dui for stupid reason

[treyh0lla]

ok heres the deal people i recently got a dui on saturday night.
but the reason i was told that i was pulled over was because i made a right turn on a no right on red. so after i get out the tank i go back to exactly where i was pulled over and was looking for the sign that said no turn on red but it was no where to be found. so my question is that if i was pulled over for a right turn could the officers take me in for a dui.

[edmo]

Definitely get an attorney!

[Lester Green]

yes

[USARMworker]

I though you could only get a dui if you were doing something stupid like riding under the influence. Not for making an illegal right turn. You sure got reamed!

[treyh0lla]

the funny this is that i drove from sac like that and didn't get pulled over by chp on the way home

[saizai]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
ok heres the deal people i recently got a dui on saturday night.
but the reason i was told that i was pulled over was because i made a right turn on a no right on red. so after i get out the tank i go back to exactly where i was pulled over and was looking for the sign that said no turn on red but it was no where to be found. so my question is that if i was pulled over for a right turn could the officers take me in for a dui.

*cough*

DUI = driving under influence.

Were you driving? Yes.
Were you under the influence? You haven't said, but haven't denied it, so I'm guessing yes.

If yes to both, then you are guilty of DUI. Whether or where you turned is irrelevant.

(Note: the cop would have to substantiate that you were in fact intoxicated. E.g. results from a road test, pee test, blood test, breathalyzer, etc. If you got busted for DUI based on your behavior alone, then yes that's not right and you should fight it. Did they do any of those tests? What were the results?)


If you are ALSO charged with turning right on a no right on red - or coasting a right turn on a red light (rather than coming to a full stop first), which is ALWAYS illegal (I got busted on it once :() - then that's a separate matter.

If the reason you were pulled over is completely bogus then you may have a case to dismiss the whole thing ("tainted fruit" etc), but you'd have to show that the cop did not have a reasonable good faith suspicion that you had committed *some* crime.

AFAIK it's quite common for a cop to pull someone over for one reason (say, seatbelt, or plate expired, or coasting a turn on red) and bust them for a completely different reason (e.g. DUI) once they have evidence for the latter. Sounds like that's what happened to you.

The only question IMO is: were you intoxicated or not?

If yes, you're fucked and (IMHO) you should be. (Viz. all the stats on DUI-caused injuries/deaths.)

Don't drive if you're not sober.

[Hoologan]

If you were over the legal BAC limit, then you shouldn't have been driving regardless of whether you got pulled over for a illegitimate reason. Own it dude.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by 1FastF4i
If you were over the legal BAC limit, then you shouldn't have been driving regardless of whether you got pulled over for a illegitimate reason. Own it dude.

:applause

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
the funny this is that i drove from sac like that and didn't get pulled over by chp on the way home

Sorry, uhmmm how is that funny? :|

[treyh0lla]

i drove all the way from sac not speeding, using turnsignals, not swerving then i get pulled over a block away from my house for a no turn on right. basically i wasn't driving wrecklessly but get taken in for having a few drinks

[treyh0lla]

no turn on red

[Junkie]

if there was no PC that you were committing a crime, its possible that you will manage to get the charge dismissed but I doubt your odds are good.

[Xenos]

Just a quick question. Is it possible to get a DUI for having a BAC of over the legal but still be able to pass all the field sobrity tests? I heard alcholics can build up quite a tollerance.

[saizai]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
yes i did drink but i wouldn't drive if i didn't think that i could. i drove all the way from sac not speeding, using turnsignals, not swerving then i get pulled over a block away from my house for a no turn on right. basically i wasn't driving wrecklessly but get taken in for having a few drinks

Then you just confessed to the crime you were accused of: DUI. Good that you drove wrecklessly, bad that you drove recklessly.

Like 1FastF4i said: OWN IT.

You were driving while intoxicated, which is a FUCKING STUPID thing to do.

Now your insurance company will rape you for 7 years. Hopefully you won't do it again.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by Xenos
Just a quick question. Is it possible to get a DUI for having a BAC of over the legal but still be able to pass all the field sobrity tests? I heard alcholics can build up quite a tollerance. if you are over the limit, you can get a DUI no matter how well you perform. if you are under the limit but have BAC and fail tests, you can still get charged with DUI.

[saizai]

Originally posted by Xenos
Just a quick question. Is it possible to get a DUI for having a BAC of over the legal but still be able to pass all the field sobrity tests? I heard alcholics can build up quite a tollerance.

Yes. It's just less likely that the cop will take you in to take the real test (i.e. breathalyzer / pee / blood).

The law talks about your BAC, not about your ability to pass a field sobriety test.

[USARMworker]

Originally posted by saizai
Yes. It's just less likely that the cop will take you in to take the real test (i.e. breathalyzer / pee / blood).

The law talks about your BAC, not about your ability to pass a field sobriety test.

I think the BAC limit is kind of stupid. An experienced drinker can 'handle' a .12 BAC way better than a newb drinker can handle a .06. I'm not in any way condoning drinking and driving (or riding) and I don't do it, but it seems an arbitrary limit on blood alcohol content is a little... unfair.
That said, the law is the law. Treyh0lla, you fucked up.

[Burner]

Originally posted by saizai
Then you just confessed to the crime you were accused of: DUI. Good that you drove wrecklessly, bad that you drove recklessly.

Like 1FastF4i said: OWN IT.

You were driving while intoxicated, which is a FUCKING STUPID thing to do.

Now your insurance company will rape you for 7 years. Hopefully you won't do it again.

give me a break dude. there's an important distinction between drivers who have been drinking and those whose driving is impaired by drinking, a distinction which you don't seem to understand. now i don't know if his driving ability was impaired or not, but you shouldn't automatically flame his ass. i guarantee you i can drive better with a BAC of 0.1 than a lot of people can drive sober.

and in regards to your other statement about field sobriety tests- the purpose of the test is to gain probable cause to give the suspect a breath test or other such test. if the suspect passes the field sobreity test, then where is the PC? however, in reality, i'm sure some cops will claim someone didn't pass when they really did and make them blow anyway.

[BlacKat]

Traffic school?

[Trogdor]

There are two ways to fight a DUI. Fight the PC for the stop. Fight the impairment/BAC. Fighting the impairment is pretty difficult, especially if your BAC is over .08.

Get a lawyer. If the stop is deemed illegal, the case will be dismissed and DUI goes away.

That doesn't mean you weren't still dead wrong for driving under the influence.

[saizai]

Originally posted by USARMworker
I think the BAC limit is kind of stupid. An experienced drinker can 'handle' a .12 BAC way better than a newb drinker can handle a .06. I'm not in any way condoning drinking and driving (or riding) and I don't do it, but it seems an arbitrary limit on blood alcohol content is a little... unfair.
That said, the law is the law. Treyh0lla, you fucked up.

That is true; people can build up some amazing amounts of tolerance. (Though I should point out that tolerance has very dramatically varying effects even within one person and one drug; you could have OK balance/agility but still poor response time. Also the first thing to go is ability to accurately self-assess. I could point you to some interesting studies on that if you want.)

However it's a pragmatic thing, like with the age of consent.

What you want to do is set a limit at which the majority of people are incompetent. There will be exceptions both ways - people who are competent while over the limit (or underage), and people who are incompetent when at only half it (or at, say, 25 :P).

But it's a relatively easy and airtight test that can be done, as opposed to (say) administering a general response-time and cognitive processing test, which is not quite so easy to do. And not as comprehensive. (Alcohol affects a lot of things that would need to be tested separately - vision, response time, aggressiveness, cognitive ability, inhibition, etc. Any of them could make you incompetent to drive. It's just easier to use a cutoff.)

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
yes i did drink but i wouldn't drive if i didn't think that i could. i drove all the way from sac not speeding, using turnsignals, not swerving then i get pulled over a block away from my house for a no turn on right. basically i wasn't driving wrecklessly but get taken in for having a few drinks

So what agency nabbed you?

[ianian28]

were you given a readout of your BAC? just out of curiosity, what was it?

or did you refuse a sobriety test (i hope not, they'll pull your license for sure).

also, before the pro-motocops get on here, what exactly were you cited for (code #?) i'm less interested in the DUI code and more in the right-turn-on-red-part.

[saizai]

Originally posted by Burner
give me a break dude. there's an important distinction between drivers who have been drinking and those whose driving is impaired by drinking, a distinction which you don't seem to understand. now i don't know if his driving ability was impaired or not, but you shouldn't automatically flame his ass. i guarantee you i can drive better with a BAC of 0.1 than a lot of people can drive sober.

Frankly, I don't care, I don't want you driving with a BAC 0.1 - and I don't want anyone driving who's less competent than that anyway, but for them there's no legal recourse. :laughing

You could convince me otherwise if you could show me that your reaction time, cognitive ability, agility, etc., is NOT impaired significantly vs the amount needed to a) take immediate avoidance maneuvers to prevent an accident, and b) make good decisions and see far enough ahead to avoid it in the first place.

But, frankly, I don't think you can.

My knowledge is from neuropharmacology classes rather than having done a bunch of DUI stops, but what I know from them is that most people drastically underestimate how intoxicated they are, and that the reaction time goes WAY up. (Remember, you need to be able to see, understand, and start correctly responding to an issue within about 1/2 sec.)

and in regards to your other statement about field sobriety tests- the purpose of the test is to gain probable cause to give the suspect a breath test or other such test. if the suspect passes the field sobreity test, then where is the PC? however, in reality, i'm sure some cops will claim someone didn't pass when they really did and make them blow anyway.

Basically agreed. However, remember that they can have other ways to show probable cause (e.g. erratic driving) and just go with that.

[NVR FNSH]

Originally posted by Burner
give me a break dude. there's an important distinction between drivers who have been drinking and those whose driving is impaired by drinking, a distinction which you don't seem to understand. now i don't know if his driving ability was impaired or not, but you shouldn't automatically flame his ass. i guarantee you i can drive better with a BAC of 0.1 than a lot of people can drive sober.

and in regards to your other statement about field sobriety tests- the purpose of the test is to gain probable cause to give the suspect a breath test or other such test. if the suspect passes the field sobreity test, then where is the PC? however, in reality, i'm sure some cops will claim someone didn't pass when they really did and make them blow anyway.

Don't need a single FST in order to arrest you on suspicion of DUI - you can refuse FSTs if you choose. The breathalyzer or blood test is the ultimate test for your actual BAC. If your BAC is under .08, you refused FSTs and the officer doesn't have 'good' driving observations to indicate impairment then a DA will be hard pressed to file.

Brian

[treyh0lla]

san bruno pd. so back to my question is it right for them to pull me over for not commiting a crime. thats like an officer pulling someone over for failure to stop at a stop sign then doing a full search through their car and finding a dead body in the trunk when there is no just cause to search the car

[VTRweasel]

There might be a probably cause issue.

Talk to summitdog

[saizai]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
san bruno pd. so back to my question is it right for them to pull me over for not commiting a crime. thats like an officer pulling someone over for failure to stop at a stop sign then doing a full search through their car and finding a dead body in the trunk when there is no just cause to search the car

Actually, no it's not.

The officer presumably got you on DUI based on what he saw or smelled when he started talking to you. That's not at all the same as using it as an excuse to do a full search - if it were I'd be siding with you and the NCLU.

You are right that the officer should have a good pretext to stop you in the first place. It is however rather hard to catch them *not* having one unless what they write down is absolute bullshit and you have proof to the contrary... there being so many legit reasons to pull someone over just for a little chat.

But:
you: cop talks to you and has reason to ask you to do a field sobriety test, and then has reason to arrest for DUI
your example: cop talks to you and then tries to search the whole car w/out consent

Waaaay different.

To do the first the cop only needs a reason to talk to you; if you mess up during the interview then it's your own damn fault. To do the second they need probable cause to force the matter, not just a suspicion.

[treyh0lla]

no probable cause because i wasnt driving wrecklessly basically if i didn't get stopped i wouldn't have a dui. but there was no reason for being pulled over if there is no sign that said no turn on red

[saizai]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
no probable cause because i wasnt driving wrecklessly basically if i didn't get stopped i wouldn't have a dui. but there was no reason for being pulled over if there is no sign that said no turn on red

That's not a "probable cause" test.

"Reasonable suspicion" = reason to detain (aka make you stop to have a chat)
"Probable cause" = reason to ARREST
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" = reason to CONVICT (in criminal court)

What you have to show is that the cop didn't have #1, i.e. that either they were not acting in good faith (e.g. they stopped you for something they made up, or knew they were misinterpreting the law); or that they did not have an articulable reason / suspicion to have a talk with you.

Please do tell us exactly what codes you were cited for if you want to discuss further that initial reason you were stopped.

To break it down:
* cop stopped you - must have had a reasonable suspicion you committed a crime OR wanted to talk to you for a good reason (e.g. for your benefit)

* cop ran you through field sobriety - must have had reasonable suspicion that you were drunk (e.g. 'cause your breath smelled, he saw open containers, you acted weird, you slurred, you drove erratically, etc)

* cop arrests you for DUI - must have had probable cause (e.g. you failed field sobriety test)

* cop searches you - must have an arrest or consent

* cop pats you down for weapons only - must have you detained under suspicion


BTW: I guess you missed the little joke I made from your misspelling earlier, so more explicitly:
wrecklessly = no accident ("wreck")
recklessly = without caution ("*reck")

[Noid]

I don't drink for a few reasons.
1) I can't stand the taste.
2) It's more fun to watch my stupid friends drunk.
3) My friends always call me to be the designated driver (sp)

All I have to say is that. If any of my personal friends on this board or otherwise gets a DUI. I will literly kick your ass. If you have to think about wiether or not you may have had to many drinks or maybe the law might concider you drunk. Then you probably are. Any of my frinds can call me for a ride. I don't care how far away you might be. I will come and get you.

[zpyro]

God forbid you take your lumps like a responsible human being. You broke the law and got caught, you shouldn't be splitting hairs on the exact reason you were pulled over. You shouldn't have been DUI in the first place.

[AndyM]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
basically if i didn't get stopped i wouldn't have a dui.

If you hadn't been driving drunk none of this would have happened. :wow

[SoarAndEnvision]

Alright allow me to take the minority view here (man am I gonna get hell for this one...)

The short answer (which has been stated) is regardless of the reason of the stop the additional charge isn't going to fall off. If you had an AK in the trunk, you'd still get the charge lets say if you didn't have a dui.

HOWEVER

I don't think things like "If you hadn't been driving drunk, this wouldn't have happened" are very constructive things to say because :

1 - I, like many people I know, can drink quite a bit and be over .08 and in better shape than a buncha other people who blow a .04 and are a mess.

This is why I think the .08 is a little overly damning.

I"M NOT ENDORSING DRUNK Driving - I'm just pointing out a little observation that getting a DUI does not equal - "Drunk Driving" - does not equal an definite danger to whoever it was.

...man I'm gonna in so much trouble for this....

[silversvs]

I might suprise a few folks on here, but.......

treyhOlla has a legitimate question and possibly a legitimate beef. His questions was if he was stopped specifically for turning right when the officer states it was posted no right turn, and then it turns out that there is no such restriction, should his DUI arrest stand. The answer is "no". If the officer pulled you over only for turning right against what the officer believed was a posted no right turn on red intersection, and then it is determined that there is not a restriction, then the probable cause for the stop is invalid and the officer has made an illegal detention. The illegal detention lead to the arrest so the arrest will be tossed.

With that being said, If I was treyhOlla I wouldn't be getting too excited just yet. You would need to see what was documented in the officer's report. If he saw you weaving, crossing between lanes, speeding, etc etc, prior to making the turn, and articulates more than one reason for the car stop, then your arrest will stand. Every DUI must stand the test of the reason for the car stop.

[VTRweasel]

Glass houses

[SoarAndEnvision]

you know I'm retracting what I said about the dui charge - I really don't know enough about criminal law on that one.

I second the def. get an attorney.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by SoarAndEnvision
Alright allow me to take the minority view here (man am I gonna get hell for this one...)

The short answer (which has been stated) is regardless of the reason of the stop the additional charge isn't going to fall off. If you had an AK in the trunk, you'd still get the charge lets say if you didn't have a dui.

HOWEVER

I don't think things like "If you hadn't been driving drunk, this wouldn't have happened" are very constructive things to say because :

1 - I, like many people I know, can drink quite a bit and be over .08 and in better shape than a buncha other people who blow a .04 and are a mess.

This is why I think the .08 is a little overly damning.

I"M NOT ENDORSING DRUNK Driving - I'm just pointing out a little observation that getting a DUI does not equal - "Drunk Driving" - does not equal an definite danger to whoever it was.

...man I'm gonna in so much trouble for this....

Hey... nothing wrong with offering a counter view in a discussion :thumbup

The reason that the level is .08: Yep. It's not fair.
It's a compromise.

You are correct: Different people handle alcohol differently.

I dated a woman who was 5150'd with a BAC of .04^... I had a Deputy Sheriff in my face asking "WHAT DRUGS IS SHE ON?!?!" She wasn't: she had two pina coldas with dinner.

There are people who can drive and function at .15 and greater.

My point is that .08 was set as a limit due to the fact most people are impaired to some degree at .08, and perhaps a few lives have been saved since.

I Have two family members who have been impacted by DUIs. One is dead :rose the other is scarred and somewhat disabled.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by SoarAndEnvision
you know I'm retracting what I said about the dui charge - I really don't know enough about criminal law on that one.

I second the def. get an attorney.

:laughing too late

[SoarAndEnvision]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
....

I Have two family members who have been impacted by DUIs. One is dead :rose the other is scarred and somewhat disabled. [/B]

Wow man I am *really* sorry to hear that. That's exactly why this topic scares me - I have another friend who has gone through hell from drunk drivers in her life, but I can't even imagine the pain.

but thanks for seeing what I meant and not tearing me a new one :)

[wackyiraqi]

Thank you for the frank answer, silversvs.

Police officers cannot just pull people over because their spidey-sense is tingling--they need probable cause. A DUI stop/arrest without a reasonably solid probable cause is considered fruit of the poisonous tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree).

[RolnCode3]

In order to know exactly what is going on, you'd need to read the report, or the PC form from booking.

It's completely possible that the officer said "right turn on red", but he also had "swerving (21658a)", "failure to stop completely at a stop light", "inoperative brake lights" or God knows what else. He (possibly) gave an overly simplified answer to a simple question.

As long as you are violating ANY law, and he can articulate it, the stop is good. It doesn't matter how insignificant...any equipment violation is all that is needed.

We can't just stop people for no reason. That's why you sit back for 20 seconds and find a legitimate reason. If I want to stop your vehicle, I'll find a reason. There's far too many sections in the vehicle code (or all the other ones as well) to not do something illegal.

[zpyro]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
I Have two family members who have been impacted by DUIs. One is dead :rose the other is scarred and somewhat disabled.

Which is why I despise people who drink and drive. A lot of deaths are caused by people who think they aren't intoxicated at all. People's lives are affected forever because of one person's irresponsible decision.

[saizai]

Originally posted by silversvs
I might suprise a few folks on here, but.......

treyhOlla has a legitimate question and possibly a legitimate beef. His questions was if he was stopped specifically for turning right when the officer states it was posted no right turn, and then it turns out that there is no such restriction, should his DUI arrest stand. The answer is "no". If the officer pulled you over only for turning right against what the officer believed was a posted no right turn on red intersection, and then it is determined that there is not a restriction, then the probable cause for the stop is invalid and the officer has made an illegal detention. The illegal detention lead to the arrest so the arrest will be tossed.

1. As above AFAIK the test is "reasonable suspicion" not "probable cause" for the initial stop / detention. Please correct if I am wrong.

2. IIRC a couple cases, the cop needs to have *acted in good faith*, not necessarily *been correct*.

E.g. if trey is correct - and he was pulled over initially for turning right on red, when it was legal to do so, but the cop thought it was posted otherwise... then it's still a legal stop because the cop was acting in good faith. (Of course, you could then try to go for incompetence...)

But yes of course if anything happens that's illegal (including known-invalid reason to make the stop) then everything that results from that is also illegal.

[saizai]

Originally posted by wackyiraqi
Thank you for the frank answer, silversvs.

Police officers cannot just pull people over because their spidey-sense is tingling--they need probable cause. A DUI stop/arrest without a reasonably solid probable cause is considered fruit of the poisonous tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree).

Yes on the poisoned fruit. :thumbup

No on probable cause. (Sorry.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person; has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion."


Like it says, spidey sense is not "reasonable suspicion". There have to be some specific articulable reasons. But it isn't the same standard as probable cause and it's important to make the distinction.

Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause - which is grounds for arrest (not just an enforced chat).

[saizai]

Side note as an idea:

Suppose auto insurance came with "you're drunk and need a taxi" insurance? Call the number, they get you a taxi and make sure someone sober parks your car overnight, then get you a taxi back to your car the next day.

My guess is that it would save the insurance company money and thus should be offered for free. Print the number on a keychain ("call this for a free ride if you're drunk" - or something similar encouraging others to do so if the driver is impaired).

Or even better, some sort of "we'll drive your car for you" version of a taxi, where they come by, take your car with you in it, drive you home. (That one opens up liability issues, but I'm sure it's doable.)

Think of the marketing campaign: 1-800-dial-a-sober-driver.


For that matter, it could easily be worthwhile for the state to fund this (and launch a massive marketing campaign to get the word out once there's a catchy 1-800 number). Reduced costs in lots of areas - arrests cost money, drunk tanks cost money, cleanup crews cost money, etc etc. Not to mention the good publicity for whoever's governor at the time.

1-800-DRIVE-ME would work. Very direct.

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by ianian28

or did you refuse a sobriety test (i hope not, they'll pull your license for sure).


You can refuse a sobriety test. The officer will use all means available to him for determining your sobriety. Having you go through the tests is one of those tools. If you refuse, he'll make the determination based on other factors, like your breath, bloodshoot eyes, observed driving, speech, and so on.

Before being placed under arrest, you can refuse the preliminary breath test (usually a PAS device). In fact, the officer must even tell you the PAS is voluntary.

After you are placed under arrest, you *must* submit to a legal blood alcohol test. If you refuse, you will have your license suspended on the spot for one year. In all likelyhood, the officer will take you to a hospital and force a blood draw anyway. Even if it turns out later that you beat the DUI wrap, your license will still be suspended because you refused the test. This is a DMV action.

[Port4mance]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
We can't just stop people for no reason. That's why you sit back for 20 seconds and find a legitimate reason. If I want to stop your vehicle, I'll find a reason. There's far too many sections in the vehicle code (or all the other ones as well) to not do something illegal. That's great, glad we live in the land of the free. :(

[mlm]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
We can't just stop people for no reason. That's why you sit back for 20 seconds and find a legitimate reason. If I want to stop your vehicle, I'll find a reason. There's far too many sections in the vehicle code (or all the other ones as well) to not do something illegal.

The truth. I still remember once in college getting pulled over for driving 31 in a 30. Hadn't had a drop, but was leaving a bar's parking lot. Also hear the occasional creative liberties from a cop friend of mine.

Be glad some fucktard on their cell phone didn't crash into you. The fact YOU were leagally drunk would have likely made any accident YOUR fault and open you up to serious civil penalties when they decide to sue you.

[Nick]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
That's why you sit back for 20 seconds and find a legitimate reason. If I want to stop your vehicle, I'll find a reason. There's far too many sections in the vehicle code (or all the other ones as well) to not do something illegal.


:applause

Here's a great obscure section for this purpose. I've always wanted to cut a cite for it:


23120. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing glasses having a temple width of one-half inch or more if any part of such temple extends below the horizontal center of the lens so as to interfere with lateral vision.

Walking book of PC is right...


EDIT: Back to topic, the officer probably told you he pulled you over for not stopping before turning right on a red. Not, a "No turn on red" sign. You might have misunderstood.

[saizai]

Originally posted by Nick
Here's a great obscure section for this purpose. I've always wanted to cut a cite for it:

I've never even *seen* glasses that meet that description...

And you'd have to testify that you saw that they were in violation from your cop car while they were driving... :laughing

[The O'C]

silversvs,
Wouldn't a dui check point be stopping people for no reason other than being on the road?

I'm not trying to bitch or support dui, it's just a question about what you said. Thanks

[Junkie]

Originally posted by Omann
silversvs,
Wouldn't a dui check point be stopping people for no reason other than being on the road?

I'm not trying to bitch or support dui, it's just a question about what you said. Thanks while the USSC has approved DUI checkpoints, that is partially because they don't involve profiling. They have not approved random stops to check for DUI.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by Port4mance
That's great, glad we live in the land of the free. :(
Not trying to burst bubbles, but that's the way of the world. My subjective motivation for the stop is irrelevant as long as I objectively have reasonable suspicion for the stop.

I believe refusal to submit to the tests carries its own penalties. I don't want to get the numbers wrong, so someone who does DUI investigations (I just do turnovers) would need to submit the correct penalties.

*edit* NVM:

How long will my driving privilege be suspended for not taking the chemical test?

If you were 21 years of older at the time of arrest and you refused or failed to complete a blood or breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test:

* A first offense will result in a 1-year suspension.
* A second offense within 10 years will result in a 2-year revocation.
* A third or subsequent offense within 10 years will result in a 3-year revocation.

If you were under 21 years of age at the time of being detained or arrested and you refused or failed to complete a PAS test or other chemical test:

* A first offense will result in a 1-year suspension.
* A second offense within 10 years will result in a 2-year revocation.
* A third or subsequent offense within 10 years will result in a 3-year revocation.

[USARMworker]

The whole argument doesn't matter. The cop can LIE and say you failed to make a complete stop b4 turning right on a red light, whether it's true or not. It now becomes a matter of your word vs. theirs. Who's story do you think the judge will believe? You're screwed. Because you were drunk (edit: over the limit). Not because you got pulled over for 'no reason'.

[mlm]

Didn't CA got rid of the 10 year span between 1st offenses? I know it used to be 1st offense if you hadn't had a DUI in 10 years or more, but now I think it's 2nd offense if you've EVER had a DUI (or had a DUI since whenever they changed the law).

[treyh0lla]

so if you put yourself in my shoes where i felt i did not commit a traffic violation do you think that the dui should stand

[USARMworker]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
so if you put yourself in my shoes where i felt i did not commit a traffic violation do you think that the dui should stand

No. What I think doesn't really matter, though. The law is the law. Fair or not, you got busted.

I'd try to fight it, but I wouldn't expect to win. The 'call a lawyer' advice is good advice.

You have every right to feel like you got the shaft in this (I would) but your being over the legal limit still puts you in the wrong. If you do happen to get the DUI dropped, you should consider yourself very lucky to have gotten away with it. :2cents

[VTRweasel]

Oh yeah,

Contact the DMV like today and request a "Hearing"

[saizai]

Originally posted by USARMworker
The whole argument doesn't matter. The cop can LIE and say you failed to make a complete stop b4 turning right on a red light, whether it's true or not. It now becomes a matter of your word vs. theirs. Who's story do you think the judge will believe?

The onboard camera's.

[Nick]

Originally posted by saizai
I've never even *seen* glasses that meet that description...

And you'd have to testify that you saw that they were in violation from your cop car while they were driving... :laughing

Dragon Sunglasses (http://www.dragonestore.com/products/sunglasses/?__utma=1.1063111633.1168631676.1168631676.1168631 676.1&__utmb=1&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1168631676.1.1.utmccn%3D(direct)%7Cutmcsr %3D(direct)%7Cutmcmd%3D(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=194409390)

Spy Sunglasses (http://www.spyoptic.com/cat.php?k=61876)

Oakley Sunglasses (http://oakley.com/esearch.php?Ne=999&Ntk=All&Nr=Country+Code%3aUS&Ntx=mode%2bmatchall&fromleftnav=true&domain_id=10&N=10000+326+10493+4294967267&catname=O+Matter&Nu=P_StyleNumber)


The list goes on, my friend.


Per the section, you only need for the bottom edge of the temple/ear piece to be below the horizontal mid-point of the lens. About 70% of the glasses I posted violate the section.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6325/untitledgl3.jpg

[USARMworker]

Originally posted by Nick
...About 70% of the glasses I posted violate the section.

Seriously! I was lookin' at my shades and they are clearly (well, not clearly or they wouldn't be sunglasses) illegal. Shouldn't eyewear manufacturers be more responsible than to make and sell these unlawful and therefore obviously dangerous glasses? :p

[Nick]

They're not illegal to wear. Only illegal to drive with. You can wear them once you get off the bike and start posing with your mochafrapanillachaispresso.

:cool <---- you

;)

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
(I just do turnovers)

Poacher :hand

:laughing

[saizai]

Originally posted by Nick
Dragon Sunglasses (http://www.dragonestore.com/products/sunglasses/?__utma=1.1063111633.1168631676.1168631676.1168631 676.1&__utmb=1&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1168631676.1.1.utmccn%3D(direct)%7Cutmcsr %3D(direct)%7Cutmcmd%3D(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=194409390)

Spy Sunglasses (http://www.spyoptic.com/cat.php?k=61876)

Oakley Sunglasses (http://oakley.com/esearch.php?Ne=999&Ntk=All&Nr=Country+Code%3aUS&Ntx=mode%2bmatchall&fromleftnav=true&domain_id=10&N=10000+326+10493+4294967267&catname=O+Matter&Nu=P_StyleNumber)


The list goes on, my friend.


Per the section, you only need for the bottom edge of the temple/ear piece to be below the horizontal mid-point of the lens. About 70% of the glasses I posted violate the section.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6325/untitledgl3.jpg

:laughing :thumbup

Got me. Looks like I just ain't stylin' enough. :cool

Still, you'd need to have seen them when you made the decisioon to make the stop.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
We can't just stop people for no reason. That's why you sit back for 20 seconds and find a legitimate reason. If I want to stop your vehicle, I'll find a reason. There's far too many sections in the vehicle code (or all the other ones as well) to not do something illegal.

Great info flowing back and forth in this thread. :applause

I do want to respond to RolnCode3's quote above.

I've followed many vehicles that I wanted to stop for one reason or another. I followed them for a short distance and I could not locate any reason to stop them. I turned off and started looking for other fish.

Yes, it is very possible, and quite normal, to find vehicles that are in a condition, and being driven, in a way that does not allow for an officer to pull it over. I'd like to think that all my vehicles are properly equipped and that when I drive I follow the rules of the road to the point that there would not be a reason to pull me over.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by Omann
silversvs,
Wouldn't a dui check point be stopping people for no reason other than being on the road?

I'm not trying to bitch or support dui, it's just a question about what you said. Thanks

As already pointed out, the Supreme Court has upheld DUI checkpoints. There are specific guidelines on how a DUI checkpoint is to be constructed and implemented. Revealing the intended checkpoint to the media 48 hrs ahead of time, having proper notification (signage) on the roadway, and leaving an escape route are all things that are required. How the cars are screened is another aspect. If the guidelines are followed, and the data properly documented, any DUI arrest resulting from the checkpoint should pass muster. I've had several checkpoint DUI arrests challenged in court on the basis of the checkpoint alone, but so far they have all resulted in convictions.

[USARMworker]

On the dash camera issue...

Saizai made the point that if an officer lies to get a conviction (it's happened to me but that's a story for another post) on a traffic stop and it becomes a he-said he-said thing where the judge will most likely (and understandably) value the officer's testimony more than that of the defendant, the on-board camera can be used to show what really happened. My question is: Do ALL police vehicles have said cameras and are they required to record every moment of an officer's shift? If so, can the lack of video evidence be used as proof that the officer isn't being truthful in his/her testimony?

...and could this possibly help treyh0lla?

[AndyM]

Originally posted by treyh0lla
so if you put yourself in my shoes where i felt i did not commit a traffic violation do you think that the dui should stand

In my opinion, if your blood alcohol was over the limit the dui should stand. I am for anything and anyone that gets impaired drivers off the road.

And I have been in your shoes.


But really. Any advice you get here is worth exactly what you pay for it. Get an attorney. You do not want to go to court without one. A dui will mess up your life for at least a couple of years and you would be nuts not to get the best legal representation you can afford.







And no more drinkin and drivin. :x

[Dean129]

Originally posted by 1FastF4i
If you were over the legal BAC limit, then you shouldn't have been driving regardless of whether you got pulled over for a illegitimate reason. Own it dude.

Come on dude, its never their fault. You should know better.:shame

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by USARMworker
My question is: Do ALL police vehicles have said cameras and are they required to record every moment of an officer's shift?

There no requirement that patrol vehicles have cameras. In departments that do have them, departmental policies will govern when they must be on. Even for departments with strict policies about using cameras, they will not be on all the time. Imagine how much data would have to be stored to collect all moments of all shifts.

As for catching infractions on cameras: modern dash cams record digitally. They are on all the time recording everything, but only storing it for some short period of time As soon as the officer starts recording, it will save that already recorded portion in addition to ongoing events. That way an officer can watch an intersection with the camera off, but still catch violations if he turns the camera on soon enough.

All that said, most violations are not caught on tape. Unless the violation happens directly in front of the officer, the cam will miss it.

[USARMworker]

Thanks.

That's what I thought. Saizai didn't know what he was talking about.

I don't think treyh0lla has a snowball's chance of getting out of his DUI. The cop will make sure his story illustrates cause for the stop.

[Nick]

Damn Tha Man!

[mjj]

How come no one has asked: If you had enough to blow a .08 in San Bruno, what on earth would you have blown 2 hours earlier in Sacramento?

[AndyM]

Originally posted by mjj
How come no one has asked: If you had enough to blow a .08 in San Bruno, who on earth would you have blown 2 hours earlier in Sacramento?

fixed












:twofinger

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by silversvs
Great info flowing back and forth in this thread. :applause

I do want to respond to RolnCode3's quote above.

I've followed many vehicles that I wanted to stop for one reason or another. I followed them for a short distance and I could not locate any reason to stop them. I turned off and started looking for other fish.

Yes, it is very possible, and quite normal, to find vehicles that are in a condition, and being driven, in a way that does not allow for an officer to pull it over. I'd like to think that all my vehicles are properly equipped and that when I drive I follow the rules of the road to the point that there would not be a reason to pull me over.
I have as well. The car just wasn't THAT interesting. But, if I just HAVE to get that car stopped, eventually something will happen. Or, they'll get tired of me following and will pull over to find out why the hell I'm following them. Now it's a consensual encounter!:shhh

I remember during the FTO class a story being told about an officer that "guessed" that Michigan issued 2 license plates, and there was only 1 on the car. Turns out he was wrong. Question: How to avoid the problem? Lots of stunned looks from seasoned officers. Answer: Follow him until he breaks some stupid vehicle code section. It's not my secret.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by silversvs
I'd like to think that all my vehicles are properly equipped and that when I drive I follow the rules of the road to the point that there would not be a reason to pull me over.

Unless I am on the Tuono. Then I would be subject to about every moving violation in the book :shhh

[zpyro]

Originally posted by Trogdor
There no requirement that patrol vehicles have cameras. In departments that do have them, departmental policies will govern when they must be on. Even for departments with strict policies about using cameras, they will not be on all the time. Imagine how much data would have to be stored to collect all moments of all shifts.

As for catching infractions on cameras: modern dash cams record digitally. They are on all the time recording everything, but only storing it for some short period of time As soon as the officer starts recording, it will save that already recorded portion in addition to ongoing events. That way an officer can watch an intersection with the camera off, but still catch violations if he turns the camera on soon enough.

All that said, most violations are not caught on tape. Unless the violation happens directly in front of the officer, the cam will miss it.

when I was on a ridealong with Sac PD it seemed his camera didn't turn on until he turned on his lights and/or siren

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by zpyro
when I was on a ridealong with Sac PD it seemed his camera didn't turn on until he turned on his lights and/or siren

Isn't that what I said? :teeth

Without going into too much detail, yes. Cars equipped with modern cameras will turn on automatically when the code 3 lights come on. The officer can also manually turn on the camera in the car. In our dept., we can also turn it on remotely via the mic we carry.

[saizai]

Originally posted by USARMworker
Thanks.

That's what I thought. Saizai didn't know what he was talking about.

I don't think treyh0lla has a snowball's chance of getting out of his DUI. The cop will make sure his story illustrates cause for the stop.

I didn't claim that it was always on or would necessarily capture the event.

However, you can ask the court to subpoena the video if it IS available, and if it DID cover the event (e.g. if in this case the cop was following treyh0lla when he made the turn in question) then video evidence > cop testimony > citizen testimony.

[OldMadBrit]

Originally posted by 1FastF4i
If you were over the legal BAC limit, then you shouldn't have been driving regardless of whether you got pulled over for a illegitimate reason. Own it dude.

+10

Zero sympathy here. :hand

I had friends injured by a DUI who thought that alcohol impaired reactions applied to everybody else.

IMHO random stops for DUI should be implemented. Who cares why you were pulled over. DUI is DUI - end of.

OK - I'm off my soapbox now.

[zpyro]

Originally posted by Trogdor
Isn't that what I said? :teeth

Without going into too much detail, yes. Cars equipped with modern cameras will turn on automatically when the code 3 lights come on. The officer can also manually turn on the camera in the car. In our dept., we can also turn it on remotely via the mic we carry.

what I understood from your post was that it is continuously recording over itself, after a certain amount of time. so you can press the record button and it starts saving it permanently from a minute or 2 or whatever ago. I just said that it started recording as soon as the lights/siren came on. I don't know if it saved anything before that.

[Nick]

When I was an infant, I was almost killed by a DUI driver. My parents told me they were driving home from eating at a restaurant with me in a child seat. Some tanked asshole blew a red and t-boned my parents car. The paramedics on scene said that if I was in any other child safety seat than the one I was in (top of the line, I guess), I would have died.

Driving deuce is a no-no.

[USARMworker]

Originally posted by saizai
I didn't claim that it was always on or would necessarily capture the event.

Sorry. You made it sound like a given. My bad.

[dan p]

never mind

[saizai]

[Responding to above post before it was deleted]

IMHO, the cops here are pretty fair-handed - give generally accurate info, whether it's to your benefit or not. Ethically neutral in that sense. Plus the benefit to the rest of us (and you) of perhaps learning a bit.

You'll note that they're not terribly hot on the DUI part either - too many of us know someone hurt by a drunk driver to have much sympathy for it, unfortunately. But, a legit question's a legit question.

Dunno what the DUI cost is overall, but factor in:
* court costs, fees, etc etc etc
* fines (IIRC vaguely these two total ~$1k?)
* lawyer costs if any
* "please rape me" level insurance costs for 7 years
* possible lost wages or worse jobs (if they happen to ask or do a background check)
* loss of license
* cost of alternate transport for duration of license loss
* social costs (viz. the above promises to beat up friends who do something that stupid)
... etc.

I don't think it's $10k, but probably easily $2-3k. Would be good if someone can provide better figures.

But IMHO not worth it, not because of the punishment, but because of the risk that you're going to be that asshole who killed/paralyzed your friend / brother / neighbor.

There're things that affect basically just you if you fuck up, and we acknowledge that even when the law doesn't, and treat them more leniently. Or maybe it just inconveniences other people, so you're being an asshole to others. Shrug, breathe, move on, rudeness is ignorable.

DUI ain't one of those things though. :(

[Sidewalk]

Okay, I got tired of reading it all, so I will skip to what I am thinking.

We are taking the word of a person who was drinking and driving, and went to the drunk tank? How do we know he remembered what the officer says?

I have gained too much experience with alcoholics and take the shit more seriously then I did before (and I have always been serious about DUI). Sorry, you drink, you drive, you get the ass rape.

STAY OFF THE FUCKING ROADS!!!

[silversvs]

Originally posted by saizai
[Responding to above post before it was deleted]

IMHO, the cops here are pretty fair-handed - give generally accurate info, whether it's to your benefit or not. Ethically neutral in that sense. Plus the benefit to the rest of us (and you) of perhaps learning a bit.

You'll note that they're not terribly hot on the DUI part either - too many of us know someone hurt by a drunk driver to have much sympathy for it, unfortunately. But, a legit question's a legit question.

Dunno what the DUI cost is overall, but factor in:
* court costs, fees, etc etc etc
* fines (IIRC vaguely these two total ~$1k?)
* lawyer costs if any
* "please rape me" level insurance costs for 7 years
* possible lost wages or worse jobs (if they happen to ask or do a background check)
* loss of license
* cost of alternate transport for duration of license loss
* social costs (viz. the above promises to beat up friends who do something that stupid)
... etc.

I don't think it's $10k, but probably easily $2-3k. Would be good if someone can provide better figures.

But IMHO not worth it, not because of the punishment, but because of the risk that you're going to be that asshole who killed/paralyzed your friend / brother / neighbor.

There're things that affect basically just you if you fuck up, and we acknowledge that even when the law doesn't, and treat them more leniently. Or maybe it just inconveniences other people, so you're being an asshole to others. Shrug, breathe, move on, rudeness is ignorable.

DUI ain't one of those things though. :(

This is a bit out of date, and several fines and penalties have increased, but..........

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
What it Will Really Cost You-

You’re a 25 year old out on a Friday night. You had a couple of beers too many and your blood alcohol level is a .08. You jump into your 1997 American made sedan and misjudge a turn. You over-steer and crash into a “no parking sign.” The local police department and fire department respond to the collision, but you’re not injured; only intoxicated. You’re arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Now get out your wallet for the penalties that will be imposed. Hopefully that $20.00 an hour job will be enough to pay for this first time drunk driving offense.

$ 700.00 - You are charged for “cost recovery” of the police and fire departments time and personnel services
$ 97.95 - Your vehicle is towed
$ 149.00 - You are booked into the local jail
$1,150.00 - You call your attorney –This fee will get you approximately 3 court appearances (non-trial)
$1,300.00 - Court fine for driving under the influence
$ 100.00 - Court assessment for victim/witness program
$ 320.00 - You will miss approx. 1 full day and 2 half-days of work for court appearances
$ 32.00 - You will need to obtain a vehicle release form from the police department to pick up towed car
$ 42.50 – Tow yard storage fee for your car -
Your current insurance policy is
$700.00 a year and your rates will be raised for three years, unless your insurance company decides not to renew your policy and drops you.
$ 500.00 - Your insurance collision deductible
$ 140.00 - Your insurance rates are raised 20% because you will lose your “good driver” status for 3 years
$1,000.00 - Insurance surcharge (each year for 3 years)
$ 622.00 - You will lose all your years of “driver experience” (each year for approximately 3-9 years)
$ 825.00 - A DMV hearing with your attorney to get your driver’s license back
$ 80.00 - You will miss a half-day of work for the DMV hearing
$ 100.00 - Payment to DMV for the administration per se (suspended driver’s license)
$ 12.00 - Payment to DMV for a duplicate copy of your driver’s license
$ 571.00 - Driving under the influence awareness classes
$ 55.00 - Administration fee for the Sheriff work alternative program (picking up garbage on the side of the road)
$ 16.00 - $8.00 per day for work alternative program (2 days)
$ 160.00 - You missed two half-days of work for work alternative program
$ 389.68 - 14 day rental of a compact economy car while your car is in the shop getting repaired __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________ $8,362.13 - Grand total for your first drunk driving offense – Is it worth it?

After taxes, you will have to work 576 hours, that’s 72 working days or 3 ½ months just to pay off your fines for the offense.

If you choose to drink, then make a mature decision – Don’t drive! The cost of a person’s life is “Priceless.”

[Sidewalk]

I will try and find the report someone in the Navy wrote (a senior officer) after he got busted with a DUI. It wasn't pretty.

[Sidewalk]

Subject: "Diary of a Drunk Driver" -- Worth Reading

Release Date: November 29, 2006


If you do not read anything else this holiday, make sure you read this:


Diary of a Drunk Driver: I am a 46 year old Naval Officer stationed here at the Naval Medical Center San Diego. I have been on active duty for 27 years that included 16 years of service as enlisted. The following paragraphs lay out in detail a chronological chain of events that completely changed my life over the last year from Halloween 2005 to Halloween 2006. Please take a few minutes to read this diary and hopefully what happened to me will never happen to you:


A few points about myself I want to share before going into the details of my eventual arrest for Driving Under The Influence of Alcohol. I did not consume alcohol on a consistent basis. As a matter of fact, I only drank alcohol occasionally at home or occasional social gatherings. I am an avid long distance runner and have completed 3 marathons (Rock and Roll here in San Diego twice and the Marine Corps Marathon in Washington, D.C.) I have two almost grown children and have very strong religious and moral beliefs. What happened to me can happen to anybody, anytime, anywhere if you are an alcohol user. I am not telling anyone not to use alcohol. I am saying however DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT, consume alcohol of any amount and operate a motor vehicle. Take a taxi, call a friend or walk home. DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!!!!!


On 29 October 2005 at about 20:45 I was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on Interstate 8 at the College Avenue exit. I had just left a social gathering where alcohol was served. While driving home, I was stopped by the San Diego Sheriff's department because my driving was impaired by the alcohol and I crossed over the white line that separated the lanes. I was issued a field sobriety test and failed.

I was placed under arrest at the scene and transported to the San Diego County Jail. Don't believe what you see on TV where the high priced lawyer comes and gets you out 15 minutes later. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. You will be there for a minimum of 8 to 10 hours. You will be searched, fingerprinted, photographed and then placed in a cell 20 X 20 with 40 of Your Best Friends that you never want to see again. The only thing in this room is a toilet in the corner. After the 8 to 10 hours and processing was complete I was released. I walked out of the jail on the streets of San Diego at about 0800 in the morning and came face to face with at least 75 homeless people. And I thought I had a bad night. NOW IS WHEN THE FUN BEGINS.


I had to attend a 3 months First Conviction Program at SDSU that included 12 1 hour classes each week for 12 weeks and 6 2 hour lectures for 6 weeks. I attended a mandatory Mothers against Drunk Driving lecture in which 3 moms told the story of the loss of their children to drunk drivers. A very emotional and guilt ridden experience. I had to complete 10 days of community service picking up trash, cleaning parks, etc for the city. I had to hire an attorney to represent me and contact my insurance company. I went to court and received a substantial fine.





The combined costs of this was:



First Conviction Program: $445

MADD: $25

Attorney: $1,700

Fine and Court Costs: $1,950

Total: $4,120



And I have even talked about the insurance. It does not matter who your insurance company is, they will cancel you and you will have to obtain a much less reputable insurance and much higher price. It will cost you thousands and thousands of dollars over the years.


Then comes the DMV. OH JOY. I lost my driver's license completely for 30 days and had a restricted license for 5 more months. And this was before I ever went to court. The DMV will revoke and suspend your license without a conviction. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Just being cited is justification. And then you have to pay to get it back. $195 is the cost.


I was selected for promotion to LCDR effective 1 February 2006. My promotion was withdrawn and I was removed from the promotion listing. I was processed for administrative separation and will retire involuntarily within the next 6 months. The reason I talk about this is because if I had not been arrested, I would have continued on active duty for 4 more years and reached a 30 year retirement. If I lived for 20 more years which is very reasonable, the loss of this LCDR pay at 30 years vice LT pay at 26 years will end up being approximately $600,000 over 20 years.


As you have noticed, I made a point of the monetary loss. The monetary loss PALES IN COMPARISION to the shame, emotional pain, grief and guilt that this will cause YOU, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR CO-WORKERS and just about every person you come in contact with. It can COMPLETEY DESTORY YOUR LIFE as you know it. It will have an adverse affect on EVERY FACET OF YOUR LIFE. I am just so thankful that I DID NOT KILL SOMEONE while driving under the influence of alcohol. I have only detailed the highlights (if you can call them that) of this experience.

There are many more smaller painful points but they are too many too mention.


My hope is that for those of you who take the time to read this you will not drink and drive. If my pain keeps just 1 of you from drinking and driving and even more if it saves one life then it was worth the pain.


Thank You

REMEMBER,

A. Denise Wagoner? She admitted driving under the influence over a thousand times until it happened. She had a couple of “pending DUI charges” against her when she finally get what she was asking for. She is no longer driving because she is completely blind and could barely stand on her own. We brought her to MCBH as our Safety Stand Down guest speaker on DUI. Those who have seen her or read her story should have learned or reminded about DUI consequences.


The above story is just one of the “countless” sad story on DUI. Yet, the numbers seem never to go down. There are so many drivers out there who are willing to roll the dice when they face the situation. They are the ones who truly believe they will never get caught (as they have done in the past). They will continue to do it until the “real thing happens”…. and IT WILL. It is just a matter of time.


C. Those who retrained themselves from drinking and driving are those who “developed fears on the consequences of drinking and driving.”


SO FOLKS, LET’S DEVELOP THAT FEAR.
E. Most popular comments from DUI Drivers after getting caught: “HOW COULD I BE THAT STUPID”

This is a fact. Ask them!

[saizai]

FWIW to correct one bit:

I was once arrested for DUI in Gilroy (I was stone cold sober like always, but my pupils were very dilated for some medical reasons). Booked, blood draw, etc. took overnight. My license was *not* suspended AFAIK. I was only passing through and didn't know the town at all, but I called a waitress I had just talked up and she was willing to pick me up and drive me to my car (which I would otherwise have had to spend a day finding... on foot). Very sweet of her.

Anywho, about a month later they send me a nice bill to recover the costs of arresting & processing me - ~$300 iirc?, along with the results of the blood draw - 100% clean, and a note saying they dropped the charges. I called them back and asked what would be the legal/credit/financial/anything consequence if I said "screw you I'm not paying for a wrong arrest". They said "nothing", so I tossed it in the trash. I haven't heard anything from them since.

But, that's just to say:
* I didn't get license suspended just for the citation / arrest (without conviction)
* Yeah they charge you for the arrest itself
* They try even if you're not guilty :/

[dan p]

Originally posted by saizai
[Responding to above post before it was deleted]



For the sake of clarity, I did not criticise, condem, condone or empahthize with the self admitted illegal behaviour of the original poster.

To add anything else would defeat the purpose of deleting my post in the first place and make it impossible to be civil.

[saizai]

Originally posted by dan p
For the sake of clarity, I did not criticise, condem, condone or empahthize with the self admitted illegal behaviour of the original poster.

Indeed you did not; I did not mean to say anything in my reply to that effect.

And not trying to override your deletion; just didn't want to delete my post also once I'd written it. :P

[Junkie]

I have always been curious about people being arrested/convicted for DUI when there is no evidence that they operated or intended to operate any motor vehicle.

For example, if you get drunk and sleep it off in the back seat of your car, and an LEO talks to you and decides you are intoxicated, then tests you etc, you will be convicted even if you never started the car. I have also heard that this is only true if you have the keys in the car - is this true? If not having the keys readily accessible keeps it from being DUI, would doing something like putting them under the hood be enough? How about if you are camping in your RV and have the keys somewhere in it, and get drunk and go to sleep in it, is this DUI?

[Sidewalk]

Maybe I miss understand the acronym, but DUI does mean driving under the influence, right?

[USARMworker]

Originally posted by Sidewalk
Maybe I miss understand the acronym, but DUI does mean driving under the influence, right?

Semantics.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by Sidewalk
Maybe I miss understand the acronym, but DUI does mean driving under the influence, right? yes, and IMO it is bullshit that people are convicted of DUI for sleeping off a few too many drinks in their back seat. However, you must be in control of the vehicle and apparently having the keys and being in the back seat qualifies as in control of the vehicle.

[USARMworker]

Originally posted by Junkie
...it is bullshit that people are convicted of DUI for sleeping off a few too many drinks in their back seat.

I agree. One of my friends got his second DUI for doing just that, crawling in the car to sleep it off because he knew he was too drunk to drive.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by USARMworker
I agree. One of my friends got his second DUI for doing just that, crawling in the car to sleep it off because he knew he was too drunk to drive. well where in the car was he? if he was in the driver's seat it isn't quite as bad that he was convicted.

[saizai]

You can get DUI for just sleeping in your car while drunk?

That's fucked up.

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by Junkie
I have always been curious about people being arrested/convicted for DUI when there is no evidence that they operated or intended to operate any motor vehicle.


The officer needs to articulate why he believes you were driving the car. Sleeping it off in the back seat of the car while still parked in a bar parking lot is a lot different than leaning out the window puking at a closed gas station that you couldn't have got to without driving.

There are no rules about keys in the ignition or anything like that. It all comes down to what the totality of all circumstances lead the officer to believe.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by Trogdor
The officer needs to articulate why he believes you were driving the car. Sleeping it off in the back seat of the car while still parked in a bar parking lot is a lot different than leaning out the window puking at a closed gas station that you couldn't have got to without driving.

There are no rules about keys in the ignition or anything like that. It all comes down to what the totality of all circumstances lead the officer to believe. I know someone who was convicted of DUI for sleeping it off in the back seat of his car in a bar parking lot.

[Sidewalk]

Originally posted by Junkie
I know someone who was convicted of DUI for sleeping it off in the back seat of his car in a bar parking lot. I think I would give him a list of AA meetings, that sounds like a sign to me...

[Junkie]

Originally posted by Sidewalk
I think I would give him a list of AA meetings, that sounds like a sign to me... so if you go out to a bar and when leaving realize that you are too far gone to drive home, but can't afford to take a taxi, you deserve a DUI? I'm not saying that what he did was a good idea, but I would much rather have someone sleep in their back seat than try to drive home.

[Sidewalk]

Originally posted by Junkie
so if you go out to a bar and when leaving realize that you are too far gone to drive home, but can't afford to take a taxi, you deserve a DUI? I'm not saying that what he did was a good idea, but I would much rather have someone sleep in their back seat than try to drive home. Where did I say DUI? Read what I wrote again, AA has nothing to do with DUI.

Though typically, it takes a few DUI's before people realize that maybe they do have a problem. Sleeping it off in your car might just be a sign that you have a problem.

Being able to afford to get wasted but not enough to get home, that might be a sign too.

Was he drunk at a bar by himself, no friends? Could be a sign he has a problem.

Too drunk for his friends to even deal with, that may be a sign of a problem.

Enough money to get wasted, not enough brains left after getting waste to make a collect call to a friend? That may be a sign.

No one willing to answer your call because they are tired of it, that may be a sign.

Just some hypotheticals that revolve around the situation. Don't know where your friend is in that list, but consider it.

Anyway, keep your DUI crap to yourself since I don't know the situation (I am hard core against people who drink and drive) and consider what I DID say and not what you wanted me to say.

Thanks

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by Junkie
I know someone who was convicted of DUI for sleeping it off in the back seat of his car in a bar parking lot.
DUI requires the violation occur in the officer's presence, someone signs a citizen arrest, or there is an accident involved. The DUI after an accident is one of the few exceptions to the normal 836 rule of having to be in the officer's presence.

I know that we have found someone drunk inside their car, suspected he drove, but not seen it. No DUI. Unless he is operating the vehicle in the officer's presence (or has wrecked), there shouldn't be a DUI arrest/conviction.

I'd be curious to know what actually happened. I bet there's more to that story. I just arrest for 647(f)-public intoxication.

[saizai]

Does being inside your car (or your friend's, or your taxi driver's) count as being "in public"?

[silversvs]

Originally posted by saizai
Does being inside your car (or your friend's, or your taxi driver's) count as being "in public"?

Yes, unless that car is on private property where the public does not generally have the right to be.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
DUI requires the violation occur in the officer's presence, someone signs a citizen arrest, or there is an accident involved. The DUI after an accident is one of the few exceptions to the normal 836 rule of having to be in the officer's presence.

I know that we have found someone drunk inside their car, suspected he drove, but not seen it. No DUI. Unless he is operating the vehicle in the officer's presence (or has wrecked), there shouldn't be a DUI arrest/conviction.

Actually, 40300.5 has been expanded to go beyond just the collision exception to the misdemeanor not in your presence rule.

40300.5. In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a
warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:
(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.
(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is
obstructing a roadway.
(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately
arrested.
(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage
property unless immediately arrested.
(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

Subsections (d) and (e) help us in that I might find you drunk inside your vehicle and not have observed any driving which is an element of 23152 VC. Since I know that if you drive away you are likely to injure yourself or others or damage property because you are too impaired to drive safely. I also know that if I wait to go get a warrant to arrest you, your body will be eliminating the alcoholic content of your blood (BAC) every minute that I have to wait.

The key wording is "had been" driving.

[saizai]

(Assuming the case of someone getting drunk at a bar, going into their car that is parked nearby, and immediately taking a nap to sleep it off. I.e. no evidence that they were just driving [because they weren't].)

(d) seems rather inapplicable to someone who is asleep, since (being asleep) they're not about to drive. Therefore the "immediately" clause is not filled. If anything, waking them up is likely to make them more likely to want to drive, ergo would contribute to that potential future DUI.

(Only exception I can think of: if you're trying to prevent them from throwing up and choking on their vomit, which happens to people who fall asleep facing up when drunk. [I know one person who died that way. :(])

(e) likewise is irrelevant unless you are intending to charge for public intoxication, because as yet they have not committed a crime, and you do not have the right to protect evidence for some potential FUTURE crime (eg that of their later committing DUI).

Also, "destroy or conceal" to me seems like a conscious act; their body's elimination process doesn't seem to count.

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by saizai

(e) likewise is irrelevant unless you are intending to charge for public intoxication, because as yet they have not committed a crime, and you do not have the right to protect evidence for some potential FUTURE crime (eg that of their later committing DUI).

Also, "destroy or conceal" to me seems like a conscious act; their body's elimination process doesn't seem to count.

As svs pointed out, you must first be able to establish that the person was driving. If you cannot, then all the other circumstances are not applicable. If you can, then (e) always applies. There need not be any intent to destroy evidence for (e) to apply. Your body metabolising the alcohol is sufficient to invoke (e).

Don't read anything else into this. It is simple. If you have been driving and the officer can establish that you have, and you are under the influence, then you can be arrested, even if you park to sleep it off. If you haven't been driving, then you can't be arrested for DUI. It is that simple.

As for the guy who was just sleeping it off in the car without driving? We weren't there and don't know what happened. Based on what I just said, it shouldn't have happened. But frankly I have a hard time believing that the officer, the DA, and a jury all didn't buy the story that he was just sleeping it off, if he in fact was.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by saizai
(d) seems rather inapplicable to someone who is asleep, since (being asleep) they're not about to drive. Therefore the "immediately" clause is not filled. If anything, waking them up is likely to make them more likely to want to drive, ergo would contribute to that potential future DUI.

(Only exception I can think of: if you're trying to prevent them from throwing up and choking on their vomit, which happens to people who fall asleep facing up when drunk. [I know one person who died that way. :(])

I gotta' disagree 100% on that. At any point the person could wake and drive away. It requires only a few seconds to wake up, turn the key, and put it in drive. To say that they could not immediately drive away is trying to split hairs WAY too far. I almost never leave a drunk alone with the keys. If they can't get a ride, I usually take them for (f). There's just too big a gamble if they did drive and injured/killed someone. If I don't arrest them now, it's not going to happen.

It comes back to facts and circumstances which lead you to believe they HAD BEEN driving under the influence.

Thanks for that legal update. Wasn't aware of the other sections. I'd love to read some case law on arrests that have been upheld under this wording.

[saizai]

I too would love to read any case law y'all can cite, as I don't know any that's relevant.

I think we all agree it's a good thing for people not to DUI. IMO it should be legal for people to sleep in their cars, drunk or not, without being harassed or arrested. I would rather they be sleeping than getting booked (but rather they get booked than DUI). Indeed as you say, it does get to the totality of the situation. One hopes that officers would always exercise wise judgment, but I feel this is a bit naive unfortunately.

I would expect that "immediate(ly)" has a decent definition, either by statute or relevant case law? If so, if someone could dig it up that would contribute to this discussion.

But it reminds me e.g. of weapon situations. What are the "immediacies" of these:
* guy owns a gun
* guy has gun in car, unloaded
...
* guy has gun in pocket, loaded
...
* guy has gun in hand and aimed at ground, loaded on safety
...
* guy has gun in hand and aimed at a protected target (e.g. you), loaded off safety

AFAIK you are only allowed to shoot him (because he poses an "immediate" deadly threat) when he goes to aim the gun at you, not before. (Or when he's going back and forth a lot or whatever - the point being, brandishing alone isn't enough. But during the "just brandishing" phase you do get to use less-lethal force. *)

Obviously the two situations differ considerably in various ways, but the point is that the law clearly distinguishes various levels of "immediacy". The "could they do it in a few seconds" version applies even to the unloaded gun in car glove compartment scenario; I'm pretty sure you could get it out, a clip in, aimed, and firing in less than 10 seconds, 30 max. But that's not immediate enough for the "lethal self-defense" law, right?

The question is what sort of 'immediacy' applies here. Hopefully that is something that the courts have settled by now.


* Amusing anecdote, not sure if true: I met a guy once who was an ex-dealer. He said his friend once got in a fight with someone over some drugs, and that he interceded in the fight. That he had no weapon and the other guy had a knife; he was stabbed with said knife; he then took out the knife from his own gut and stabbed the attacker with it and fled, with the attacker on the ground. Attacker died of those injuries. He was later convicted of and served several years for homicide not under self-defense, because at the point when he stabbed the attacker with what turned out to be lethal force, the attacker was not armed (as the knife was in his gut but not in the attacker's hand), and therefore the attacker was not posing an "immediate deadly threat" (and because he fled the scene, thereby further negating self-defense). o.O

I have no idea if the guy was credible or not, but it seems like a relevant little anecdote.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
I gotta' disagree 100% on that. At any point the person could wake and drive away. It requires only a few seconds to wake up, turn the key, and put it in drive. To say that they could not immediately drive away is trying to split hairs WAY too far. I almost never leave a drunk alone with the keys. If they can't get a ride, I usually take them for (f). There's just too big a gamble if they did drive and injured/killed someone. If I don't arrest them now, it's not going to happen.

It comes back to facts and circumstances which lead you to believe they HAD BEEN driving under the influence.

Thanks for that legal update. Wasn't aware of the other sections. I'd love to read some case law on arrests that have been upheld under this wording. but doesn't the entire section require the officer to "reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage"? it sounds to me like the person has to have already driven and then stopped.

[summitdog]

Originally posted by Trogdor
There are two ways to fight a DUI. Fight the PC for the stop. Fight the impairment/BAC. Fighting the impairment is pretty difficult, especially if your BAC is over .08.

Get a lawyer. If the stop is deemed illegal, the case will be dismissed and DUI goes away.


+1 An attorney will likely file a Pitchess Motion and a Motion to Supress to attack the credibility of the stop. If the motion to supress is granted that means ALL of the "fruits of the poisonous tree", e.g., the observations of the officer, which led to the DUI charge, will be supressed and the DA will have to drop the charges.

Like VTRWeasel suggested request your DMV Per Se hearing immediately.

Scotty

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by mjj
How come no one has asked: If you had enough to blow a .08 in San Bruno, what on earth would you have blown 2 hours earlier in Sacramento?

Quoted for a VALID POINT.

[exDMV408]

It seems these days some officers will use almost any reason for a traffic stop, especially after certain hours of the evening. I defend against this very thing at DMV hearings. I am a former DMV hearing officer. You may be able to beat it in court and most importantly at the DMV hearing. The DMV penalty is worse than the courts. You need to request the DMV hearing within 10 days of the arrest to stop the suspension.
-Gary

[summitdog]

If you want someone to handle your DMV hearing, Gary is your man. Former DMV Safety Officer, he knows the in and outs of the DMV protocol.

Scotty

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by exDMV408
It seems these days some officers will use almost any reason for a traffic stop, especially after certain hours of the evening.
And rightfully so! Here, it nabbed a drunk driver!

Originally posted by summitdog
+1 An attorney will likely file a Pitchess Motion and a Motion to Supress to attack the credibility of the stop. If the motion to supress is granted that means ALL of the "fruits of the poisonous tree", e.g., the observations of the officer, which led to the DUI charge, will be supressed and the DA will have to drop the charges.

Like VTRWeasel suggested request your DMV Per Se hearing immediately.

Scotty
A pitchess motion will almost certainly not be granted in a case like this. I've seen them denied on better grounds than this. There's no use of force, and a VERY questionable accusation of an illegal stop.

If the motion to suppress is granted, then obviously whole case goes away. Be surprised if either motion were to be granted though...someone reading the report would know better, but serious violations (like DUI) are much more likely to be prosecuted despite motions and requests for jury trials.

[Var]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
And rightfully so! .

sure as long as it's legal and SOP, stop everyone and anyone you want.


i don't sympathize with drunk drivers.Please take this scenario with a grain of salt, but i'd rather have drunk drivers roaming around than have people getting stopped for no good reason. The integrity of our civil liberties slowly deteriorates as law enforcement starts micromanaging our lives and police officers are given more power and rights. I think we'll be just fine without any more new laws, cause we were doing just fine 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago...

[silverbelt]

Originally posted by Var
but i'd rather have drunk drivers roaming around than have people getting stopped for no good reason.

Wow. Just wow. There is a reason why drunk driving laws are as tough as they are...........The public demanded it because innocent people (in alot of cases, teenagers) were being killed in the name of "Its not my fault, I was drunk". If people were more concerned about civil liberties than having drunk drivers roaming around, then I submit to you that a drunk drivers first offense would be no worse than a speeding ticket.

[brichter]

Not to mention a lot of the people killed weren't the drunk drivers, but innocent motorists just driving down the street when they're suddenly plowed by a drunk.

From Here (http://www.helpjacqui.com/)

Before:

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/190/113/2931752-j15.jpg

[brichter]

After:

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/190/113/2931753-j_after.jpg

[brichter]

39% of all traffic fatalities are due to alcohol-related crashes. Not all of those fatalities are the impaired driver.

And as much as you think otherwise, we were not doing just fine 10, 20, 30 years ago when it comes to DUI and the injuries and fatalities related to them.

[Sidewalk]

Am I the only person who doesn't seem to ever have problems with these out of control officers? Why am I the only one not getting pulled over except for when I am doing something wrong, or something questionable?

Having a license plate light out was questionable, good grounds. Of course, I was only given a warning after a 30 second stop.

Seems real wierd that everyone seems to have this attitude against the man, when everytime I have been stopped it was legitimate.

[slom3chicken]

Originally posted by RolnCode3


... We can't just stop people for no reason. That's why you sit back for 20 seconds and find a legitimate reason. If I want to stop your vehicle, I'll find a reason. There's far too many sections in the vehicle code (or all the other ones as well) to not do something illegal.

Laying in wait???

Bad Cop.

[slom3chicken]

Originally posted by Trogdor
You can refuse a sobriety test. The officer will use all means available to him for determining your sobriety. Having you go through the tests is one of those tools. If you refuse, he'll make the determination based on other factors, like your breath, bloodshoot eyes, observed driving, speech, and so on.

Before being placed under arrest, you can refuse the preliminary breath test (usually a PAS device). In fact, the officer must even tell you the PAS is voluntary.

After you are placed under arrest, you *must* submit to a legal blood alcohol test. If you refuse, you will have your license suspended on the spot for one year. In all likelyhood, the officer will take you to a hospital and force a blood draw anyway. Even if it turns out later that you beat the DUI wrap, your license will still be suspended because you refused the test. This is a DMV action.

You must not be cop.

Forcing a blood draw is assault, and if you come into my ED with your prisoner, you won't get me to perform that blood draw. That is for sure.


Are you a cop?
It seems you would know this.

[slom3chicken]

Originally posted by silversvs
Great info flowing back and forth in this thread. :applause

I do want to respond to RolnCode3's quote above.

I've followed many vehicles that I wanted to stop for one reason or another. I followed them for a short distance and I could not locate any reason to stop them. I turned off and started looking for other fish.

Yes, it is very possible, and quite normal, to find vehicles that are in a condition, and being driven, in a way that does not allow for an officer to pull it over. I'd like to think that all my vehicles are properly equipped and that when I drive I follow the rules of the road to the point that there would not be a reason to pull me over.

Profiling?

[Sidewalk]

Originally posted by slom3chicken
Laying in wait???

Bad Cop. If a person is weaving in the lane, not speeding, and not leaving any other sign of doing anything illegal, but you are still suspicious of them, are you still going to ride your bike near them, or are you going to speed up and get some safe distance?

Just as easily an officer can wait and see if a brake light is out or some other such thing to check.

Originally posted by slom3chicken
Profiling? Same as my response before.

[Lester Green]

Originally posted by slom3chicken
Forcing a blood draw is assault, and if
:rolleyes wrong, IIRC when you sign your DL you are giving consent...

[silverbelt]

Originally posted by slom3chicken
if you come into my ED with your prisoner, you won't get me to perform that blood draw. That is for sure.


Not to worry. There will somebody around who was the victim of an accident with a drunk driver, or who has a close friend/family member who was, and will happily do the blood draw.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by silverbelt
Wow. Just wow. There is a reason why drunk driving laws are as tough as they are...........The public demanded it because innocent people (in alot of cases, teenagers) were being killed in the name of "Its not my fault, I was drunk". If people were more concerned about civil liberties than having drunk drivers roaming around, then I submit to you that a drunk drivers first offense would be no worse than a speeding ticket. big difference there. there are two different aspects of this:
1) what it takes to pull you over
2) what happens to you if convicted
in my opinion, it should require seeing you do something wrong to pull you over, but you aren't going to have any fun once convicted of DUI.

[saizai]

FWIW in my case the blood draw was not consensual.

Though they were pretty much pricks the whole way through...

[silverbelt]

Originally posted by Junkie
...in my opinion, it should require seeing you do something wrong to pull you over,

I agree.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by slom3chicken
Profiling?

Yep, "Criminal Profiling." After years of experience and training, I have a very good idea of which cars I should be stopping to see who is driving and what they are up to. Of course I always make sure I have a legitimate reason to stop them, and not just my sixth sense.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by slom3chicken
Forcing a blood draw is assault, and if you come into my ED with your prisoner, you won't get me to perform that blood draw. That is for sure.


Forced blood draws are absolutely legal as long as they are done in a manner that would not "shock the conscious" of the court. Case law has determined this to be having the blood draw done in a medically approved manner. If I take a suspected DUI driver into your emergency room I would not bother to ask you to perform the draw nor would I need your permission. I would have our on-call phlebotimist come in and get the draw from the suspect. Done it many times before and there has never been a question about it.

[Var]

Originally posted by silverbelt
Wow. Just wow. There is a reason why drunk driving laws are as tough as they are...........The public demanded it because innocent people (in a lot of cases, teenagers) were being killed in the name of "Its not my fault, I was drunk". If people were more concerned about civil liberties than having drunk drivers roaming around, then I submit to you that a drunk drivers first offense would be no worse than a speeding ticket.

The initial reason to stop is what i was talking about. That has nothing to do with DUI, or terrorism, or any other crime. LEO's have too much power to do what they please. The ends don't justify the means.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by slom3chicken
Laying in wait???

Bad Cop.
If you can't figure out how to read what I wrote, don't quote me. Go troll some other area of the forum.

Anybody else who is on this kick about "unjustified stops" and thinking I'm condoning them can't read either.

Every stop I have EVER made is based on a reasonable suspicion of the observation of a violation. It may not be a major one, but it was prohibited in one of the 29 codes in California. That's all that's required...live with it.

[Var]

And if you had made a stop that was against SOP nobody would ever know....

that's the problem

[JPM]

Originally posted by silversvs
Forced blood draws are absolutely legal as long as they are done in a manner that would not "shock the conscious" of the court. Case law has determined this to be having the blood draw done in a medically approved manner. If I take a suspected DUI driver into your emergency room I would not bother to ask you to perform the draw nor would I need your permission. I would have our on-call phlebotimist come in and get the draw from the suspect. Done it many times before and there has never been a question about it.

+1. Done all the time.

[summitdog]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
And rightfully so! Here, it nabbed a drunk driver!


A pitchess motion will almost certainly not be granted in a case like this. I've seen them denied on better grounds than this. There's no use of force, and a VERY questionable accusation of an illegal stop.

If the motion to suppress is granted, then obviously whole case goes away. Be surprised if either motion were to be granted though...someone reading the report would know better, but serious violations (like DUI) are much more likely to be prosecuted despite motions and requests for jury trials.

How often have you been to court to watch the Pitchess Motion? The burden to have an in camera hearing is very low.

I find it very interesting that the grounds that the agencies argue to protect the personnel files of officers is "right to privacy." The irony is that these are the same agencies that have been whittling away the right to privacy in the courts but they still want to apply it to the officers.

One question I present to the court that seems to carry a lot of weight is: "Why an individual should have less right to privacy in his/her own home than a LEO should in their personnel file?"

Scotty

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by summitdog
How often have you been to court to watch the Pitchess Motion? The burden to have an in camera hearing is very low.

I find it very interesting that the grounds that the agencies argue to protect the personnel files of officers is "right to privacy." The irony is that these are the same agencies that have been whittling away the right to privacy in the courts but they still want to apply it to the officers.

One question I present to the court that seems to carry a lot of weight is: "Why an individual should have less right to privacy in his/her own home than a LEO should in their personnel file?"

Scotty
Last I heard a judge makes a determination as to what is pertinent. The agency doesn't make that determination.

I've never had a Pitchess motion, but we've had them filed against other officers I work with, and none were granted.

[NVR FNSH]

Originally posted by Var
I think we'll be just fine without any more new laws, cause we were doing just fine 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago...

Tell that to the lady that was killed by a drunk driver - the driver's 7th DUI since the '70s..... He has also rearended a sheriff's deputy in an unmarked care - on the same stretch of road that the bicyclist was killed.

So much for we were doing just fine 30 years ago.....

Brian

[saizai]

Originally posted by silversvs
Yep, "Criminal Profiling." After years of experience and training, I have a very good idea of which cars I should be stopping to see who is driving and what they are up to. Of course I always make sure I have a legitimate reason to stop them, and not just my sixth sense.

AKA deciding to do something and then looking for a reason to do it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

You're not immune to any of those just because you have experience and training... if anything they make it even easier to stumble into these, because you have more anecdotes (the plural of which is not "data") from which to draw potentially false pattern matches.

(The simple example you're probably already familiar with, in case you're not interested in the cogsci or logic: Black people are thought to commit more crimes. Therefore, blacks are more often stopped than whites. Therefore, blacks are more often (justly) arrested than whites. However, you can't conclude from that that blacks are actually *committing* more crimes than whites, even though they indeed are arrested and convicted more frequently, because it may be explained by the increase in enforcement.)

[saizai]

BTW:

"A Pitchess Motion is filed by a defense attorney to force the police to produce information about the police officers which will help the defendant and which is negative towards the police. Citizen complaints, on the job discipline and other information must be provided."

Example (from Oakland murder case):
http://home.earthlink.net/~bdega/criminaldefenselawyerdanielhorowitz/id8.html

[slom3chicken]

Originally posted by Beetlejuice
:rolleyes wrong, IIRC when you sign your DL you are giving consent...


Uh, no.

You sign an agreement that you acknowledge the consequences of not submitting to a BAC test. Nothing more.
Actually, unless consent is expressed by the party, or it is implied (the pt, would want it done if they were of sound mind and could express this to you)
The Tox. screening we do is a matter of care, of the patient, not to garner evidence for the prosecuting parties. Furthermore, HIPPA (look it up) regulations guarantee privacy of information given on an individual that is in our care.

It seems a warrant would be the only way to procure the evidence(tox screen results) legally.

Even still, I am quite sure one cannot be forced to give a blood draw, or otherwise submit to screenings. (Care without consent is assault, or so I have been told) Feel free to ask those that provide care.

But hey, what do I know, it has only been my job for the past 15 years.

That said, I feel that drinking and driving has the potential to cause more pain to one's self(which I feel that one should have the liberty to do), and to others(which I feel no one has the right to do) than anyone can imagine.
I have seen it all too many times.
However, I know cops in Vegas, they think they have the "brass pass" and act less than honorably (Drink and Drive, and then drive like a bat out of hell).
Frankly, I find that even more offensive than any other drunk on the road and as a result, I will have nothing to do with them.

I feel we have an obligation to play by the rules, even if they suck sometimes. If it bothers us so much, make an effort to change the rules,
Legally, not through intimidation, or coersion,

If that were the case, I know a few people I would like to give a little frontal labotamy or maybe some good solid electric shock therapy to.

However.

PS Thanks for doing your job out there guys, I know it is difficult. More than anyone this side of the blue line will ever know.

[Var]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH
Tell that to the lady that was killed by a drunk