, they complained about the maintenance of their own machines. The deputy did not have a camera installed in his patrol car so I felt really screwed.

What this guy was not counting on was arresting me. He thought "what is this 26 year old kid going to do?". I spent day and night researching my case and DUI case study law in an effort to clear my name. I had a great defense attorney who made the arresting officer look very bad, and had another officer say he doubted my impairment. The jury was great and at the end of the day justice was served all except for the fact that this deputy is still out on the streets doing to someone else what he did to me.

gotthblues
08-03-2005, 06:47 PM
[QUOTE=jackscrow]statements like this really make me wonder whether or not some LEOs actually understand the reasons why our country has that little thing called civil rights....

statements like this make me wonder if some people are so smart they are dumb, did he say that people should not have the right to refuse the state's test. NOOOOOO. he said that it is funny how some people think that IF THEY REFUSE THEY CAN NOT GET CONVICTED. jeeezzz, you talk about peoples spelling in here, what about your reading & comprehension skills.

gotthblues
08-03-2005, 07:01 PM
Since then I have become acquainted with many officers, and I have a deep respect for the guys who go into places like the projects at Windsor Terrace, here in Columbus, and try to keep the peace and get the bad guys.

I still have a sour spot for traffic enforcement, though. I honestly think that LEOs should spend less time generating revenue and more time hunting the bad guys.

than a cruiser patrolling the alleys at night in my parent's Lancaster neighborhood, keeping the young vandals who roam those alleys away.

And that's a shame.

spoken like a true rich ***** who thinks that only the poor are bad, talk about a civil rights violation, last time i checked the rich steal, kill, and yes drive drunk. Do bad people not drive cars? How else are they supposed to arrest people for trafficing drugs, driving drunk, transporting all the stolen property from the rich peoples houses. but then again, i guess you are right, officers write an *** load of tickets so that the city mayor can give himself a raise, and a new company car, but yet still, the officers dont get a pay raise from it, so yea, i see your point, dork! you are so narrow minded that you obviously think only the rich deserve protecting, and here is a new flash, just because you happen to know the names of some officers in your "hood", doesnt mean you know dick about an officers job. just because you can read some legal breif books doesnt make you educated at what officers are trying to accomplish when they work. i get the impression that you think that if it is not happening in your "hood", then it is not important, screw everyone else, yea i can see where you are concerned about the rights of others.

gotthblues
08-03-2005, 08:34 PM
busted, oop, ya got me,,dang, i knew you were smart ???????, read past post here and in speed traps, been trying to explain all along, but narrow mind hampers the ability to understand,

gotthblues
08-03-2005, 08:47 PM
i prefer csi and reno 911, its much gooder.. but i will sleep better knowing that you are pulling for me.

gotthblues
08-03-2005, 09:02 PM
how else will i gets me edukachuun. *by the way, i dont think that is a reality show, no one wins $* (im glad you're back, it was slow w/o ya)

Drunkcop
08-03-2005, 09:05 PM
I thought you were from Orange County California. I read some of your posts and it looks like you are from Florida. I work on a DUI team in Orange County California. I have had drivers perform terribly on FST's and blow low on breath tests. If I think they are under the combined influence I have them take a blood test or urine test. In Orange County Ca. if the driver takes a blood test and the result is under .08% the crime lab automatically tests for drugs.

On rare occasion I have seen other officers release drivers on what called an 849(b)(1). This basically states that you were arrested for the indicated charge but after further investigation you are being released and it will not appear on your criminal record.


Here in Tennessee, we have budget cuts. If we have a sample which we want tested for both alcohol and drugs we have to have a supervisor's approval because the state charges more for combined analysis.

We don't have a number for your 849, we just call it 'released without charge'

Citizen, you apparently had a bad experience. We're not all perfect. Just me and my partner. :D

gotthblues
08-03-2005, 09:09 PM
drunkcop, can you not request both breath and blood, ie low blow on toxilyzer but sfst was really poor, so request blood. and do you guys have a D.R.E.

gotthblues
08-03-2005, 09:14 PM
jackscrow, before we both get banished, you got under my skin being narrow minded, my bad, i still think you are narrow minded, your original post was that if an officer is working traffic, he is only after money, you could not be more wrong, i dont know how many people here have tried to explain that to you, but hey its your opinion (yes you have civil rights), so enjoy it! see ya bubba........

ConcernedCitize
08-04-2005, 11:06 AM
Drunkcop and DUI Eliminator,
I have learned even more from your responses but it makes me question the law here in Florida even more.

Yes to answer your question I am in Orange County Florida and you may have heard that this department already has a major credibility issue. It is a shame because I would like to think that most of the deputies out there are doing what is necessary for their job. Every week the sheriff is under investigation for something. The sheriffs poor ethics combined with Sgt's and Lt's getting arrested for evidence tampering does not help the issue.

AtlCop
08-04-2005, 11:16 AM
It just seems to me that I'm much more likely to see a motorcyle cop with radar hiding behind the Dairy Queen, than a cruiser patrolling the alleys at night in my parent's Lancaster neighborhood, keeping the young vandals who roam those alleys away.

And that's a shame.

The serial killer Son of Sam was caught as a result of a traffic ticket. Many major felons are caught as a result of traffic enforcement.

mobrien316
08-04-2005, 11:24 AM
Does anyone seriously think that the world would be a better place if police were not out enforcing motor vehicle statutes?

Drunkcop
08-04-2005, 02:07 PM
drunkcop, can you not request both breath and blood, ie low blow on toxilyzer but sfst was really poor, so request blood. and do you guys have a D.R.E.

We can request, but once the def has given consent for one test he is not requried to give consent for another. But our FSTs are always on video. There have been many convictions despite a low instrument reading.

The way around that is to request blood every time, but there is a delay in the results and it costs more $$. We typically only do blood in the case of an accident. Blood still falls under the implied consent law, and they can refuse except in the case of serious injury or fatalities. Then we must get a subpoena.

Drunkcop
08-04-2005, 02:10 PM
The serial killer Son of Sam was caught as a result of a traffic ticket. Many major felons are caught as a result of traffic enforcement.

Excellent point. Also the fact that all DUI arrests start with a traffic stop.

gotthblues
08-04-2005, 04:47 PM
We can request, but once the def has given consent for one test he is not requried to give consent for another. But our FSTs are always on video. There have been many convictions despite a low instrument reading.

The way around that is to request blood every time, but there is a delay in the results and it costs more $$. We typically only do blood in the case of an accident. Blood still falls under the implied consent law, and they can refuse except in the case of serious injury or fatalities. Then we must get a subpoena.
dang, that sucks, we could do breath then blood, they gave implied consent to both. i had gotten several that way, have the odor, poor sfst, only blow a 3 or 4, doesnt make sense for level of impairment, i ask for blood, comes back with zanax, valium, so on. if they give breath, but we want blood, and they refuse, its still a refusal. i love the camera, several at my old dept. hated it, but i loved it, especially on a dui arrest.

Drunkcop
08-04-2005, 10:38 PM
It's been tough and slow to get DUI laws passed in TN. We've only had .08 for a couple of years. The state made a lousy case on HGN a few years ago, and it's inadmissable in court. There are a couple of distilleries in middle TN, and they have a good Nashville lobby as well.

But we do OK. The camera is our friend. :D

The 6 stages of a DUI:

Denial
Slight admission (OK, two beers)
Anger
Let's Make a Deal
Full admission
Remorse (usually happens in the jail intake driveway)

AtlCop
08-04-2005, 11:01 PM
It's been tough and slow to get DUI laws passed in TN. We've only had .08 for a couple of years. The state made a lousy case on HGN a few years ago, and it's inadmissable in court.


This illustrates the importance of an officer that can testify well in court. It only takes one officer's testimony to screw something up for everyone.

This is why I say intelligence is one of the most important attributes in a good officer.

gotthblues
08-04-2005, 11:06 PM
It's been tough and slow to get DUI laws passed in TN. We've only had .08 for a couple of years. The state made a lousy case on HGN a few years ago, and it's inadmissable in court. There are a couple of distilleries in middle TN, and they have a good Nashville lobby as well.

But we do OK. The camera is our friend. :D

The 6 stages of a DUI:

Denial
Slight admission (OK, two beers)
Anger
Let's Make a Deal
Full admission
Remorse (usually happens in the jail intake driveway)
did i read that right, they dont recognize HGN,,,what is their arguement for that. :confused:

gotthblues
08-04-2005, 11:06 PM
This illustrates the importance of an officer that can testify well in court. It only takes one officer's testimony to screw something up for everyone.

This is why I say intelligence is one of the most important attributes in a good officer.
absolutly, seen many a concrete cases lost on the stand.

CHPMarine
08-05-2005, 04:59 AM
[QUOTE=Drunkcop]It's been tough and slow to get DUI laws passed in TN. We've only had .08 for a couple of years. The state made a lousy case on HGN a few years ago, and it's inadmissable in court. There are a couple of distilleries in middle TN, and they have a good Nashville lobby as well.


Last i checked, HGN is a scientifically validated test! if you have4 of 6 clues, there s a 77% chance they are over a .10%.

as far as Jackscrows comments about traffic enforcement, i dont know of a more dangerous thing on the roads than DUI. i think he needs to go out on the road and experience the aftermath of a "deuce crash" (DUI crash). you go hold someone's hand as they are dying on the side of the road because of some lousy drunk and tell me that DUI enforcement is not that important.
as for the A**holes who want to refuse everything, you are just a pain in the ***. it is not about rights, it is because you are an a**hole and got caught in the wrong.
in CA you can refuse all day long, but me and my 6'3" 235 lbs a** will sit on you and force draw a blood sample. all i need is an odor and a good driving pattern. refuse all the tests if you want. I am not going to let you go and take the chance that you kill my or someone elses family.
I am all for protecting civil rights, but is it not everyone's right to live a happy, safe life? sometimes you have to take away someone's freedom to protect everyone elses.
The way i look at it, the FST's are your way to show me that you are not impaired. it is your way to not go to jail. prove to me you are not impaird and i will let you go.
I never keep low blows unless i see specific drug signs, then i will get a blood or urine. but if they end up being a low blowon alcohol only.... i let them go. I dont need to take people to jail that bad. there are so many others to be found. why waste time on a low blow.
as for DRE's, we have those, but an arrest must be made first on spcific observations. our DRE's go through a 12 step process in their evals. I am ADT certified, Advanced drug training, we do an 8 step process, it is the equivalent to other departments who utilize the 8 step process. but because we do have DRE's with much more training, if i make an arrest, a DRE will evaluate them also. if no DRE available, i make the arrest and use my own obs.

there is a DUI defense attorney out here, major idiot, tells everyone to refuse everything. THAT IS A SURE WAY TO GO TO JAIL! how embarrassing to be arrested, you have the chance to prove your sobriety and dont take it?

Caspertoo
08-05-2005, 06:04 AM
CHP has it right, my dept has the highest DUI arrest record for the state, even though there are departments with 3 or 4 times the patrol staffing.

Refuse all you want, I don't even ask for a FST without a pattern of driving that will give me PC, and those that do refuse, I tack on whatever other infractions I can find, and I'm pretty darn good at that too. Last guy that refused after getting into an accident and causing a old lady to have to go to a local ER, well we forcibly drew his blood, gave him about $1,700 worth of infractions, arrested him for DUII, and talked to the judge personally about him because this was his 3rd time in six months. The judge took away his probation and sentenced him to 3 consecutive 363 day sentences to make sure he stayed at OUR county jail, and the kicker for it all....he's a defense attorney that used to take on DUII cases.

squad51
08-05-2005, 06:09 AM
actually I believe that all the validated tests are for .08.....

Drunkcop
08-05-2005, 11:49 AM
did i read that right, they dont recognize HGN,,,what is their arguement for that. :confused:

Here you go:


"HGN is a scientific test. To be admissible at trial, such evidence must satisfy the requirements of TN Rules of evidence 702 and 703. State provided an inadequate amount of evidence to allow the court to conclude that HGN evidence meets this standard."

State v. Murphy (1997)

Rule 702. Testimony by experts.

gotthblues
08-05-2005, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE=Drunkcop]Here you go:


"HGN is a scientific test. To be admissible at trial, such evidence must satisfy the requirements of TN Rules of evidence 702 and 703. State provided an inadequate amount of evidence to allow the court to conclude that HGN evidence meets this standard."

State v. Murphy (1997)

Rule 702. Testimony by experts.

gotthblues
08-05-2005, 04:16 PM
[QUOTE=CHPMarinethere is a DUI defense attorney out here, major idiot, tells everyone to refuse everything. THAT IS A SURE WAY TO GO TO JAIL! how embarrassing to be arrested, you have the chance to prove your sobriety and dont take it?[/QUOTE]
we had a lawyer who was teaching classes at the local college tell his students that if they were not the driver they didnt have to get out of the car if they didnt want, period. weeeellll, he was wrong, and a few arrest, stitches, and what not later (for the students), he wasnt teaching anymore :D

ConcernedCitize
08-08-2005, 06:54 PM
If I may comment again on this thread I would like to throw my two cents in. I see there is discussion about refusal of tests and how there are some here that have the assumption that a refusal means you have something to hide. There may be some out there that have something to hide but not all. Some may just be protecting their rights.

I know from my experience with the Orange County Sherriffs Office in Florida if faced with a situation simalar to April 2005 I would flat out refuse all FSE's if asked to perform them regardless of the situation. I would only submit to chemical tests, and the only questions I would answer is name, address and Date of birth. I would do this not because I have something to hide but to protect my rights. In the state of Florida the law states a driver may refuse to do FSE's but they can not refuse a chemical test. I don't drink and drive so therefore I would have no issues with a chemical test. I do however have an issue playing kids games on the side of the road at 3am.

In some cases it makes no sense for the driver to perform those tests. In Orange County for example the deputy who arrested me did not have any video camera in his car. In hindsight I look back and think why would anyone do excercises that are so subjective that there is no way to independantly verify what happned? There were things that he wrote in his police report that were false but since there was no camera to show what happened it was his word against mine.

My advice would be if you have not been drinking or doing other toxins before you got behind the wheel refuse all FSE's and only submit to a chemical test. A DUI is a big expensive deal and the FSE's could cause you to be arrested for no reason. It is essential to cooperate and be polite but it is also essential to only do what the law requires you to do in order to protect your rights.

One last note on this: Some of you have made the automatic assumption that a refusal indicates guilt and that you are hiding things. If you are a police officer and feel that way you need to turn in your badge and find a new job. I don't mean to come off the wrong way but if you can't respect the rights of the citizens you serve and treat them fairly you are no better than the drug dealer down the street.

gotthblues
08-08-2005, 07:28 PM
so if a driver has an odor of an alcoholic beverage on his/her breath, then they automatically go to jail and run through the process,,,and that is more fair than feild sobriety test how??????? because without the field test the officer has very little to go on, other than an odor. im sorry but that makes no sense. thats like saying, *officer* "well, i think there is dope in the car, so im gonna impound it, take it apart with the jaws of life and look." 2hrs later "well ****, sorry sir, but my assumption was wrong, there is not any dope in the car, here is your car parts back, drive carefully" ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

ConcernedCitize
08-08-2005, 08:32 PM
It makes a lot of sense. Take my individual situation for example. I was pulled over for an "estimated 70 mph in a 55 zone" When I was pulled over it was just before 1am. The officer asked me to step out of my car with hands in the air and stand behind it. I complied and he then approached me. We had a discussion and he asked if I had been drinking or using drugs to which I stated "no" He then asked me to perform the FSE's. I complied because I had nothing to hide. He decided I did not perform the tests to his liking and placed the cuffs on me. Once I was placed under arrest and transported to the DUI center I asked the officer that once I prove I have nothing in my system if I would be free to go and he stated no you are under arrest and being charged with DUI. My BAC level was at .008 (not .08 but .008) and my urine test contained nothing.

It is likely that if I did not take the FSE tests I still would have ended up in jail that evening. The bright side would have been my charges would have been dropped a lot earlier as opposed to later like they were. This would have saved me thousands in attorneys fees plus it would have gotten the ordeal off my mind a lot sooner. It is also a win win situation for everyone involved. I excercise my right under the law to not take the FSE's but at the same time the deputy is able to do his investigation because I am consenting to the chemical tests as required by law. Why should I perform a test for a police officer if there is no video to prove what actually happened? Just because he has a badge and a uniform does not make him a trustworthy individual. In that case it becomes my word against his and in most cases PO-PO's usually win out.

It is important to be able to excercise your rights to the extent that you provide nothing that can be used against you (In my case even though I had nothing in my system my FSE's were used against me). At the same time you also want to cooperate and abide by the law so the deputy/officer may continue their investigation.

ConcernedCitize
08-08-2005, 08:42 PM
so if a driver has an odor of an alcoholic beverage on his/her breath, then they automatically go to jail and run through the process,,,and that is more fair than feild sobriety test how??????? because without the field test the officer has very little to go on, other than an odor. im sorry but that makes no sense. thats like saying, *officer* "well, i think there is dope in the car, so im gonna impound it, take it apart with the jaws of life and look." 2hrs later "well ****, sorry sir, but my assumption was wrong, there is not any dope in the car, here is your car parts back, drive carefully" ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????


Goth,
In your reference to the car being impounded and taken apart piece by piece for drugs you need to have good probable cause. A refusal on FSE's is not enough to establish that cause.

You say it best that without the FSE's the officer has very little to go on. That is exactly the reason to refuse the FSE's. When you are pulled over that Police Officer is playing for the other team and you can't let him beat you. A DUI is awfully hard to prove with negative chemical tests and no FSE results.

gotthblues
08-08-2005, 08:49 PM
well i was not there, so i can not be totally fair,,i can say that if an officer is new to the sobriety tests,,then he can be wrong. but that was my point entirely, if you have been drinking and you dont give the officer a chance to do sobriety tests, then he has no option but to arrest,,then he has to write his report the best that he can off what you offered. i understand your point about rights,,but i dont know how to say this without it sounding bad, in dui stops its not about rights what an officer is doing, they are trying to take a drunk off the street. as far as the breath intoxilyzer registering .008, ive not seen one go that low,,blood test will show in the .008 range, but not a machine. i cant answer for florida, but things are done differently here in oklahoma. after i had become certified to administer the sfst and breath intox. there was a handful that i let go because i was wrong, but as a gained more experience, i was very acurate. dont know if you fell in that time frame for that officer, but,,,i dont know i was not there.

ConcernedCitize
08-08-2005, 09:07 PM
Goth,
He was a veteran officer who states he made "thousands" of arrests during his tenure. I have a very good hunch on why he made the arrest but that is secondary at this time.

Even for that person that had a few drinks but is still under the limit the right to refuse FSE's is very critical. I heard the line all the time that "Chemical tests are just one tool used in a DUI investigation to gain conviction, not the only tool" Well if you have a passing chemical test and have not performed FSE's you just made the job of convicting you a lot harder especially if there is not bad "driving pattern". Now lets say I blow a .05 and my FSE's are questionable. There is a good chance I could be convicted because I gave you more to go on.

gotthblues
08-08-2005, 09:31 PM
i dont know bout florida, but here, when you get your license you sign a paper that you agree to a chem. test if an officer request one. so you have rights but you dont, if you refuse, then civil wise, you are guilty no ifs or buts and you lose your dl. you still have a trial, but its civil & the officer only has to prove that he made a valid stop, thats it. and yes you are right, there are many "tools" that are used,, to me, the report written is the most important, prob 6 out of 10 dui's i got refused but i still had a high conviction rate. but even without the chem test and people that try and play games with the sob. tests, and dont really do them, i still had other observations to go off of for testimony, you are right, i used the sfst, chem test, and others to prove my case,,but if you are not intoxicated, i sent you on your way,,i know it sounds offensive, but if your not intoxicated, why not do the sfst..you do them you pass, you go home. i could not tell you how many times the drunk says, i swear i only had 2 beers,,yet they blow a .14,,they later admit,,yea i had bout 6 pk or so...maybe the wording is wrong, but with me, when i was on the street, if you werent drunk, you went home. i guess i just dealt with so many people that refuse to accept that they were in the wrong and that it is infact their fault, that my perceptions are skeuwed. maybe thats were we get the "if you aint guilty, what are you hiding."

ConcernedCitize
08-09-2005, 11:29 AM
Goth, In Florida when I was placed under arrest it was after I completed the FSE's and prior to any chemical tests. I asked the deputy prior to taking the tests that once I prove that I have nothing if I am free to go. He stated "no that he could not un-arrest me"

The state did file charges that never were able to stick. If this guy was telling the truth about not being able to un-arrest me I just donlt know. If anyone here from Florida cares to chime in on this I am interested.


For the traffic offender though in Orange County the only two people who know what occurs at the traffic stop are the deputy and the defendent since there are no cameras. If there is not a camera and you have nothing to hide you need to be very careful if it gets to a point where FSE's are asked to be performed. If there was a camera in the vehicle then maybe I would do the FSE's but without one an I likely will not perform. The chemical tests with implied consent was the only thing I was permitted to do on video.

A DUI can mess someone up for life especially if the cop is a bad cop or just made a mistake. You need to protect yourself because you have no idea how trustworthy or skilled the person with the badge is.

jerrymaccauley
08-09-2005, 12:05 PM
I'm also a Florida officer and can tell you that you would not be unarrested just because of a negative test. You were arrested for your driving impairment and the test is merely to bolster the officers observations. Trust me when I say that defense attorneys have long accused the police of fishing for drunks by arresting and depending on the bac results to make their case. We must prove at the time of the arrest, not the end of the test, your impairment. Roadside sobreity tests are used to confirm what the officer already suspects. As you know, the intoxilizer or blood test is used to establish the blood alcohol level as a seperate offense.

ConcernedCitize
08-09-2005, 12:58 PM
Jerry,

I have a major problem with the law here in Florida. I am sure most of the people who are arrested for DUI are truly DUI. Your answer goes to show that if a police officer makes a mistake he is unable to do the right thing and correct it.

It's sad to say but I think defense attorneys are right that the police here can fish for drunk drivers. With no cameras in the cars here in Orange County any deputy can say "I think you are drunk" and arrest you. You could be stone cold sober like I was and if you are not the most agile person in the world and fail the tests you could be arrested for DUI.

That is why if I ever run into a simalar situation in Florida and there is no running camera in the car I will refuse the FSE's and be taken to jail for the chemical test and take my chances from there. It may be more inconvienient in the short term but if I give you nothing to go on other than a negative chemical test the state will have a very tough time making the charges stick.

mobrien316
08-09-2005, 01:14 PM
That is why if I ever run into a simalar situation in Florida and there is no running camera in the car I will refuse the FSE's and be taken to jail for the chemical test and take my chances from there. It may be more inconvienient in the short term but if I give you nothing to go on other than a negative chemical test the state will have a very tough time making the charges stick.
Just for information

ConcernedCitize
08-09-2005, 01:34 PM
The problem here again in Orange County is that there are no cameras in the car. I have no problem doing an FSE but I want some verifiable proof of what occured so that this is not my word against his.

It is interesting how you mention the fumbling of the wallet. I have not carried a wallet on me in six years so when I read my police report and discovered the deputy wrote that as on of his observations I was upset because it was a blatant lie. Fortunatley for me the Orange County Jail provides you with a property intake sheet that lists every single thing you have on you. There was no mention of any wallet on my intake form which proves I did not have one and this came out in court. That really helped save me. The deputy also stated a few other items that did not happen in his report but I had no documentation since there was not a camera.

Without a camera the only people who truly know what occurs on the roadside stop are the deputy and the driver. There will likely be two different stories that arise out of the stop. If you don't have a camera in your car I would rather go to the DUI center and perform chemical tests in front of that video so there is no mistaking my condition.

gotthblues
08-09-2005, 04:26 PM
MOBRIEN,,you put it better than i did,,but that s what i was talking about earlier,,pre exit clues and what not.....well put.

gotthblues
08-09-2005, 04:31 PM
CONCERN CITIZ --- well in oklahoma if the officer messes up,,then the driver is released and their car is released from the wrecker without cost,,,also my form dept. if the camera was not working, then the car was not moving,
for what it is worth,,you have to remember that an officer arrest a lot of people, maybe 1 or 2 out of 10 takes responsiblity,,,so when an officer hears someone talking about being arrested and say that they are innocent and the officer was wrong/ out of line, whatever,,they have to take it with a grain of salt,,no offense :) , but if he put down that you fumbled your wallet, and you didnt have one on the book in sheet,,then something does sound fishy,,no offense, but also rememer that we are only getting one side of the story,,,
on a side note, IF that is how it is done down there,,,sounds like you need to move :D (just pokin at ya)

ConcernedCitize
08-09-2005, 05:20 PM
I don't really need you to believe me because a jury already did. No offense is taken.


I think we got to this point of the discussion because I took offense to a persons post that said if you have nothing to hide why would you refuse tests and how that indicates guilt. My point is that you may refuse to take certain FSE's under the law and that can protect your rights.

The ordinary citizen needs to realize if there is not a camera in that car it may not be worth taking the tests.

jerrymaccauley
08-09-2005, 05:28 PM
[QUOTE=ConcernedCitize]Jerry,

I have a major problem with the law here in Florida. I am sure most of the people who are arrested for DUI are truly DUI. Your answer goes to show that if a police officer makes a mistake he is unable to do the right thing and correct it.

Actually, most decent officers might see you weaving through traffic, making wide turns, straddling the lines or whatever and stop you, suspecting impairment. If after investigating further and they no longer have a reason to suspect alcohol or drugs, they may cite you for careless or various other infractions, not DUI. For those charges he would not be wrong if you had been driving like that. Unless you are a DUI enforcement car, most officers don't want to go through the hours and hours of paperwork, processing and court preperation if they don't have to.

gotthblues
08-09-2005, 05:31 PM
I don't really need you to believe me because a jury already did. No offense is taken.


I think we got to this point of the discussion because I took offense to a persons post that said if you have nothing to hide why would you refuse tests and how that indicates guilt. My point is that you may refuse to take certain FSE's under the law and that can protect your rights.

The ordinary citizen needs to realize if there is not a camera in that car it may not be worth taking the tests.
very true,,but as far as cameras go,,it to is only a tool,,if the officer can not testify well, then he has nothing, even if on camera he has to be able to explain what is going on..and i do understand that there are poor excuses for officers out there, as in any job, but also just remember that a compentant officer has to have field test or he has no choice,,i cant speak for all, but if i didnt see what i needed to see (they passed) i let them go,, "refusal = guilt",well also understand that an officer thinks very differently from the public, the poster may have meant just that, but i am not speaking for him. as for me, when i ask for consent to search, and it was given i found nothing, when someone dances around or refuses and then the dog gets there, i find something. when most officers say something like that they are speaking from past stops, i dont think it was meant to be offensive, but i could be wrong. but as for me, i never had anyone refuse a field sobreity test.

ConcernedCitize
08-09-2005, 05:44 PM
[QUOTE=ConcernedCitize]Jerry,

I have a major problem with the law here in Florida. I am sure most of the people who are arrested for DUI are truly DUI. Your answer goes to show that if a police officer makes a mistake he is unable to do the right thing and correct it.

Actually, most decent officers might see you weaving through traffic, making wide turns, straddling the lines or whatever and stop you, suspecting impairment. If after investigating further and they no longer have a reason to suspect alcohol or drugs, they may cite you for careless or various other infractions, not DUI. For those charges he would not be wrong if you had been driving like that. Unless you are a DUI enforcement car, most officers don't want to go through the hours and hours of paperwork, processing and court preperation if they don't have to.


I will say the officer had the right to stop me that evening. I don't know how fast I was going but he did estimate 65 -70 in a 55 zone. That is probably accurate as it was 1am on the interstate.

I would have pled guilty to the speeding ticket if he wrote it and been on my way but he chose to write me up for DUI. No other citations were given to me other than DUI so I had no choice but to fight it.

As far as an officer not wanting to do the paperwork I think that is false especially in Orange County Florida. The deputies are fighting for more money but the sheriff can't run the budget properly and they are always denied. My hunch on why I received the DUI is because it is very time consuming and my deputy was after some easy overtime pay. I feel that way because he was bragging to other officers on how he was about to go home and then reeled me in.

jerrymaccauley
08-09-2005, 05:47 PM
Oh, Orange County, now I understand. Nevermind......They're just ****ed because of the Mickey Mouse/ Minnie Mouse divorce thing.

gotthblues
08-09-2005, 05:58 PM
Oh, Orange County, now I understand. Nevermind......They're just ****ed because of the Mickey Mouse/ Minnie Mouse divorce thing.
ahahah funny funny :D

Drunkcop
08-10-2005, 06:19 PM
Concerned:

A couple of things in your last few posts I'd like to clarify. You stated something in one of your posts about 'the legal limit'. There's a fallacy most people don't realize about that term. The DUI charge means you were impaired to the point where you were a danger to yourself and others in the operation of a motor vehicle. It really doesn't matter how much alcohol or drugs you have in you...it's IF you were imparied. The 0.08 limit is just a number arrived at by research that shows everyone regardless of variables such as body mass, experience, etc. is impaired at .08. Therefore, a reading of .08 or higher results in a legal presumption the driver was impaired. Some states have minimum numbers which indicate a presumtion the driver was not impaired (by alcohol), but there is always a large range of BAC numbers which create NO PRESUMPTION at all. Many people get hung up on the 'all important BAC number' but it's simply another piece of evidence.

You also made a statement about 'subjective' FST's. There are specific actions or inactions on the standardized FST's officers are trained to look for. There are a minumum number of these 'clues' we must observe before the test is considered 'failed'. So there is a quantifiable result for FST's and in fact there are established probabilities on each FST that a 'failed' test is indicative of a .08 or higher BAC. There was a study done recently (in Florida, in fact) which shows officers using SFT's can correctly identify individuals with .08 BAC and higher 90% of the time.

It does sound like you got a bum rap. I'm not disputing that. Any officer can corrupt the process, but you shouldn't blame the process. I think it is inherently fair. There are always options and rights available to the citizen, but there are consequences as well.

ConcernedCitize
08-12-2005, 01:42 PM
Drunkcop,
Yes I understand there is no true "legal limit" and the .08 is just a "per se" mark. However there is something that can be said when the chemical tests turn up nothing and you are trying to convict someone of DUI like can happen in Florida. There is no reason to do that. Take the results of your study that shows officers can correctly identify those over .08 90% of the time while doing FST's. What happens to the other 10%???? Sure some may be in that .05 range but I am sure there are some that have nothing. Is it fair to them to be charged with DUI because they don't complete the field tests properly?????

Tennsix
08-12-2005, 02:36 PM
The sobriety tests are only a piece of the puzzle. If a person fails the tests but passes the chemical test, they are not arrested. Some sober people have trouble with sobriety tests.

Conversely, a person can pass the sobriety but fail the chemical test. In that case, they are arrested. Some sobriety tests can be practiced (and people do practice them). If they pass and I have other cause to think they have been drinking, I still offer a chemical test.

Moreover, drugs will not show up on a breath test. If we suspect drugs we go for a blood or urine test.

ConcernedCitize
08-12-2005, 03:58 PM
The sobriety tests are only a piece of the puzzle. If a person fails the tests but passes the chemical test, they are not arrested. Some sober people have trouble with sobriety tests.

Conversely, a person can pass the sobriety but fail the chemical test. In that case, they are arrested. Some sobriety tests can be practiced (and people do practice them). If they pass and I have other cause to think they have been drinking, I still offer a chemical test.

Moreover, drugs will not show up on a breath test. If we suspect drugs we go for a blood or urine test.


Tennsix,
The problem is in Florida you can have a negative chemical test and be arrested for DUI. The decison to arrest is made after the FSE's and before the chemical test. The law in Florida does not allow the officer to un-arrest a subject that proves he has nothing in his system.

Tennsix
08-12-2005, 04:07 PM
Oh... I see...

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 04:21 PM
Tennsix,
The problem is in Florida you can have a negative chemical test and be arrested for DUI. The decison to arrest is made after the FSE's and before the chemical test. The law in Florida does not allow the officer to un-arrest a subject that proves he has nothing in his system.
that is still just messed up,,if the test shows goose eggs and all i suspect is alcohol,,they go home,, now, if i have reason to suspect narcotics, they get blood after breath, (if i find CDS on them)

ConcernedCitize
08-12-2005, 04:55 PM
That is why in Florida before that driver decides to exit his vehicle and perform FSE's he needs to know what he is getting into. That driver if he has not had a drink or drugs should make certain there is a video camera in the car to capture every detail that occurs.

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 05:06 PM
i just cant believe that if the officer only suspects alcohol and the breath test shows goose eggs, they dont cut them loose,, if the drivers field test showed bad impairment and breath test was gooses, i can understand keeping them, and getting blood, thats what i did, but that s only when the level of impairment didnt match the breath test. i cant think of one time that i had a low blow that submitted to blood and didnt have narcotics in them.
one officer in here from tennessee,i think, said that if they request the driver to submit to a breath test, they cant also ask for blood too, is it that way in florida?

Tennsix
08-12-2005, 05:08 PM
That is why in Florida before that driver decides to exit his vehicle and perform FSE's he needs to know what he is getting into. That driver if he has not had a drink or drugs should make certain there is a video camera in the car to capture every detail that occurs.
The problem with that is all drivers give implied consent for testing when the get behind that wheel. Another problem is video taping is not required by law and the driver has not right to demand that.

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 05:24 PM
The problem with that is all drivers give implied consent for testing when the get behind that wheel. Another problem is video taping is not required by law and the driver has not right to demand that.
i think he is talking about sfst's, not the states test. he is saying dont do the sfst,

Tennsix
08-12-2005, 05:26 PM
People refuse sfst's all the time and they still get charged. He should know that

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 05:28 PM
People refuse sfst's all the time and they still get charged. He should know that
i know,,i never really had anyone flat out refuse the sfst's, i had some try to play with them,,but yea,,they still go.

Tennsix
08-12-2005, 05:34 PM
Our prosecutor wants us to do sfst's twice. one the scene at on station, just before the chemical test. They always do better the second time. It hurts sometimes hurts our case.

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 05:36 PM
Our prosecutor wants us to do sfst's twice. one the scene at on station, just before the chemical test. They always do better the second time. It hurts sometimes hurts our case.
all that means is that their impairment is coming down,,the da should know that.

Tennsix
08-12-2005, 05:41 PM
all that means is that their impairment is coming down,,the da should know that.
Don't get me started....

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 05:52 PM
Don't get me started....
what,,, he should know that,, it doesnt mean they werent drunk earlier.

Tennsix
08-12-2005, 05:54 PM
Hell, he used to be a cop.

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 06:07 PM
Hell, he used to be a cop.
really,,, and i assume he is not doing you guys justice.

gotthblues
08-12-2005, 06:18 PM
do what we did,,,our fop lodge publicly supported a new candidate and he won be a freegin landslide. and he took care of us.

Drunkcop
08-13-2005, 10:48 PM
Tennsix,
The problem is in Florida you can have a negative chemical test and be arrested for DUI. The decison to arrest is made after the FSE's and before the chemical test. The law in Florida does not allow the officer to un-arrest a subject that proves he has nothing in his system.

You can have a negative chemical test anywhere I know of and still be arrested from DUI. As I posted before, it's the impairment part that counts. Some stuff doesn't show up in the preliminary screening we do on the scene. Remember, I said in TN the field urine tests are only probable cause. The results from the TBI lab are the evidence.

If the officer thinks you are impaired, for whatever resaon, then you can be arrested regardless of the test results. However, the officer better make a darn good case or have good video to go along with that.

ConcernedCitize
08-15-2005, 01:09 PM
You can have a negative chemical test anywhere I know of and still be arrested from DUI. As I posted before, it's the impairment part that counts. Some stuff doesn't show up in the preliminary screening we do on the scene. Remember, I said in TN the field urine tests are only probable cause. The results from the TBI lab are the evidence.

If the officer thinks you are impaired, for whatever resaon, then you can be arrested regardless of the test results. However, the officer better make a darn good case or have good video to go along with that.


Drunkcop,
How can you prosecute the guy that has the negative chemical test but shows "impairment" through other means? If you are going to make the arrest for DUI you better be able to back it up. If you suspect drugs that urine test better show drugs. If you suspect alchohol that BAC test better show some in the suspects system. Without that I can't see how you could posibly ever get a conviction.

Tennsix
08-15-2005, 01:47 PM
A suspect can refused to take any test but if they exhibit impairment, (s)he will be arrested. Some other means to determine impairment (without a chemical test) are video tape, officer's observations, and witness statements.

The video tape is usually enough to nail the coffin shut. That will show poor dexterity, belligerence, drivng behavior, slurred speech, etc. People are lawfully convicted without chemical tests.

Simply refusing to take a test doesnt getyou off the hook. Even if you do skate on a DWI, it can cost you $10,000 (in my area) in legal fees. Either way, the suspect pays for their indiscretion.

In the end, it is not our (police) concern whether the suspect is convicted. Our goal is to get impaired drivers of the street and when they go to jail, that is accomplished.

In Indiana, a motorist involved in a crash that results in serious injury or death may not refuse a chemical test.

CHPMarine
08-19-2005, 12:00 PM
a good officer who suspects only alcohol can tell if the person is good to take to jail without a PAS (preliminary alcohol screening test) just by looking at their eyes. same with drugs. if you dont know much about drugs, you dont really have any business arresting somene just because they are a bit off balance. maybe they are just a goofy person, naturally off balance.
as with a negative chemical test, you can be impaired by prescription drugs and be arrested, and if the officer does not specify which prescription drugs to test for, most labs wont pick them up in the tox screen.

the eyes never lie, i have made arrests where the person refused all tests, but let me look at their eyes. you can always tell. also with the pulse. if they are fit looking, and their pulse is greater than 60-90 bpm, and you have given them time to relax, there is something going on.
as for mr. concerned citizen, it is quite unfortunate that you went to jail and had such a low blood alcohol level. sure you hadnt taken any presciption drugs? caffeine? too much insulin? many legal substances not normally associated with DUI can still get you arrested, and they may not show up on a typical tox screen.
as for refusal=guilt.... it is completely true, why refuse if you have nothing to hide. wanting a camera is unreasonable. just hearing the way you talk, i'm sure you are the typical "pain in the ***" street lawyer that we often run into on traffic stops, the one who knows more about the law and our jobs than we do.
wouldnt you rather take a chance with the FST's and possibly go home, rather than get a sure ticket to jail for a few hours?
now taking your side; some cops do just look for an arrest, and some dont know much about DUI. but most do know what they are doing with it.
i think a big problem is that not all cops are willing to arrest without knowing what the chemical test says, or they are willing, only because the person seems odd, or off balance. they need that preliminary breath test before deciding to arrest and it shouldnt be that way.
what if there was no test in the field and if you were wrong, you would have to pay the suspect $100, would you still hook?

Drunkcop
08-19-2005, 02:25 PM
Drunkcop,
How can you prosecute the guy that has the negative chemical test but shows "impairment" through other means? If you are going to make the arrest for DUI you better be able to back it up. If you suspect drugs that urine test better show drugs. If you suspect alchohol that BAC test better show some in the suspects system. Without that I can't see how you could posibly ever get a conviction.

CHP Marine and Tennsix answered that quite well...