Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legality and ethics of this?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by vsp645 View Post
    With a blow on the line it it is taught to us to give 15 minutes for any residual mouth alcohol to dissipate and then check again. Sounds like that is what was going on.
    Well, the OP was a long time anti- police agitator who was banned
    Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

    My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

    Comment


    • #32
      Only an idiot would complain about getting a break. Much like this loser

      http://www.youngcons.com/cnn-host-sally-kohn-is-insane/

      Comment


      • #33
        I've seen convictions for drivers blowing as low as .04. If the driver was "impaired" while driving, that's all that needs to be proven in court to get the conviction. Drivers who are "impaired" and pose a risk to other drivers as well as themselves regardless of what substance or the level of impairment. If they're unsafe on the road, then they shouldn't be driving.
        Getting shot hurts! Don't under estimate the power of live ammo. A .22LR can kill you! I personally feel that it's best to avoid being shot by any caliber. Your vest may stop the bullet, but you'll still get a nice bruise or other injury to remember the experience.

        Comment


        • #34
          I was ready to type a long reply but glad I saw the dates and the last few replies. Seriously, who wants to create an issue after getting a break?

          In my short career I've had more DUIs than I expected and/or wanted. Not a single one has been the same. Also, not a single one has been the result of a traffic stop. Either someone else called or the person crashed into any number of things and in responding to said accidents, the truth was revealed.

          I think only one of these was found not guilty for the DUI as he was too drunk and/or high to submit to any breath test or SFSTs. They let him have it on the "leaving the scene of a PD accident" which was probably more than he would have had on the DUI alone.

          Comment


          • #35
            I grumble about how our drink driving laws are complicated but you blokes sure have some hoops to jump through. We mainly use PBTs to show presence of alcohol. Once we have that it's time for an evidentiary breath test. If you're .05 or more then you're going in the book.

            If we get a positive PBT we're supposed to go straight to a breath test but there are coppers out there who will wait 15 minutes on a lower reading and test again to see if it goes under.

            Comment


            • #36
              I grumble about how our drink driving laws are complicated but you blokes sure have some hoops to jump through
              Well, they aren't as onerous and this thread makes them sound. All tests/ maneuvers are voluntary in the US absent a warrant from a judge.

              The "voluntary roadside maneuvers" are just that: voluntary. Even in implied consent states they can't FORCE you to take a breath or blood test. Refusing to do so results in automatic suspension of your license but that's considered administrative rather than criminal.

              The roadside maneuvers REALLY are more about giving the driver an opportunity to show they aren't impaired than to show they ARE impaired. I know if the driver is impaired before he ever starts the maneuvers based on his driving, speech, odor, eyes, how he walks back to the rear of the vehicle, how well he converses and answers questions, etc. I can easily justify bringing someone in for an Intoxilyzer without the standardized maneuvers. At the end of the day the Intox results are what matters anyway.

              We've sort of shot ourselves in the foot with technology in a way. We used to get DUI convictions without standardized tests and breathalyzers... now juries expect them. No matter what my observations were, no matter the results of voluntary maneuvers, if I don't have Intox results I won't have a case.
              "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

              "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
                if I don't have Intox results I won't have a case.
                That is not even close to the case in Iowa.....................we get convictions on refusals ALL THE TIME

                Of course DUI's rarely go to a jury trial, but the felonies that DO go to trial almost all have Intox refusals too because the defendants think they are going to get out of the case if they refuse.

                Woops..............it normally doesn't work out to their advantage.
                Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                Comment


                • #38
                  A refusal in my state will result in automatic two year suspension and possible imprisonment so it's not worth refusing. We don't have to prove being under the influence anyway. We only need to prove a BAC in excess of the limit at the time or within three hours of driving.

                  We've been using technology to catch drink drivers for decades and most of our procedures and case law are built around it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    That is not even close to the case in Iowa.....................we get convictions on refusals ALL THE TIME
                    Possible but our DA doesn't like cases where he has to actually WORK. He won't usually prosecute.

                    He plead a stabbing in the jail down from a possible 35 years DOC as a habitual to 1 year DOC concurrent.

                    He's leaving for private practice so maybe we'll get someone with balls.
                    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                    "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                    Comment

                    MR300x250 Tablet

                    Collapse

                    What's Going On

                    Collapse

                    There are currently 2345 users online. 128 members and 2217 guests.

                    Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                    Welcome Ad

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X