DWI arrest with NO ALCOHOL or DRUGS just tired

[CdwJava]

Amen Willy!
According to original studies conducted by NHTSA, these tests are not designed to detect impairment, but rather give a probability that a driver is at or a above a 0.08% BAC. However, studies throw doubt on the tests' usefulness in helping an officer to judge either. In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study of the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped people performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink and drive" (sic). The blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects was 0.00, unknown to the officers. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to be able to drive. This study showed the possible inaccuracy of FSTs.[21]

Drunk driving in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the problem with using Wikipedia - it presents a skewed set of facts.

There were serious flaws within the Clemson study that I shall not go into here. There are also two validation studies that support the NHTSA SFSTs. And the SFSTs were, of course, designed to present a probability that a person might be impaired. That was the point. And since an arrest for probable cause does NOT require absolute certainty, the use of the SFSTs is perfectly valid. In fact, a conviction in court does not require absolute certainty, either!

Once again, the point here is that the process appears to have been adhered to thus far. Your son was arrested based upon probable cause. When the results of his tox screen come back, if they show all negative as you suspect, the DA will likely choose not to pursue the matter. if he does choose to pursue, it, he will have a difficult time making the case because of the built in reasonable doubt of the negative tests and no evidence of any other type of drugs use ... assuming he did not tell the police he had consumed some sort of medication or substance not on the screen.

 

[dave33]

Ah ... the "limit."

Okay, let us assume I take a handful of Vicodin ... i a half hour I crawl to my car because I am unable to walk or see straight. I get behind the wheel and start driving. I get about 50' and I get stopped for driving west across a northbound roadway. They put a breathalyzer in my mouth, and I blow ... Yep! 0.000! So, by your system, I'd be free to go because I blew a triple goose egg!

Drivers DO drive impaired on other substances besides alcohol. The legal concept of an arrest due to articulable probable cause has been the standard ... well, forever.

You also have to understand that "the limit" is merely the level at which a person is presumed impaired, it is not to say that a person is NOT impaired below that - they certainly can be.

The whole "presumed innocent" truly is a thing of the past. It seems to have no relevance in our current legal system.

 

[Logical Heretic]

Im pretty certain that field sobriety tests are voluntary, i.e. its up to you wether or not to submit to the test(breathalyzer, urine or blood tests are not voluntary). Personally I wouldnt get out of my car unless I was under arrest. Its a danger to the officer and myself to stand on the side of the highway. If you are sober and you fail a fst then you must submit a sample. What if you refuse the fst for safety or medical concerns cdw? I cannot pass a fst due to damage to my inner ears.

 

[CdwJava]

The whole "presumed innocent" truly is a thing of the past. It seems to have no relevance in our current legal system.

How so? The courts still require that a person be proven innocent. The law always held that a person can be arrested upon establishment of probable cause, this has not been altered in many decades. In the past, one might not even need probable cause ... at least over the last 40 years or more, you do.

So, legally, a person still is presumed innocent. But, that does not mean he cannot be arrested with cause.

 

[CdwJava]

Im pretty certain that field sobriety tests are voluntary, i.e. its up to you wether or not to submit to the test(breathalyzer, urine or blood tests are not voluntary).

Yep.

Personally I wouldnt get out of my car unless I was under arrest.

Unfortunately, with the exception of one or two states, if the officer orders you out of the car during a detention, you are legally obligated to comply or face the consequences of non-compliance (i.e. arrest).

What if you refuse the fst for safety or medical concerns cdw? I cannot pass a fst due to damage to my inner ears.

If the FSTs are declined for nay reason, the officer will have to form his or her opinion based upon whatever observations have been made to that point. If I have someone who claims such a medical problem, I might ask them to submit to a nystagmus test (unaffected by the inner ear issue) and, perhaps, the field breath test device (the PBT).

 

[cinnamon007]

I understand what you are saying cdw,I really do.and I also understand that I can give my copy of urine test to the city attorney and when the police urine test comes back they would probably dismiss it.
my problem is they do not want to spend the money to give you a urine test say within four hours so you will not be arrested when test comes back clean.They make you instead pay YOUR MONEY to bail out !
and an arrest can have devastating effects on a person.If the person can't bail out ,they have to sit in jail for a court date which could takes weeks.They could lose their job,possibly their car if it got towed and possibly their house if they can't pay the rent or mortgage due to the job loss.
it can be a devastating cycle for anybody.
I was just told that a very nice lady who is a real estate agent got arrested for DWI/DUI when all she had taken was some(OTC) medicine for her cold.her mugshot was on the internet and in a newspaper they print with all arrest it it.
and everybody wonders why the jails and prisons are overcrowded and the courts are all backed up.

 

[cinnamon007]

oh and officers do have discretion,they can do what they want.
my son got pulled over one time on the way to school and the officer looked around and said your windshield is cracked.
WHY did he stop him and tell him his windshield is cracked. I am 49 years old and I have never been pulled over because my windshield is cracked.
and you do not get a ticket for having a cracked windshield,the inspection sticker takes care of all that.

 

[CdwJava]

As a note, if you take enough over the counter cold medicine, you will be too impaired to safely operate a motor vehicle. General, if you take the suggested dose of most medicine you will not be. But, some like NyQuil can mess you up. All because it is the over the counter does not make it safe to operate a motor vehicle.

And, yes, I suppose they could staff logistical systems and labs to operate 24/7 and get results in 4 hours, but the expense would be incredible! No state could afford that unless you want to give up a lot of other services or pay a stupendous tax rate for that privilege.

As for discretion, yes, of course officers have discretion. When your son was not cited for the cracked windshield, the officer exercised discretion. Officers might pull someone over for a mechanical issue just so that they might see who is driving or check if the person is DUI. We often use traffic offenses as the lawful reason to investigate something or someone further. We then utilize our discretion as to whether or not to cite. But, they cannot do just whatever they want, whatever they do must fall within the confines of the law.

 

[cinnamon007]

just read an article about these officers salaries .

WMPD Officers Rack Up $40K, $30K, $20K In Overtime Alone; See Published Salary List of All WMPD Officers
Go


seems to me something is going on ,they could be getting incentives for making more DWI arrest. I hope the FBI is investigating this also!

 

[CdwJava]

just read an article about these officers salaries .

WMPD Officers Rack Up $40K, $30K, $20K In Overtime Alone; See Published Salary List of All WMPD Officers
Go

seems to me something is going on ,they could be getting incentives for making more DWI arrest. I hope the FBI is investigating this also!

Imagine that ... officers getting paid for overtime!

What those overtime numbers do not say is how or why they occurred. It could well be that the OT was used to cover shifts due to a lack of personnel ... or special events ... or one of a host of other reasons. It does not imply that officers are making up false arrests just to earn an hour's overtime. And, once again, it has nothing to do with your son's situation.

 

[cinnamon007]

I understand that. I am not saying they shouldn't get overtime. the article is implying that something may not be right and they very well could be getting incentives for that . I mean the FBI has been investigating them! I really wasn't paying to much attention to it until now,when this happened. the sheriff just got arrested a month ago.the deputies still work there.

 

[HighwayMan]

...and you do not get a ticket for having a cracked windshield,the inspection sticker takes care of all that.

Of course people get tickets for cracked windshields. Are you saying that because you never have that means no one does?

The inspection sticker takes care of what?

 

[CdwJava]

I understand that. I am not saying they shouldn't get overtime. the article is implying that something may not be right and they very well could be getting incentives for that . I mean the FBI has been investigating them! I really wasn't paying to much attention to it until now,when this happened. the sheriff just got arrested a month ago.the deputies still work there.

The Sheriff might have been dirty, but that does not mean that the deputies are. After all, the deputies were likely there before the Sheriff was elected, and they will be there when a new one is elected.

And was it even deputies that arrested your son?

All the same, the FBI conducts a lot of investigations. If an investigation was tantamount to guilt, then your son would be guilty of DUI because he was investigated by the officers that arrested him.

 

[cinnamon007]

And was it even deputies that arrested your son?

yea ,they are over the drug task force. the same division that the sheriff was getting whoever to set up and falsely arrest this person he didn't like, according to the news report.

this is a small town and this sheriff has been in office since around 2003.

 

[CdwJava]

And, if your son appears on some enemies list, this might be a viable argument to make. As it stands, however, he will have to wait for the test results and the prosecutor's decision on whether or not to file.

Also, unless you have read the police report, keep in mind that your account of events is based upon what your son says ... and that means it is without the perspective of the officers' observations. Their perceptions will be a huge part of the ultimate decision. If you have the report, then you and your son might have some idea how well the officer laid out his articulation, and it will give some clue to a trained eye as to how knowledgeable or experienced the officer is in drug evaluations.