What to do?

[Ftp]

Iowa

Ok so a cop pulled me over for having swerved. He kept calling me ma'am so i had said sir, im a sir

so he got mad and instantly said i smell marijuana in the car i need you to step out. There was no marijuana in the car nor had i smoked anything. So he pulled me out and made me do a breath test for alcohol and did the walking and sight test. I passed yet he still held me and put me in the back of his car. Then they searched my car high and low. Found nothing to prove his claim of "suspicion of narcotics"

Then he took me into the station so he could give me a piss test. I refused so now i have my license gone for a year.

I passed his sobriety test so i dont see how he could have detained me and impound my car on suspicion!? I never got any rights read when he took me in. He gave me a OWI for suspicion of narcotics.

I feel this is unbelievable but need expert help. Thanks alot

 

[dave33]

Welcome to the criminal justice (ha,ha) system. All you can do now is get a lawyer. A refusal is pretty much saying you are guilty (according to the law) and so you will get punished.

The reason he detained you will be in the report. It may seem outlandish to you, but the police never lie so his claim will be believed and yours will not.

 

[Ftp]

i was never read my rights so shouldnt that test be not useable against me?

Also he had to reason to bring me in after i passed his sobriety tests and and breatholizer

 

[CdwJava]

i was never read my rights so shouldnt that test be not useable against me?

Miranda is not an issue with most DUI matters. However, there might be something required by Iowa law that requires the officer to advise you of the consequences of refusing a chemical test and if that requirement was no tmet then MAYBE your license cannot be suspended for the refusal.

Also, understand, that a jury is free to infer guilt by your refusal, too.

Also he had to reason to bring me in after i passed his sobriety tests and and breatholizer

What makes you think you "passed" the Field Sobriety tests? You should know that not falling down is not the same as a "pass." There are a number of clues that an officer is supposed to look for in the SFSTs and they do not all involve falling down, stumbling, etc.

Ultimately the state will have to prove to the court that you were impaired. Whether they can do that based on the officer's testimony or not, no one here can say. If the officer had a video of your performance, then that could be good ... or, it could be bad (for you).

Had you consumed any medications, alcohol or drugs in the hours leading up to the contact?

Had you been around anyone smoking marijuana anytime in the last few days? Had any marijuana been smoked in your car? The stuff reeks so it is possible that the aroma lingered if any of those things had occurred.

 

[dave33]

i was never read my rights so shouldnt that test be not useable against me?

Also he had to reason to bring me in after i passed his sobriety tests and and breatholizer

The reason he brought you in will be in the report. It may seem ridiculous to you (the reason) but you will have to wait and see. If you did pass than there will be no recording. It will be stated that he needed to bring you to the side of the road (safety) out of sight of the camera.

 

[CdwJava]

The reason he brought you in will be in the report. It may seem ridiculous to you (the reason) but you will have to wait and see. If you did pass than there will be no recording. It will be stated that he needed to bring you to the side of the road (safety) out of sight of the camera.

Gee, I wonder what you might be implying there?

The worst camera to have in a patrol vehicle for use in observing DUI evaluations is on that is fixed and mounted to aim straight ahead. That area between the two cars is the dead zone that cops are taught to stay out of. If my officers did FSTs between the two cars, I'd have their asses!

If the camera is the type that can angle towards the right about 45 degrees, then that's great ... though those are a little more pricey than the fixed ones and not as common.

The state will present its case and the defense can raise whatever it wishes to try and create reasonable doubt. If there is no chemical test, no video, and no dire observations articulated in the report, then there is a good chance the matter will never get filed anyway.

 

[dave33]

Gee, I wonder what you might be implying there?

The worst camera to have in a patrol vehicle for use in observing DUI evaluations is on that is fixed and mounted to aim straight ahead. That area between the two cars is the dead zone that cops are taught to stay out of. If my officers did FSTs between the two cars, I'd have their asses!

If the camera is the type that can angle towards the right about 45 degrees, then that's great ... though those are a little more pricey than the fixed ones and not as common.

The state will present its case and the defense can raise whatever it wishes to try and create reasonable doubt. If there is no chemical test, no video, and no dire observations articulated in the report, then there is a good chance the matter will never get filed anyway.

That's all well and good, except of course someone going to jail. I know, I know safety, cost etc.. Imagine that a swivel for a camera mount being to expensive to ensure proper technique. I really do not think it's the cost that makes them uncommon.

Again, I know, I know he can challenge the police. That public defender has really some reputation of getting to the truth. The prosecutor would never persue a weak case, especially with that p.d. working.

I just don't know Carl, seems like a complete waste of time.

 

[CdwJava]

That's all well and good, except of course someone going to jail. I know, I know safety, cost etc.. Imagine that a swivel for a camera mount being to expensive to ensure proper technique. I really do not think it's the cost that makes them uncommon.

Sure it is. A manual swivel is there, but not many officers are going to lean their butts inside the car and adjust a camera. There are cameras that can be adjusted either by remote control or they will follow the angle of the officer to a certain degree.

Yes, it is cost ... and safety.

Again, I know, I know he can challenge the police. That public defender has really some reputation of getting to the truth. The prosecutor would never persue a weak case, especially with that p.d. working.

Prosecutors in most states do not pursue weak cases because they do not tend to result in a win. If the defense attorney wants to plea, that's a different story. But, if the state has no chemical test, mediocre observations, and no evidence or witnesses to bad driving, then a lot of those get dumped. Now, if the officer is a crackerjack DUI officer and his observations are golden and well articulated, then that's a different ballgame.

I just don't know Carl, seems like a complete waste of time.

If he truly was not impaired at all, then he should fight it. If he was impaired and is grasping at straws, well, then maybe he should fight it and hope for a victory by way of reasonable doubt ... only the OP knows whether he had consumed an impairing substance or not.