Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Small Town Politics

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by CCCSD View Post
    You didn’t do it correctly. Again, that’s on you.
    Uh huh. I believe you're conversing from your rectum again, CCCSD...
    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
    -Friedrich Nietzsche

    Comment


    • #32
      Have to wonder what the passenger told his father when he initially called him. Young'ans will say anything to try to get out of trouble. I also am curious about how old the "younger adults" are. Above 21 years of age? If not, charges may have been appropriate for underage consumption/operating. FST isn't as much a factor considering that. If over 21, why is daddy taking such a staunchly protective position over his intoxicated adult son passenger? The father should have arrived more cool-headed until he knew for sure what happened. And, maybe the father is a jerk anyway even though he knew the facts.

      If over 21, I don't see how an officer can be expected to charge someone when the probable cause doesn't support it. Yes, there was crossing the center line, but no FST clues will ruin a case despite the BAC level. It could also have been the officer got a little too lazy regarding the stop. Maybe there were sufficient FST clues and BAC, but due to the time of the night, chose to let the occupants go. Either way, it's going to serve as a teachable encounter.

      Comment


      • DefyOrdinary
        DefyOrdinary commented
        Editing a comment
        I know the driver was 23 YO male. I am not certain of the age of the passengers. I cannot attest to whether or not there were sufficient FST clues, as I do not have any training other than observing multiple OVI arrests we've had. It was definitely a learning experience for myself, I'm sure it is for my partner as well.

      • PeteBroccolo
        PeteBroccolo commented
        Editing a comment
        Sounds to me like the Council member is an a s s hat all the time, and the Agency sounds like it is a puppet on strings to the Council.

    • #33
      Update for those interested. The council member was voted off both the city council and the police committee. The Chief basically told him if he threatens any of his officers again, there will be legal consequences. Thanks for everyone's responses, this was definitely a learning experience for myself as well as my partner I'm sure.

      Comment


      • #34
        Originally posted by DefyOrdinary View Post
        Update for those interested. The council member was voted off both the city council and the police committee. The Chief basically told him if he threatens any of his officers again, there will be legal consequences. Thanks for everyone's responses, this was definitely a learning experience for myself as well as my partner I'm sure.
        Good to hear!

        Comment


        • #35
          Originally posted by DefyOrdinary View Post
          Update for those interested. The council member was voted off both the city council and the police committee. The Chief basically told him if he threatens any of his officers again, there will be legal consequences. Thanks for everyone's responses, this was definitely a learning experience for myself as well as my partner I'm sure.
          Thanks for the update. Glad it worked out the way it's supposed to!

          Lesson to be learned: Always make sure your dash cam (and body cam if available) is activated. Not only will it protect the officer from any allegations of wrongdoing, but it will also expose a**holes such as this councilman for who they really are.

          Comment


          • PeteBroccolo
            PeteBroccolo commented
            Editing a comment
            Also glad to hear this outcome, and yes, get and use A/V recording gear.

        • #36
          Originally posted by DefyOrdinary View Post
          Update for those interested. The council member was voted off both the city council and the police committee. The Chief basically told him if he threatens any of his officers again, there will be legal consequences. Thanks for everyone's responses, this was definitely a learning experience for myself as well as my partner I'm sure.
          That's GREAT news.

          There's a lot of wisdom in this thread, like the comment about how no good deed goes unpunished. Giving offenders a break, is often construed as you giving them permission to continue breaking the law.

          And as far as calling a ride for someone, keep in mind that DUI laws usually say that you "shall arrest", not "may arrest". If they're not legally drunk, then they can drive, and thus don't need a ride. If they ARE legally drunk, then they need to go to jail. There is no "in between" being legally drunk and not being legally drunk. As an FTO, what I see (a lot), is officers who have failed to develop their DUI skills, so they're either not sure of what they're looking at, they're afraid of the hard work and complexity of doing a DUI, or both. So they get weak. There is tremendous potential liability in failing to arrest a drunk driver that you have stopped. What if they circle back, drive away, and kill someone five minutes after you let them go?

          Comment


          • #37
            Originally posted by Aidokea View Post
            And as far as calling a ride for someone, keep in mind that DUI laws usually say that you "shall arrest", not "may arrest". If they're not legally drunk, then they can drive, and thus don't need a ride. If they ARE legally drunk, then they need to go to jail. There is no "in between" being legally drunk and not being legally drunk. As an FTO, what I see (a lot), is officers who have failed to develop their DUI skills, so they're either not sure of what they're looking at, they're afraid of the hard work and complexity of doing a DUI, or both. So they get weak. There is tremendous potential liability in failing to arrest a drunk driver that you have stopped. What if they circle back, drive away, and kill someone five minutes after you let them go?
            Having been an FTO and now a supervisor, I've seen many newer officers with doubts when it domes to DUI enforcement. More than many other skills in LE, it's definitely a skill that develops with repeated practice. HGN itself can be intimidating for an inexperienced officer, not to mention the other standardized field sobriety tests (getting the routine down to administer them and keeping safe, all while noting the clues that make your case can feel like juggling a dozen things at once for someone without alot of experience). It's also a perishable skill...one of those that you lose pretty quickly if you're not doing them on a regular basis.

            I've encouraged young officers who are unsure about their DUI skills to go out there and do as much enforcement as they can so they can work on the skills in the real world. I've also encouraged them to find a mentor in an older officer to whom they can ask questions and get second opinions from on the street (I've acted in this capacity many times myself with younger officers, though the answers never come easy from me...it's as much about building confidence in the inexperienced officer's skills as anything else).

            I've also told officers a rule that I was taught early on...when it comes to DUI's, when in doubt, arrest. Every officer with a little time on has brought a low test back to station. It's much easier to cut someone a cite for your PC and kick them loose then to deal with the consequences of letting someone go only to have them drive down the road and kill someone with the subsequent investigation showing that they were drunk. More times than not, young officers who hesitate to make an arrest on a DUI because they "don't know if they have enough to make the arrest" are just reflecting their own doubt and have plenty of PC.
            "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
            -Friedrich Nietzsche

            Comment


            • #38
              Originally posted by Aidokea View Post

              That's GREAT news.

              There's a lot of wisdom in this thread, like the comment about how no good deed goes unpunished. Giving offenders a break, is often construed as you giving them permission to continue breaking the law.

              And as far as calling a ride for someone, keep in mind that DUI laws usually say that you "shall arrest", not "may arrest". If they're not legally drunk, then they can drive, and thus don't need a ride. If they ARE legally drunk, then they need to go to jail. There is no "in between" being legally drunk and not being legally drunk. As an FTO, what I see (a lot), is officers who have failed to develop their DUI skills, so they're either not sure of what they're looking at, they're afraid of the hard work and complexity of doing a DUI, or both. So they get weak. There is tremendous potential liability in failing to arrest a drunk driver that you have stopped. What if they circle back, drive away, and kill someone five minutes after you let them go?
              You ever stop some one for defective equipment etc , smell an alcoholic beverage on their breath but they refuse to take any tests or answer other questions? And their driving ability indicated no clues of impairment? Speech isn't slurred but there are some empty beer cans in the vehicle and a open 12 pack with some missing from the pack. Did he drink the cans of beer 5 minutes ago or 5 hours ago? Did he drimk them all or did someone help drink them? What would you do?

              Comment


              • PeteBroccolo
                PeteBroccolo commented
                Editing a comment
                Up here, we can DEMAND, and they CANNOT refuse, that they provide a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device to determine whether their blood-alcohol-concentration is above our Criminal Code (Federal legislation, enforced by all 3 levels of jurisdiction) legal limit, or between the CC level and Provincial Statute (non-criminal offences, varying Province-to-Province) DL suspension level, or non-actionable (unless violating release conditions). The driver is detained and searched. A deprivation period of 20 minutes MUST occur from last consumption to test, and if the driver refuses to state when they last consumed, then the clock starts from the traffic stop. The driver has NO right to contact a lawyer.

                If the ASD test results is > CC level, the driver is arrested, advised of Rights To Counsel, and taken to a facility with an Approved Breath Analysis Instrument to be tested by a technician. Further deprivation period must be observed by the arresting member and Tech (another PO, but sometimes the arresting). and if > CC level, then the driver is released for CC charge, their DL is suspended, and the vehicle is seized and impounded, both for a set time, per PS. If the BAC is < CC but > PS level, then DL suspension and vehicle impound only.

                We can also charge for Illegal Possession / Consumption of Alcohol under PS liquor laws.

                Did all of the above LOTS over the years.

            • #39
              Originally posted by westside popo View Post

              You ever stop some one for defective equipment etc , smell an alcoholic beverage on their breath but they refuse to take any tests or answer other questions? And their driving ability indicated no clues of impairment? Speech isn't slurred but there are some empty beer cans in the vehicle and a open 12 pack with some missing from the pack. Did he drink the cans of beer 5 minutes ago or 5 hours ago? Did he drimk them all or did someone help drink them? What would you do?
              I'll go you one better- what if they're not even driving?

              Many years ago, I stopped at night to check on a couple that were involved in a loud verbal dispute inside a car parked at the curb. No open alcohol containers. The one in the driver's seat did have some indicia of impairment. Upon advising him of my observations, he denied having consumed any alcohol. I didn't offer him a PBT, because I don't use the PBT as a crutch. I didn't ask him any questions about his drinking, and he made no spontaneous admissions. He refused the SFSTs. I arrested him for DUI. He refused to submit to breath, blood, and urine testing...twice.

              It went to court, with no driving pattern, no open alcohol containers, no spontaneous admissions, no SFSTs, no PBT, no breath, no blood, and no urine. He was convicted of DUI.

              Comment


              • westside popo
                westside popo commented
                Editing a comment
                That's easy! There's presedence on situations like that.


                Around this area judges are likely to let them pleade to reckless driving for their first DUI. Had one before that even a rookie on graduation day could have won in court. She hired a lawyer and the judge reduced it to reckless driving. Didn't even ask me any questions about it.

              • PeteBroccolo
                PeteBroccolo commented
                Editing a comment
                Exactly what we can do in Canada - the arrested suspect was In Care And Control, which is the equivalent of operating, and would have faced Impaired C&C + Refuse Breath Test - USUALLY we seek conviction on only one, and ask to have the other tossed, but I did once insist, and got, sentencing on both after Guilty plea.

            MR300x250 Tablet

            Collapse

            What's Going On

            Collapse

            There are currently 7796 users online. 339 members and 7457 guests.

            Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

            Welcome Ad

            Collapse
            Working...
            X