Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legality and ethics of this?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • tanksoldier
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulgrave600
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulgrave600
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tapatio
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HI629
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BNWS
    replied
    Only an idiot would complain about getting a break. Much like this loser

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • vsp645
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • crass cop
    replied
    where are you from, OP??

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
    Forgot to mention that refusal of breath or blood test results in administrative suspension of the DL for a year, in addition to any criminal charges resulting from the incident.
    That is pretty much universal under the Implied Consent Law

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Refusals seem to be fairly common here, especially amongst the really drunk.
    Forgot to mention that refusal of breath or blood test results in administrative suspension of the DL for a year, in addition to any criminal charges resulting from the incident.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipCal
    replied
    Originally posted by Long Relief View Post
    Refusals seem to be fairly common here, especially amongst the really drunk. I just think if you are going to get a DWI for driving at over .08 the cops should have to show that you were DRIVING at over an .08 and not merely sitting in the backseat of a patrol car.





    The REAL question is, are YOU as damned ignorant as you seem to want us to believe you are? Just in case you missed there Junior, your "question" has been answered honestly, straightforwardly, and in good faith. That's all you're entitled to, that's all you get.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Originally posted by Long Relief View Post
    Refusals seem to be fairly common here, especially amongst the really drunk.
    The problem is you can be under the influence/ impaired _BELOW_ .08 . .08 is just the "per se" limit, at least in Colorado.

    There are all kinds of evidence that someone is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. How they were driving before being pulled over. Their appearance, their eyes, their speech, their motor skills, their smell. People refuse to be tested all the time. Refusing a test isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the officer didn't have pretty good evidence you were impaired he wouldn't have pulled you over in the first place. The tests just confirm what he already knows.

    I just think if you are going to get a DWI for driving at over .08 the cops should have to show that you were DRIVING at over an .08 and not merely sitting in the backseat of a patrol car.
    Again, the officer was probably just making sure your "friend" was safe to let go. If he pulls your friend over for suspected DUI, lets them go and THEN they get in an accident with a BAC over .08 that's hard to explain to a lawsuit jury.

    Frankly I wouldn't have let your friend go at all. If I had PC to pull them over AND could show that PC was associated with alcohol or drugs I'd have booked them in to jail. If you're impaired even in the slightest I'm getting you off the street. The DA can decide what to do with you later, but you aren't killing anyone on my watch.
    Last edited by tanksoldier; 08-25-2014, 08:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4218 users online. 266 members and 3952 guests.

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

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X