DUI in California

[scv1981]

I was driving to two banks one day and was stopped. The officer said she stopped me because someone at one of the banks called to say "I appeared intoxicated". The caller said I appeared intoxicated because I was wearing my cargo shorts on backwards. The caller identified my car description and destination but did not witness any type of drunk driving.

The officer did not stop or site me for any traffic infractions or fix-it violations. The stop was in response to a caller stating I appeared intoxicated. My question is, can probable cause be met for a legal traffic stop based solely on the caller who does not witness any sort of unsafe driving

And,

Does the law mandate that the reporting party must witness that something that constitutes a crime, a vehicle code violation or some sort of unsafe driving?


Thank you in advance.

 

[FlyingRon]

Does the law mandate that the reporting party must witness that something that constitutes a crime, a vehicle code violation or some sort of unsafe driving?


Thank you in advance.

The witness saw you appear to be intoxicated and drive off. How much more of a crime do you want? Sounds like it gave all the reasonable suspicion the cop needed.

 

[Isis1]

you were stopped because the witness gave probable cause. and since you failed the blow test and/the finger watching, walk the line, stand on one leg test, it seems the witness was right. had you passed the test, you would have been sent on your merry way.

you got yourself an DUI.

 

[asiny]

I was driving to two banks one day and was stopped. The officer said she stopped me because someone at one of the banks called to say "I appeared intoxicated". The caller said I appeared intoxicated because I was wearing my cargo shorts on backwards. The caller identified my car description and destination but did not witness any type of drunk driving.

The officer did not stop or site me for any traffic infractions or fix-it violations. The stop was in response to a caller stating I appeared intoxicated. My question is, can probable cause be met for a legal traffic stop based solely on the caller who does not witness any sort of unsafe driving

And,

Does the law mandate that the reporting party must witness that something that constitutes a crime, a vehicle code violation or some sort of unsafe driving?


Thank you in advance.

If the police receive a report that a driver might be intoxicated - the police have every right to stop that vehicle and verify.

Had you been drinking?
Did you receive a citation?

you were stopped because the witness gave probable cause. and since you failed the blow test and/the finger watching, walk the line, stand on one leg test, it seems the witness was right. had you passed the test, you would have been sent on your merry way.

I may have missed something... where did the OP say they failed the breathalyser or FST?

 

[scv1981]

If the police receive a report that a driver might be intoxicated - the police have every right to stop that vehicle and verify.

Had you been drinking?
Did you receive a citation?


I may have missed something... where did the OP say they failed the breathalyser or FST?

No and yes.

I hadn't had a drink in weeks.
I know people have said this before but in my situation it is true, I used mouthwash minutes before I was stopped. Now before you say sure, thats why. I really did. I was concerned why, after not having a drink in over two weeks, why did I fail the breathalyzer?

I wear dentures and use an adhesive.
I learned that this could be caused by mouth alcohol. Alcohol may be trapped in the adhesive and pockets of the dentures.

I believe I could be up sh&^ creek.

 

[asiny]

I believe I could be up sh&^ creek.

Quoted for truth.

Get an attorney.

 

[CdwJava]

I was driving to two banks one day and was stopped. The officer said she stopped me because someone at one of the banks called to say "I appeared intoxicated". The caller said I appeared intoxicated because I was wearing my cargo shorts on backwards. The caller identified my car description and destination but did not witness any type of drunk driving.

The officer did not stop or site me for any traffic infractions or fix-it violations. The stop was in response to a caller stating I appeared intoxicated. My question is, can probable cause be met for a legal traffic stop based solely on the caller who does not witness any sort of unsafe driving

And,

Does the law mandate that the reporting party must witness that something that constitutes a crime, a vehicle code violation or some sort of unsafe driving?


Thank you in advance.

The caller would have to articulate something more than your cargo pants being on backwards to justify the stop. The caller would have to articulate some objective signs of impairment such as slurred speech, staggering, reeking of alcohol, etc. If no such articulation existed, the officer would have to develop (observe) his own reasonable suspicion for the stop.

A reporting party can call about anything. What the officers can do depends on what the caller saw.

 

[CdwJava]

I know people have said this before but in my situation it is true, I used mouthwash minutes before I was stopped. Now before you say sure, thats why. I really did. I was concerned why, after not having a drink in over two weeks, why did I fail the breathalyzer?

I wear dentures and use an adhesive.
I learned that this could be caused by mouth alcohol. Alcohol may be trapped in the adhesive and pockets of the dentures.

I believe I could be up sh&^ creek.

What did you blow?

After you were arrested, you should have been taken to the station where you should have been asked to remove the dentures. If you could not, then they should have taken you for a blood test.

However, a gargle of mouthwash should give you nowhere near enough mouth alcohol to register anywhere near .08 even assuming the machine was an archaic device that did not spit out mouth alcohol as part of an error.

Now, while it is unlikely that mouth alcohol would register anything but an error on the machine, it is a defense that can be raised if you had dentures and were not asked to remove them. if the officer asked about them and you denied having them, your bad. If he didn't ask, his bad.

Understand that if the DA wants to fight this he has a host of experts that can testify to the way the machine works and the likelihood of the machine registering trapped mouth alcohol from mouth wash. Also, how many people on the jury are going to buy that you just gargled before driving to the bank? It is so far outside the mainstream of activity as to be difficult to believe.

But, if the officers failed to inquire about the dentures, a good defense attorney can make hay out of that one. Consult legal counsel.

Oh, and do not gargle and drive in the future.

 

[Zigner]

The caller would have to articulate something more than your cargo pants being on backwards to justify the stop. The caller would have to articulate some objective signs of impairment such as slurred speech, staggering, reeking of alcohol, etc. If no such articulation existed, the officer would have to develop (observe) his own reasonable suspicion for the stop.

A reporting party can call about anything. What the officers can do depends on what the caller saw.

Perhaps the caller made the police be on the lookout for the driver and then the driver's DRIVING made them make the stop.

 

[CdwJava]

Perhaps the caller made the police be on the lookout for the driver and then the driver's DRIVING made them make the stop.

Could well be.

 

[Antigone*]

No and yes.

I hadn't had a drink in weeks.
I know people have said this before but in my situation it is true, I used mouthwash minutes before I was stopped. Now before you say sure, thats why. I really did. I was concerned why, after not having a drink in over two weeks, why did I fail the breathalyzer?

I wear dentures and use an adhesive.
I learned that this could be caused by mouth alcohol. Alcohol may be trapped in the adhesive and pockets of the dentures.

I believe I could be up sh&^ creek.

My b.s. meter has gone off so many times this week, I know I need new batteries. Even though the battery is weaker than weak it blasted so loudly I almost fell out of my chair