• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Sober Addict Charged with 15500 (A) HS/USE/UNDER INFLUENCE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

I_R_Blonde

Junior Member
What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?California
I've been sober for a year (meth) and was at a pay phone lost getting directions from friend I was going to visit. Stupid me, was parked in a handicap spot and an officer was there to greet me as I returned to my car. Immediately, he informed me that he's department's drug evaluation trainer and is very keen on the signs of drug use. I admitted to being an addict, but have been sober for a year. He took my pulse, made me do a number of field tests (which I kept passing) and insisted I was wired. I was not. Never having been questioned before I was very nervous, yes. Having been an addict for 20 years, I realize my body language still gives indications of a "druggie"s demeanor. I am also on meds for major depression & slight psychosis. In fact, I had just taken my anti-depressants an hour prior to this. Anyhow, the officer was adament that I was under the influence. He gave me an ultimatum: either I go in and take a blood test or have my car impounded for my suspended license. I was happy to oblige, thankful for his offer. I was being so cooperative, that he decided to let a trainee be the arresting officer and had him do a few more field tests (30 second count, pupil dialation chart, etc.,). I had no problem with this. Oh - and when we did arrive at the station, there was a bunch of yelling by their commanding officer something to the effect of "why is she arrested?"...I couldn't make it all out too clearly, but they were definitely being chewed out. I sure wish I couldn't have heard better, but no matter. And not that this matters either, but I was never read my rights nor explained what I was arrested for. Which is why I am here posting this matter. I have no idea what my charges mean, nor any idea what to expect when I go to court. I am absolutely confident my test will come back clean of amphetimines, although antidepressants should be present (Effexor XR). Anyhow, could someone please enlighten me on what's next? I intend to plead not guilty for I AM. I'd appreciate anyone's help, as well as, appreciate you spare me the judgment calls/attitudes that seem so popular in this forum, it's unnecessary. Thank you for the opportunity.

p.s. May I encourage any addicts out there this token of "support"...especially meth users...this dope IS the source of all that's wrong in your life. Love yourself and get off the s hit. Peace. :cool:
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
Are you sure the charge is not H&S 11550(a)? That's the 'under the influence' section. And it is valid even if under the influence of a CNS depressant or barbiturates. However, after reading the pharmacology and symptoms associated with Effexor, it is very likely that the side effects created by that medication will mirror many of those found in a CNS Stimulant like crystal meth.

However, not being specifically familiar with the substance, it may not come back on any of the common screens for stimulants, so the test may very well come back negative. However, that does not mean that the arrest was improper as all that requires is 'probable cause', and if you were exhibitng the objective symptoms of being under the influence of a CNS stimulant, then the arrest was good and proper.

In all my years and training as a Drug Recognition Expert, I have only had two false evaluations ... both were due to an anti-depressant similar to Effexor. I now know better, and key on some different things. However, that does NOT mean that the person is not spun and not able to care for themselves ... though that is a different level of inebriation (per PC 647(f)) and not simple having it in your system.

If the test comes back positive for a controlled substance, the next step will be an arraignment (or a warrant, first - depending on how your county does it). Then a preliminary hearing, then trial - if it gets that far.

- carl
 

I_R_Blonde

Junior Member
More insight...?...please...

Thank you Carl...

...I appreciate your expertise, as well kind help on my matter. Well, I went to the arraignment, still unsure of exactly what my charges meant. I was under the impression that I'd be speaking with a public defender that morning - but alas, my pure ignorance of this stuff soon found that with my plea of not guilty and request for public defender, I'm still clueless as to what I'm looking at here.

Okay, I have a phone interview with the public defender a few days prior to my (?) pretrial date (1-07-05).

Yes, my charge is H&S 11550(a). So, does this mean it has nothing to do with my driving record? If so...RIGHT ON!

...but please, explain what this does mean for my records and, if you would - clue me in on what my options/likely ruling, diversion and/or fees would generally be (a ballfield idea).

I really don't wish to cause any poor "marks" on the officer in any way for this mistakened evaluation. Particularly because he just began drug evaluation training and merely took over as the arresting officer as per his trainer's orders.

Not trying knock his validity by any means, for this drug 'recognition expert' saw most of the mirrored symptoms of meth (i.e., jittery motions, sweat, nervousness...), but also recognized pulse/dilation inconsistencies, as well as, my passing all but one (clutzy me) of at least 5 field tests by him and about 5 more "trainer-walking-trainee-thru" field sobriety tests/pupil dialation chart tests.

My point being, he (trainer) was absolutely adament that I was wired. I was not. Had nothing to worry about in happily accepting his ultimatum of blood test or car impound. I just hope this doesn't become an ordeal in determining lab test results, etc. Or is this easily deciphered? Anyhow, perhaps this'll be his "lesson" in keying in on telltale symptoms that mimic/delete meth inebriation(?), as you have researched and apply. At least I hope it's brought to his attention after all of this. For it's not his name in jeopardy here, though it was HIS call to book me.

Again, I'm clueless to what this all means in terms of my rights and likely outcome of this all... as well as any options I may want to consider taking to put this all behind me the quickest...record-wise, time/trial-wise, etc.

I greatly appreciate any more insight you wish to share.

Mmmm! What a turn on you brave "boys" are to each and everyone of us ladies. Thank you, thank you, thank you...for that masculine stance...that directive...commanding authori...oh my!...did I say that aloud? (teehee)

But seriously, thank you so very much Carl. Here's to a great 2005!

Sincerely Clueless,
Suzy Q
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
I don't know how I overlooked this one when it first came in.

The medication you indicated is also known in the field as, "Side Effects Or" and may also cause unexpected responses with some disorders. I am concerned because of what you list as your diagnosis, that management of your medications may be very complex and that you may not be aware of how you present yourself. Please consult with your psychiatrist re this event and also for documentation of your treatment with this medication, as your medication may require adjustment of which you might not be aware. This will aid in your defense. Keep up the good work. Be careful where you park in the future so that you don't draw unnecessary attention.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I_R_Blonde said:
Yes, my charge is H&S 11550(a). So, does this mean it has nothing to do with my driving record? If so...RIGHT ON!
If the blood test comes back positive for a controlled substance, then DUI (CVC 23152(a)) can be tacked on later.


...but please, explain what this does mean for my records and, if you would - clue me in on what my options/likely ruling, diversion and/or fees would generally be (a ballfield idea).
A positive test might still allow you to attend drug treatment programs through Prop. 36 or some other form of deferral. But, it depends on what the test says.

Additionally, you should know that the blood test does not screen for everything. The initial test screens for a battery of substances and metabolites and checks to see if they are present in the above above a certain concentration. That concentration varies by jurisdiction, but it is usually that level which the courts have ruled would indicate someone being under the influence. Even a prescription medication, if present above the specified concentration, could result in a criminal charge for H&S 11550 or CVC 23152(a).


...but please, explain what this does mean for my records and, if you would - clue me in on what my options/likely ruling, diversion and/or fees would generally be (a ballfield idea).
I honestly don't know off the top of my head what the fines, fees, or results might be. If it's only H&S 11550, you have diversion, probation, and minimal fines as an option if convicted. If you add DUI to it, you have a lot more money to fork over - maybe as much as $2,000 the first time around, PLUS counseling and probation.

I really don't wish to cause any poor "marks" on the officer in any way for this mistakened evaluation. Particularly because he just began drug evaluation training and merely took over as the arresting officer as per his trainer's orders.
It happens. It's part of training. And the training officer SHOULD be there to prevent the trainee from messing it up.


- Carl
 

zwara

Member
???????????????????

:mad: Damn...is there a valid law on the books for farting in public too......my question is why was this young lady even put through any of this? I know she said she was parked in a handicap spot while attempting to use a pay phone but what else did she do to be detained or to be suspected of being under the influence of drugs? This is utterly twisted beyond what any society would deem reasonable dotcha think. And law enforcement wonders why the Public's attitude is so cynical towards them. From the facts stated by the young lady, other then being parked in a handicap parking spot it would appear a simple parking violation or ticket would have been the only reasonable response when the lady apparently did nothing else wrong. It is this type of madness that brings a society to such a police state where everybody is suspect of some stupid but valid law that some idiot or idiots came up with to validate their unfortunate existence...valid~valid~valid?? ..it's all good...cuz it's all valid...
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Well, when someone appears to be spun, they appear to be spun. Then the law kicks in.

Don't like it? Change the law.

- Carl
 

zwara

Member
let me ask you something Carl..you seem to be an intelligent and reasonable man, when you read through the 4th~amendment what do you make of it? ..."to be secure in their persons".. being a police officer when do you determine the line when the person is no longer protected by that?? does it end when you decide "it appears" they are something other then what they appear?? It would appear to me if probable becomes maybe or "it appears to be" wouldnt that be something like simply the "power to believe"??
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
zwara said:
let me ask you something Carl..you seem to be an intelligent and reasonable man, when you read through the 4th~amendment what do you make of it? ..."to be secure in their persons".. being a police officer when do you determine the line when the person is no longer protected by that??
Well ... when the officer is in a place he has a lawful right to be and he observes someone exhibiting the objective symptoms of being under the influence fo a controlled substance, he has the right and obligation to detain and investigate. The same would be true if the person had a bloody knife in their hand or in plain view in the car.


does it end when you decide "it appears" they are something other then what they appear??
The law permits a detention on reasonable suspicion and an arrest on probable cause. Neither standard is as high as the level needed for a conviction.


It would appear to me if probable becomes maybe or "it appears to be" wouldnt that be something like simply the "power to believe"??
"Reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are the requirements - not "power to believe".

If someone exhibits the symptoms of drug influence in my presence, I have reason to believe they are committing a crime in my presence ... would you rather that the police NOT be able to act when they witness a crime? Should we be required to snap our fingers and yell, "Ah, shucks! I didn't think you were messed up when I contacted you, so I can't do anything."

If a crime occurs in front of us, we can act. It's that simple.

- Carl
 

zwara

Member
Well I appreciate your answers but Im still a little confused..I understand what your saying in regards that if you observe a crime being commited it is your duty to react, I would not question that but I do have a problem with the notion when a person who is not observed commiting a crime but rather has 'that look" that they might be under some type of influence just because an officer has a reason to believe they are. You can call it whatever you want but with that broad general assumtion then basically anybody could be detained or arrested or forced to take some test simply for having "the look" Just think if law enforcement was to come up with some type of gaget that could read our minds, wouldnt that be a scary thing? I have no doubt that you are a good officer Carl and I am guessing you do your job with integrity and would never use the "power to believe" as a means to violate a persons rights and I hope you dont take my posts as some kind of personal attack on you. You say you have only had two evaluations come back where the person was apparently cleared of being under the influence of whatever you thought they were under so you admit in regards to those two people since whatever means you use to suspect someone is under of influence was flawed in some way in that those two people were forced to be detained or arrested for doing nothing wrong. To answer your question~~ "would you rather that the police NOT be able to act when they witness a crime? Should we be required to snap our fingers and yell, "Ah, shucks! I didn't think you were messed up when I contacted you, so I can't do anything." well by means I would want the police to react when witnessing a crime, I may sound like an idiot but I caution you I'm not one, but what does that have to do with woman who was not seen commiting a crime but had "that look" like maybe she was? and even after she passed the field tests that stiLL she had "that look" and was given the options given to her. I know first hand and personal when law enforcement has some type of what they like to call reasonable or probable cause to do something when they dont anything other then the "power to believe and in turn my rights being violated and maybe my rights dont mean S.H.I.T. to them or anyone else for that matter but I take them very seriously and when something is robbed from me for no reason then I have a problem and unlike some criminal who steals one of my posessions when law enforcement is the culprit then I'm suppose to just let them have it knowing there is nothing in my power to get that posession back and in turn labeled the bad guy because law enforcement failed to do their job right and accept it as being done in good faith, well that doesnt give me that warm & fuzzy feeling at the end of the day. I dont go out of my way to give law enforcement a bad name cause I know there are far more good then bad and I'm assuming you are of the ranks of good. But the thing that bothers me the most is that even the good never quite get it. Being an officer Im sure has it's days and I'm sure many of you feel less then appreciated but who doesnt. My father's uncle was the Sheriff in Delaware County (Muncie) Indiana during the 1920's and was the guy that captured Gerald Chapman a notorious cop killer who was later executed. My father's uncle was Fred Puckett and he captured Chapman alive without firing a shot, my father often talked about this Fred Puckett being a large man with a big heart, when he died one of the pallbears at his funeral was a man that he had arrested many years earlier for running an illegal still during the time of prohibition but became friends later in life, the man said at Fred Puckett's funeral, that Fred was a man of great character who treated those he arested with great compassion and my father had always said he never once while as sheriff fired his weapon. Anyone that might think the 1920's was some sort of easy time in regards to law enforcement need to go back and do their lessons, the criminals of this time period were no less violent then those of today, those like Chapman were as brutal as any criminal you might find today, in fact it has been said the 1920's were more violent then today but you wont find any books written about Fred Puckett such as those of Gerald Chapman for if they did perhaps law enforcment officers could learn something about serving the Public without the need of staring down some young woman and doing everything possible to make her out a criminal. I often think if we had more officers like my father's uncle Fred Puckett then perhaps our prisons wouldnt be so overcrowded but as in the words of Neil Young all we have now is "kinder, gentler machine gun hand".......
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
zwara said:
I would not question that but I do have a problem with the notion when a person who is not observed commiting a crime but rather has 'that look" that they might be under some type of influence just because an officer has a reason to believe they are.
The law has long allowed detentions for reasonable suspicion even if no specific crime was observed. For instance, if you and your friends are lotiering in an alley behind closed businesses at 3 AM, expect to be detained. The same holds true for people who might be under the influence ... it looks odd, they are detained, and further inquiry leads to probable cause for an arrest (or not - depending on the circumstances).


You say you have only had two evaluations come back where the person was apparently cleared of being under the influence of whatever you thought they were under so you admit in regards to those two people since whatever means you use to suspect someone is under of influence was flawed in some way in that those two people were forced to be detained or arrested for doing nothing wrong.
True enough - they were arrested for being under the influence when they were, in fact, simply looped on a prescription anti-psychotic. But, people ARE occasionally arrested for crimes they did not commit. As I said, probable cause does NOT have to equate to the level needed for conviction.


I may sound like an idiot but I caution you I'm not one, but what does that have to do with woman who was not seen commiting a crime but had "that look" like maybe she was? and even after she passed the field tests that stiLL she had "that look"
You're assuming she passed the tests. Most people who take the tests think they passed them. There are "clues" that we are trained to observe during the test, and they are NOT entirely the obvious. If one of these officers was a DAR or DRE instructor, he keyed on the same things that I did in my two erroneous observations. And these were sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest. Had they not been, I would never make an under the influence arrest again just to avoid getting sued.


my father had always said he never once while as sheriff fired his weapon.
And unlike the TV and the movies, some 95%+ of officers today will NEVER fire their weapons in the line of duty except in training. I have been shot at on more than one occasion and have yet to return that fire as it was not safe for me to do so. But NOT firing the weapon has nothing to do with attitudes.

Anyone that might think the 1920's was some sort of easy time in regards to law enforcement need to go back and do their lessons, the criminals of this time period were no less violent then those of today, those like Chapman were as brutal as any criminal you might find today,
Maybe ... but when the gangs and the average citizen tends to be better armed than the local law enforcement it makes for some scary moments.


perhaps law enforcment officers could learn something about serving the Public without the need of staring down some young woman and doing everything possible to make her out a criminal.
There are some things that just leap out at you ... sometimes it's drugs. The other option, I suppose, would be to ignore only the females who might be under the influence ... or everyone who is under the influence. But that can be a dangerous proposition as well.

Legalize being under the influence of drugs and the problem would end.


I often think if we had more officers like my father's uncle Fred Puckett then perhaps our prisons wouldnt be so overcrowded but as in the words of Neil Young all we have now is "kinder, gentler machine gun hand".......
There are much grander sociological reasons for the rise of crime in this country ... it has to do, in part, to the absence of blame, shame, and moral foundation. And statistically, crime IS more violent today. The sheer number and percentage of violent crimes per capita has risen over the years - though it has leveled off in the past two or three, I believe.

Even 20 years ago, fighting skill was emphasized in the academy here ... today, there are many who say that firearms and defensive tactics have been de-emphasized to make way for more time in the "touchy-feely" things. Officers coming out of the San Diego Regional Academy for a year or so were DISCIPLINED for so much as touching their gun in a situation where they did not need to draw it that they were literally AFRAID to touch it ... officers died and were hurt because of that kind of training.

Police work is much more social work than it was even 15 years ago when I got started. It wasn't that long ago when only the biggest and the baddest could get in to police work - that is not the case nowadays.

So don't blame the police for the change in society. And we did not make the laws, we are simly expected to enforce them. Additionally, we are also the 24/7 social work, cab service, medical aid, information resource, and jack-of-all-trades service. This requires a different sort of recruit than the one who pinned on the badge 20 years ago.


- Carl
 
zwara said:
Well I appreciate your answers but Im still a little confused..I understand what your saying in regards that if you observe a crime being commited it is your duty to react, I would not question that but I do have a problem with the notion when a person who is not observed commiting a crime but rather has 'that look" that they might be under some type of influence just because an officer has a reason to believe they are. You can call it whatever you want but with that broad general assumtion then basically anybody could be detained or arrested or forced to take some test simply for having "the look" Just think if law enforcement was to come up with some type of gaget that could read our minds, wouldnt that be a scary thing? I have no doubt that you are a good officer Carl and I am guessing you do your job with integrity and would never use the "power to believe" as a means to violate a persons rights and I hope you dont take my posts as some kind of personal attack on you. You say you have only had two evaluations come back where the person was apparently cleared of being under the influence of whatever you thought they were under so you admit in regards to those two people since whatever means you use to suspect someone is under of influence was flawed in some way in that those two people were forced to be detained or arrested for doing nothing wrong. To answer your question~~ "would you rather that the police NOT be able to act when they witness a crime? Should we be required to snap our fingers and yell, "Ah, shucks! I didn't think you were messed up when I contacted you, so I can't do anything." well by means I would want the police to react when witnessing a crime, I may sound like an idiot but I caution you I'm not one, but what does that have to do with woman who was not seen commiting a crime but had "that look" like maybe she was? and even after she passed the field tests that stiLL she had "that look" and was given the options given to her. I know first hand and personal when law enforcement has some type of what they like to call reasonable or probable cause to do something when they dont anything other then the "power to believe and in turn my rights being violated and maybe my rights dont mean S.H.I.T. to them or anyone else for that matter but I take them very seriously and when something is robbed from me for no reason then I have a problem and unlike some criminal who steals one of my posessions when law enforcement is the culprit then I'm suppose to just let them have it knowing there is nothing in my power to get that posession back and in turn labeled the bad guy because law enforcement failed to do their job right and accept it as being done in good faith, well that doesnt give me that warm & fuzzy feeling at the end of the day. I dont go out of my way to give law enforcement a bad name cause I know there are far more good then bad and I'm assuming you are of the ranks of good. But the thing that bothers me the most is that even the good never quite get it. Being an officer Im sure has it's days and I'm sure many of you feel less then appreciated but who doesnt. My father's uncle was the Sheriff in Delaware County (Muncie) Indiana during the 1920's and was the guy that captured Gerald Chapman a notorious cop killer who was later executed. My father's uncle was Fred Puckett and he captured Chapman alive without firing a shot, my father often talked about this Fred Puckett being a large man with a big heart, when he died one of the pallbears at his funeral was a man that he had arrested many years earlier for running an illegal still during the time of prohibition but became friends later in life, the man said at Fred Puckett's funeral, that Fred was a man of great character who treated those he arested with great compassion and my father had always said he never once while as sheriff fired his weapon. Anyone that might think the 1920's was some sort of easy time in regards to law enforcement need to go back and do their lessons, the criminals of this time period were no less violent then those of today, those like Chapman were as brutal as any criminal you might find today, in fact it has been said the 1920's were more violent then today but you wont find any books written about Fred Puckett such as those of Gerald Chapman for if they did perhaps law enforcment officers could learn something about serving the Public without the need of staring down some young woman and doing everything possible to make her out a criminal. I often think if we had more officers like my father's uncle Fred Puckett then perhaps our prisons wouldnt be so overcrowded but as in the words of Neil Young all we have now is "kinder, gentler machine gun hand".......
Next time, mix in a paragraph or two.
 

zwara

Member
I hope you trust me when I say its truely a pleasure talking with you even being via this forum and you have pointed out to me some things I wasnt aware of such as being detained for reasonable periods of time which makes complete sense to me..I have never been detained in the past other then maybe a speeding ticket but I stayed in my car...I am aware that probable cause does not need to be that which would support a conviction but rather where known facts and circunstances of a reasonably trustworthy nature be sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed, but you and I both know probable cause can be interpeted differently depending on who is doing the interpeting......your point in that I am assuming she passed the tests is correct but then again perhaps you are assuming she did not pass the tests so it would be dificult for either of us to argue that issue based on what both you and I read in her post.....my town is small town America and in just the last year we have had four Police action shootings with one occuring just last week where a man was shot during a search warrant and was just learned today he lost his arm due to his injuries, the warrant was served at 1:00 am while the man and his wife were sleeping, first reports were the officers upon crashing his door down were confronted by the man with a weapon (handgun) where after repeated commands to lay down his weapon he shot at them where in turn two officers returned fire wounding him in the upper right arm...what was learned today was the man was shot while still in his bed when the officers charged in and it seems he did what even I would have did if I was awaken by the sound of my door being broken into and having several people rushing in my bedroom without enough time to know what the hell was happening..except if it had been me I wouldnt be here typing and sadly an officer or officers might be dead due to their own reckless actions ...also learned today that if his wife had not rolled over the side of the bed the bullet hole in her pillow would have been through her head...the warrant was for marijuana culivation, dealing, etc., etc,..just over 30 grams was found during the search and nothing else. early this year a very disturbed man standing on his front porch saying he was going to commit suicide, officers responded after which after a 30~min period the man never pointing his gun nor suggesting his intent to shoot anyone other then himself was hit with some type of stun device, bean bag ammo thingy being shot at him by one of the officers causing the man after being hit to swing around with gun in the direction of officers where in turn the man was shot dead by an officer..I guess they did the job the poor guy was having such a hard time doing himself....last May in response to a possible intruder in a garage, the owner's dog was shot and killed by an officer saying the dog was getting ready to lunge at him despite what others present reported seeing ...the owner was not home and the alledged intruder being his brother working in the garage with the owner's permission ....last June two officers responding to a house (reasons still not knwon) shoot 18 rounds at a man leaving in his truck...officers were charged by county prosecuter with class D felony assult charges using deadly force without sufficent cause...officers were put on suspended status until outcome of trial but two weeks later allowed to be hired as town marshalls for surrounding county town...trial still pending...Ive lived here all my life and trust me this isnt normaL....my guess is maybe 10% of our local crew have NOT used their weapons this year but we still have a week to go.........I feel very strongly the average citizen should be more heavily armed then any government agency for the protection of the people...now as far as the criminals or gangs go then you present a very good point ....I'm not against going after people who choose to drink and drive or do whatever people tend to do and then decide to drive and I think law enforcement has done a fanatstic job in enforcing it........you seem to have your facts in order in regards to crime today and I dont, but I know it is hard to compare violent crime today with violent crime from the 1920's, Federal uniform crime reporting didnt begin until 1930 and most likely wasnt reported as accurate as today for some time after it was started and many experts will agree that violent crime was not reported as much as it is today so it would be difficult to say but again many experts will tell you that violent crime in 1920~1930's was not that much different then today and just what I know in regards to my little town is that murders reported from 1910~1930 are almost double the total from 1940~2000 so that tends to say something and the only Police killing in my town took place in 1928. When I talked to a former police officer who served my town for 20 years (1960~1980) he implied to me that the officers we have today are a different breed then those of his day having a much different attitude in regards to serving our community, whether his thoughts were indeed true or just the common opinion people sometimes feel in regards to one generation better at doing the job then "these new kids today".............I know I may have come across with the idea the Police are to blame for the all the social ills of today, only a fool would ascribe to that idea, I dont expect law enforcement to hold the public hands of society, when I said many could learn from those like Fred Puckett was to say in today's society law enforcement tends (just an observation) to translate criminal to just about anyone who looks at them funny and those like Fred Puckett never did that. To raid a house with a swat team for an ounce of weed and justify shooting a man in bed with his wife and their kids sleeping in the other room is just plain BAD!!!! that my friend is not "to serve and protect" and if anyone thinks that kind of enforcement is going to make society a better place are in serious risk of losing their soul..........happy Holidays Carl
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
zwara said:
I hope you trust me when I say its truely a pleasure talking with you even being via this forum and you have pointed out to me some things I wasnt aware of such as being detained for reasonable periods of time which makes complete sense to me..
Thanks.


I have never been detained in the past other then maybe a speeding ticket but I stayed in my car...
Good thing ... when people get out of their cars when I don't ask them to, I get a tad concerned.


but you and I both know probable cause can be interpeted differently depending on who is doing the interpeting......
Hence the reason we have judges. In CA the P.C. declaration for an arrest must be approved by a judge as soon as possible. In my county they fax the PC declarations to the on-call judge each morning when court is not normally in session, and they appear on a desk first thing in the morning on the normal court days.


your point in that I am assuming she passed the tests is correct but then again perhaps you are assuming she did not pass the tests so it would be dificult for either of us to argue that issue based on what both you and I read in her post.....
I don't know one way or the other. But, knowing that officers don't like getting sued to the poor house, I can only assume that he saw something in the tests that led him to believe she might be under the influence.


my town is small town America and in just the last year we have had four Police action shootings
I also live in small-town America, and we have had one officer-involved shooting in my town in the last 4 years ... and it wasn't even one of our officers. Someone decided to try and run down a Narcotics Task Force officer ... duh.


what was learned today was the man was shot while still in his bed when the officers charged in and it seems he did what even I would have did if I was awaken by the sound of my door being broken into and having several people rushing in my bedroom without enough time to know what the hell was happening..
This sort of crud occasionally happens ... sadly.


except if it had been me I wouldnt be here typing and sadly an officer or officers might be dead due to their own reckless actions ...
Maybe ... but, since they would likely have had the drop on you, you'd likely be the dead one.

I don't keep a gun anywhere near my bed so I wouldn't be reaching for one. Since the chances of someone conducting an armed home invasion on my home is something akin to my being elected President of the US on a write-in ballot, I don't concern myself with it too much. And I'm a little concerned by people that sleep with a gun so close. But, it's their right ... and it's also why we sometimes do dynamic entries (flash-bangs, lots of cops, and guns) - because dope dealers tend to keep firepower close at hand.


officers responded after which after a 30~min period the man never pointing his gun nor suggesting his intent to shoot anyone other then himself was hit with some type of stun device, bean bag ammo thingy being shot at him by one of the officers causing the man after being hit to swing around with gun in the direction of officers where in turn the man was shot dead by an officer..
Well, they probably COULD have shot him before that. One does NOT have to be POINTING the gun at another person for it to be dangerous.

I learned to shoot a handgun by participating in IPSIC matches. I learned to bring my weapon up and shoot quickly and without aiming ... I ain't gonna wait for someone to point it at me before I shoot.

This sounds like a tragedy that was going to have the same result almost no matter what happened. And sometimes there is little you CAN do. And very often you can look back and see what you COULD have done different or better, but at the time it was the best option available. Columbine is a great example of that - and the problems with Columbine have ledt to a revolutionary change in active shooter response and training nationwide.


I feel very strongly the average citizen should be more heavily armed then any government agency for the protection of the people...
Well, I will disagree. But, since it IS the case that the average citizen seems to be better armed than we are, it's a moot point as it is already fact.

The North Hollywood shootout a few years ago was a great example in how woefully underarmed even the LAPD was (and still is).


To raid a house with a swat team for an ounce of weed and justify shooting a man in bed with his wife and their kids sleeping in the other room is just plain BAD!!!! that my friend is not "to serve and protect" and if anyone thinks that kind of enforcement is going to make society a better place are in serious risk of losing their soul..........
I seriously doubt that is what they anticipated going in. The key is that you just don't know.

Something like 99% of alarms are false. One night an officer I worked with in southern Cal. decided not to wait for his cover officer when he responded to another alarm call in the early evening ... well, he walked up to the front door fat dumb and happy ... just as an armed robber bailed out the door. Well, he calls for help and the bad guy runs back inside. 4 Asian gang members had just raided a local Asian business owner looking for gems and jewels and he stumbled on it ... so, you just don't know.

And in the case of dope, guns go hand in hand. It's bad for all involved. All we can do is try and minimize the potential for damage or injury.

happy Holidays Carl
Merry Christmas.

And greetings to all on this glorious day in celebration of His birth!

- Carl
 

I_R_Blonde

Junior Member
Lemme try and clarify this a little more...

I don't feel my rights were violated nor the officer's attitude anything but thorough and adament.

As far as whether or not I was passing the field tests...okay, passing may be the wrong word to use - now in respect to what "passing" actually entails. During the latter set of tests, the trainer merely acknowledged my ability to perform the drills successfully upon my asking how I did. However, while repeating them for the trainee...the trainer would note to watch for behaviors outside of the actual drill (i.e., lip movement/hand motions while counting 30 seconds, etc.).

Anyhow, I just hope this doesn't mean that regardless to whether my arrest was valid...mere protocol...or what have you!...the fact that my test WILL come back positive of "undetermined," yet substantiating evidence of my being under the influence boils down to the charge remaining the same?...= a CRIMINAL record now. Am I understanding this correctly?

I have no intention nor believe there are any grounds to even consider this a false arrest, well in as far as, the officers deserving any repercussion from this.

However, if the law is written so that no matter of the fact that I was not doing anything wrong other than parking in a handicap space in my frazzled state of being lost/displaying addict demeanor...gives justification of my being charged of a violation that screams, "I was on dope!"...period...

to now follow me in my established pursuits of sober, self-sufficient living. I am VERY worried and upset if so.

Please tell me there's some grey areas in between what can become of this charge I'm looking at 01/07/2005. Please. Is it unlikely to be dismissed? Lessened?

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your forthright decree and unreactive responses. You epitomize the "Men in Blue" 's honor to keep peace. Bless you Carl.

And bless you, too zwara...your points are well made.

Warmest wishes for all to enjoy those around you. Here's to 2005.

Sincerely Smiling,
Suzy Q
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top