back seat passenger under the influence charge

[RRevak]

Carl, I understand what you are saying. Physical evidence is not testimony, but in the absence of the spoken word, the blood was still used to incriminate him. There would be no other evidence except for a visual inspection by the officer. The blood draw certainly makes for a stronger case. Since he did not consent it still seems like he was forced to incriminate himself. I understand it is metabolizing therefore exigency circumstances exist. But come on, being held down and forced to give a fluid for such a thing is just wrong. In my state being under the influence alone is not a crime, although disorderly conduct of course is. The law may very well be on your side, as i have not investigated it. Just sees like the opposite of freedom. Although since o.p. was legal in taking the drug this might be for nothing, I just wasn't aware some or most states had and supported those laws.

Look up 929 F.2d 990 United States v. Reid. Pay particular attention to lines 12-15. It pretty much sums up how such a test can be performed without warrant or voluntary consent, or in this case while waiting for an attorney (which would apply as the clock is ticking and they couldnt wait etc). And something tells me Op is not being completely honest in his stating the facts of this situation as i'm hard pressed to believe law enforcement would go to such lengths for a guy who "sometimes took more than directed" of his prescribed meds. I think we're being what my hubs calls "hosed" by OP.

Oh, and yes Op may have been legal in taking his medication but the illegal part comes into play when OP abuses such medication thus becoming impaired and subsequently "under the influence"

 

[alexp]

Did you sign the form?

He told me to, and I obeyed the officer.

 

[alexp]

Look up 929 F.2d 990 United States v. Reid. Pay particular attention to lines 12-15. It pretty much sums up how such a test can be performed without warrant or voluntary consent, or in this case while waiting for an attorney (which would apply as the clock is ticking and they couldnt wait etc). And something tells me Op is not being completely honest in his stating the facts of this situation as i'm hard pressed to believe law enforcement would go to such lengths for a guy who "sometimes took more than directed" of his prescribed meds. I think we're being what my hubs calls "hosed" by OP.

Oh, and yes Op may have been legal in taking his medication but the illegal part comes into play when OP abuses such medication thus becoming impaired and subsequently "under the influence"

I was under the influence of more than just my prescription. But I only admitted the prescription to the officer. And I didn't tell him that I was presently over taking my medicine, simply that it was a habit.

 

[alexp]

I thought it was a little strange that the police chose to drag him down to the station to force blood from him. There is most likely much more to this situation than we are being fed by the OP. Like why he didn't choose to pee?

However, I will say, that the OP might consider thanking the officer who pulled the vehicle over and subsequently took him into custody along with the driver.

I say this because anyone who has had three DUI's and decided not to appear for his third, wouldn't have a valid drivers license. This would also mean he had no insurance either.

Yet the OP climbed into this criminal's car and just sat back, as the driver, drunk once again, proceeded to exceed 100 miles per hour?

It's not a matter of "if" this habitual drunk driver will injure or kill someone, it's a matter of when and how many!
Even if you are only injured in this death ride waiting to happen, the driver has no financial means to pay his victim's medical expenses.

The OP should be glad the officer stopped the car before he was listed in this week's obituaries,,,,

They dragged me to the station to get me to talk to them about the driver, I suspect. They were asking me more questions about him than about me. When they told me how fast he was going (I was fast asleep, this was at 3am) I was appalled. The driver was my boyfriend, and I was too concerned with that to immediately want to thank the police for saving my life. But I know they did. I didn't want to say it to them because I didn't want it to be legally misconstrued. In fact, three months later, I decided to join their agency and I'm awaiting appointment to the academy. People who DUI are selfish potential murderers and they need to be kept off the road.
Nevertheless, I don't want my charge to stick. It compromises my candidacy to the agency. And I was manipulated by the police in a dishonest way, and have a feeling that it shouldn't be prosecutable.

 

[Indiana Filer]

The tests we get back from the lab show a positive above a presumptive "positive" level. It can also be re-tested for a specific concentration (NG/ML) in the blood.

- Carl

The tests I run on clients come back with a specific ng/mL reading also if they test above the presumptive positive for the substances tested. We have a specific panel of substances for which all specimens are tested, and we can request additional testing for other substances.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, I understand what you are saying. Physical evidence is not testimony, but in the absence of the spoken word, the blood was still used to incriminate him.

Of course. Evidence can be used to incriminate, or, to exonerate. But, the state has a right to seize it. And then an exigency exists - such as, it is being destroyed - a warrant will not be required. This is done all the time in every state for DUI and drug arrests.

Since he did not consent it still seems like he was forced to incriminate himself.

Legally, it is not. The prohibition against self incrimination is one that allows aperson not to say things that incriminate themselves - i.e. they can shut up. It does not say the state can not seize evidence from you. The state can even seize your incriminating DNA and fingerprints. In those cases, there is no exigency so unless the person is in custody, obtaining either might require a search warrant or consent.

I understand it is metabolizing therefore exigency circumstances exist. But come on, being held down and forced to give a fluid for such a thing is just wrong.

As I said, it is legal so long as the blood is withdrawn in a medically approved manner and the measures used do not shock the conscience of the court. That is the legal standard. If someone will actively fight with you, then you don't do it because it is too dangerous. Those that passively resist, or who decline to cooperate, are far more common.

In my state being under the influence alone is not a crime, although disorderly conduct of course is.

I suspect you are wrong. Unless being under the influence has been rolled in to your disorderly conduct laws. It's also a "disorderly conduct" offense here if charged un PC 647(f).

What state are you in?

Although since o.p. was legal in taking the drug this might be for nothing,

Unless he took more than his prescribed dosage and then went out in public. One can even take their prescribed amount and still be guilty of being under the influence once they wander outside. In short, don't go outside if you are whacked.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Aggressive prosecution of drug/narcotic intoxication apart from a related criminal offense is not law enforcement and/or prosecutorial policy in New York.

"Aggressive" prosecution is not the practice out here, either, since you get two free passes at the violation since the advent of Prop 36. But, it IS against the law - even in New York - to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Whether it is "aggressively" pursued or not does not change that. You can't be high wandering about on the streets even there.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Nevertheless, I don't want my charge to stick. It compromises my candidacy to the agency. And I was manipulated by the police in a dishonest way, and have a feeling that it shouldn't be prosecutable.

They did not need your consent, so whether you signed the form voluntarily or not will be a moot issue.

Yes, being under the influence of drugs DOES compromise your candidacy - and it should disqualify you. Whether charges are filed or not, the contact will be on record and will be part of your background for the agency. They cannot ask you about your medical issues before a conditional offer is issued, either, so if you were to get that far, they are certainly going to be interested in what medical condition requires you to take such impairing medication and that medical condition could well disqualify you.

I suspect a career in police work is not in your near future. Time to straighten up, change your associates, and maybe give it a few years before trying again.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

The tests I run on clients come back with a specific ng/mL reading also if they test above the presumptive positive for the substances tested. We have a specific panel of substances for which all specimens are tested, and we can request additional testing for other substances.

Our probation department tests are sent out for further testing if they come back positive on the presumptive.

- Carl

 

[dave33]

Carl, My state is Rhode Island. Although I may be wrong, I have never heard of a forced blood draw. I am uncertain if it is illegal to be under the influence and commit no crime. I do not believe and can find no case where a citizen was forced to give blood when only being accused of being under the influence. As far as I can tell even in driving incidents and other situations where there is another crime involved, giving a breath/blood test can be refused. Although as you can imagine that in itself is a crime. Medical emergency situations are different, but there is a clear distinction. I would be interested to know if you learn otherwise. Thanks. Dave

 

[CdwJava]

Apparently RI is one of those states that forbids - by statute - ANY blood draws even in felonies if the suspect refuses. The way the statute is worded, it appears they cannot even seek a warrant for such draws. This puts them in the minority of states.

I did not look up the under-the-influence statutes for your state, but I suppose it is safe to assume that any such charge would have to be based upon observations and not a chemical test taken against the suspect's will. This means that DRE training is probably very high among officers in RI so that they can successfully make such cases for DUI and for drug influence. I strongly suspect that you are not allowed to be out and about while high or drunk ... the liability would be tremendous.

In this case, as the OP is in California, it is CA law that applies, and our state is held by law to the federal standard and not a more restrictive state standard, ergo, we can compel blood even in non-DUI cases.

- Carl

 

[Proserpina]

Carl, My state is Rhode Island. Although I may be wrong, I have never heard of a forced blood draw. I am uncertain if it is illegal to be under the influence and commit no crime. I do not believe and can find no case where a citizen was forced to give blood when only being accused of being under the influence. As far as I can tell even in driving incidents and other situations where there is another crime involved, giving a breath/blood test can be refused. Although as you can imagine that in itself is a crime. Medical emergency situations are different, but there is a clear distinction. I would be interested to know if you learn otherwise. Thanks. Dave

Dave,

I did find this:

Oregon and Rhode Island DUI Law Updates, March 2009 - Total DUI

Makes interesting reading.

 

[dave33]

Thanks for looking into that. I guess it just goes to show you that in some scenarios the law is so different you could be in different countries. The difference is so big I find it hard to believe that both lawmakers are using the same reference (constitution,Bill of rights). It's obvious of course that different states= different laws. That is just something that amazes me. I know from your posts that you agree with your states version, But I respectfully strongly disagree. It is situations and laws like that that really peeks my interest. My dream would be to fight a case like that in Wash. Oh well we can all dream! Thanks again. Dave