Is there cause for litigation?

[tafroe]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I would like to get an expert opinion on a situation that occurred with a family member. He is completely deaf and was arrested for public intoxication. The circumstances, as best I understand, are as follows:

-- He was stopped by an undercover officer as he was leaving a casino. the officer said he was intoxicated and asked how many drinks were consumed to which my relative replied two. The officer said he saw 5 drinks being consumed. The officer had the casino pull the video tape and saw five drinks. They were all beers (12 oz bottles I think). The amount of time he was drinking was approx. 3 hours (9pm - midnight)

-- He was taken to jail and was not provided an interpreter after asking for one.

-- He refused to take a breathalyzer test since he was refused an interpreter.

-- All subsequent communication was done via handwritten notes.

-- He asked for an early trial to which a judge saw him at 8 the following morning at the jail. He pleaded not guilty and was put back in the cell. Again, no interpreter was provided. Bail was set at $200.00 and he was told a bondsman was on the way to post for him. He was unable to get a hold of any family or friends as his text phone was left at home.

-- We found out he was in jail at 5 pm and were told we could bail him out at 6:30 since the jail staff would be eating supper.

-- We arrived at 6:30 and by that time no bail bondsman had shown and we posted bail to have him released.

My main questions are:

Does it seem odd that the detective knew how many drinks were consumed? I have to believe there were others drinking in far greater excess. Was he monitoring everyone in the casino that was drinking? If not, why was he focusing on my deaf relative?

If an interpreter was requested, what reasons are acceptable to not fill this request? Especially when it relates to instructional items like a breathalyzer test and a hearing?

I plan to follow up with my relative to see if there were any incidences that would have prompted the detective to track him and to better understand what was all written in the communication (he has the papers).

I believe these facts are all true, however I will be confirming with my relative everything that was communicated to me to ensure they are factual simply because it almost seems unbelieveable.

I would be interested in hearing any thoughts regarding civil or criminal, as his court date is set for Dec 3rd.

Thanks

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The legal process does not stop by him requesting an interpreter. He obviously had the means to communicate. More importantly, why did your "relative" lie? Why should the legal process, which is time sensitive, stop, when your relative could communicate freely. Lack of an available interpreter did not cost him anything. You are correct, it is unbelievable someone would be stupid enough to lie to a police officer, knowing they were on tape. He really screwed the pooch by trying to be as obstructive as he could be.

 

[tranquility]

Does it seem odd that the detective knew how many drinks were consumed? I have to believe there were others drinking in far greater excess. Was he monitoring everyone in the casino that was drinking? If not, why was he focusing on my deaf relative?

Here's the cop advantage. Why do we care about any of those questions? The only way to care is is the cop had an improper purpose. There is nothing here to indicate that. The better and easier question is WHY? Almost always, the reason the cops intervene is because the person stuck out from the crowd for some reason.

Really, a public intoxication where video tape was reviewed? Who would waste that much time? Better is to say I smelled the strong odor of alcoholic beverages emitting from his breath and person and he seemed like he was heading towards his car with keys in hand (or whatever got the cops attention) and officer formed the opinion the suspect was going to drive and, hence, was unable to care for the safety of himself or others.

Same arrest, just as good. Cops don't need to know how much drinking went on, only that the person was unable to care for the safety of himself or others because of it. (Frankly, 5 drinks in 3 hours is more of a problem for the officer. If he hadn't gotten the tape, the case would be better.)

Also, don't even consider "litigation" until the criminal complaint is completed to the suspect's benefit. (Not guilty, case never filed) Even after that, you are not going to get anything here. Arguable probable cause for a public intoxication is pretty low.

As to the rest, I don't see what the problem is on how the suspect was treated.

 

[ecmst12]

Refusing to take a breathalyzer is the same thing as failing one. Regardless of his "reasoning", since they were able to communicate by notes, he can't claim he didn't understand what was going on.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Refusing to take a breathalyzer is the same thing as failing one.

It is when implied consent is involved. There is no mention of driving an automobile, hence no implied consent.

 

[slwslw]

Another joke

That's funny, are you also the guy who posted that you saw a cop leaning against a no loitering sign, on anaother thread??

You said he was completely deaf. In the next sentence you said he answered the cops question by saying two beers.