DUI Checkpoint - .07 BAC

[Master Moron]

The "study" had a great many flaws with it and, as I recall, was pretty soundly dismissed.

When taken as a battery - and depending on which validation study used - the accuracy rate of the SFSTs is greater than 90%.

What flaws are those? And if there have been more recent studies, please point me to them.

I have no connection to MADD whatsoever and I think the per se limit should be at .05.

So, you're for prohibition, eh? Well, I for one, think prohibition was a disaster in the 30s and I don't think heading down that road will accomplish anything positive.

As a note there is really no "legal limit" - one can be legally and practically impaired even with a BAC of .00 ... ask me how ...

Why do you feel the need to repeat this in every single thread? Actually, I think this is the second time you stated that in this very thread.

Probable cause is the standard for an arrest anywhere in the United States - that includes CA.

What is or isn't probable cause is determined by case law. Just because an Illinois court determines that improper lane usage is a sufficient probable cause for arrest does not mean that it's binding on a California court.

You would also have to show that the officer knew or reasonably should have known he lacked probable cause to make the arrest ... that's a very high standard since probable cause is a relatively low one to reach. P.C. for an arrest is a greater standard than the reasonable suspicion necessary for a detention (a traffic stop) but significantly less than that needed for a conviction which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even so, an officer making an arrest without probable cause can get him or her sued ... NOT making an arrest is almost a sure bet to avoid civil or criminal liability at all. So, if in doubt, not making the arrest is the safe bet for an officer even if it might not be the safe bet for the community. Fortunately, few potential DUI contacts walk such a fine razor thin edge.

I don't know. When I got falsely arrested the officer told me that he didn't want to let me drive home because he'd get in trouble if I got into an accident. Of course, that wouldn't be the first lie that he told me that night, so whatever. He also told me that he wasn't worried about getting into trouble for arresting me because of the way I was driving.

 

[CdwJava]

What flaws are those? And if there have been more recent studies, please point me to them.

It had to do with methodology, if memory serves.

There are plenty of "studies" but not all of them with any scientific merit. The two most acclaimed validation studies in support of NHTSA's SFSTs were in 1981 and 1998 as I recall. And, somewhere, there is a record of the chemical tests that support arrests based upon impairment that exceed even those numbers ... I do not have my teaching materials handy, but if I have the time this week I may dig the numbers up.

So, you're for prohibition, eh? Well, I for one, think prohibition was a disaster in the 30s and I don't think heading down that road will accomplish anything positive.

Nope, I am not for prohibition. I am for keeping impaired drivers off the road. Heck, since impairment can be measured and determined on physical examination as low as .02 to .03, I could be really draconian and support that low a measure. But, evaluating for .05 would be difficult enough for most officers, so .03 would be nearly impossible from a practical standpoint.

Why do you feel the need to repeat this in every single thread? Actually, I think this is the second time you stated that in this very thread.

Because I hate the use of that innacurate term "the legal limit." It implies that there is a BAC level that is okay. This is simply not true. One can be impaired well below .08.

What is or isn't probable cause is determined by case law. Just because an Illinois court determines that improper lane usage is a sufficient probable cause for arrest does not mean that it's binding on a California court.

Correct. An infraction here is not sufficient for a custodial arrest. It IS sufficient for a detention. An officer here would still need probable cause to make an arrest for DUI and improper lane usage would not be sufficient to support the elements of that offense even in Illinois.

I don't know. When I got falsely arrested the officer told me that he didn't want to let me drive home because he'd get in trouble if I got into an accident. Of course, that wouldn't be the first lie that he told me that night, so whatever. He also told me that he wasn't worried about getting into trouble for arresting me because of the way I was driving.

Maybe in your state they don't try to supervise or manage their officers. Out here, we tend to frown on false arrests.

 

[Master Moron]

Nope, I am not for prohibition. I am for keeping impaired drivers off the road. Heck, since impairment can be measured and determined on physical examination as low as .02 to .03, I could be really draconian and support that low a measure. But, evaluating for .05 would be difficult enough for most officers, so .03 would be nearly impossible from a practical standpoint.

How are you not for prohibition? You're saying that it should be illegal to have a couple of beers. If you're for arresting people when they're not even intoxicated you've gone beyond the realm of keeping the roads safe and you're just criminalizing social drinking.

Because I hate the use of that innacurate term "the legal limit." It implies that there is a BAC level that is okay. This is simply not true. One can be impaired well below .08.

If you correct a judge and tell him that he's using the wrong term I don't think he's going to be too happy about it. The term legal limit is commonly understood by the public and is used by nearly everyone, so I'm going to continue to use it.

Correct. An infraction here is not sufficient for a custodial arrest. It IS sufficient for a detention. An officer here would still need probable cause to make an arrest for DUI and improper lane usage would not be sufficient to support the elements of that offense even in Illinois.


Maybe in your state they don't try to supervise or manage their officers. Out here, we tend to frown on false arrests.

Well, maybe improper lane usage alone would not be sufficient for a dui arrest. But, as long as the officer writes in his report that the suspect smelled like alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and had trouble walking, that will be enough. Maybe in your state officers are honest, but in this state it's standard for cops to list those signs of intoxication in their reports even if they weren't observed. They don't want their cases to get thrown out for lack of probable cause so they always list signs of intoxication whether they were there or not.

 

[larboard]

For brevity let's put all the debate regarding the FST to rest. I acknowledge I failed it (but still believe I would eventually stumble stone cold sober even if a big $$ prize was awarded on not stumbling). I realize there are many parts to the test so this doesn't prove anything and so on. I'm also not going to waste an attorney's time with this issue (whether I find a way to pay for one or get a public defender).

Yes, not ordering alcohol will have a toll on restaurants, but not enough to break them. The restaurant makes a lot of money on alcohol (about 7 times the cost of the base product), but if the restaurant was running that slim a margin for a few people to break them for not ordering booze, then the owner had a problem that was systemic. (Oh, I managed a restaurant and a bar for a few years before I was a cop.)

AFAIK most responsible adults are aware of the DUI laws bit aren't aware of how strictly they can be enforced. I think if they read these forums a significant percentage would never have more than a single public drink (if that) given the consequences of running into a sobriety checkpoint or getting stopped for let's say a rolling stop through a stop sign. That's a big loss for restaurants and pubs. Many are already on the verge of going under. Fortunately in my case I can walk to about fifteen different places that serve food (most without alcohol).

There is always a tradeoff for protection. Personally, I would rather have my friends drink at home after dinner than risk their death - or mine - on the road because they had one too many beers.

Good point.

I fail to see what is unfair about enforcing DUI law. We are not in the business of playing fair, we are in the business of winning.

In my business (when I'm employed) not playing fair in decision making regarding the conduct of what could loosely be called "the sport" means you lose customers. There's no "winning" for what could be called the "referees". There's simply ruling correctly which sometimes means making exceptions in the spirit of fairness.

Let me ask you this - how far do you take this? [note from larboard - this regards the ticket for the ATM]

I'll tackle this one by one.

Do you make exceptions for people in a hurry?

Of course not.

Time of day?

Mostly no. But 3:00 am in an empty parking lot is hardly a "Time of day"

Gender?

I wouldn't but I tend to root for the underdog. Not sure there's a study that can verify that hot looking woman get less traffic tickets than fat old guys or ugly woman but this is believed in my circle. Would be hard to prove though.

Time they intend to be parked there?

Of course not.

Where do you decide that it should be enforced? Making too many exceptions becomes a slippery slope.

I'm familiar with slippery slope arguments and have used them in my work when employed. But a 3:00 am ticket in an empty lot for using the handicapped spot near an ATM is so far away from any sort of significant slope (slippery or not) you might as well be in Kansas (for fun just Googled "flattest state" and it turns out Florida, Illinois and Louisiana are flatter; most think of Kansas as being flat but it gains significant elevation as you move west).

Plus, the code section involving handicapped parking is quite clear and does not allow for such exceptions. It is also one of those areas that the great majority of the public nearly demands we enforce it strictly. When we do NOT enforce it, we hear about it.

I doubt the general public would applaud the 3:00 am ATM ticket in an empty lot.

The only time I have ever been applauded in my career for a parking ticket was when I gave these out for unlawful handicapped parking.

I would too if it was at a reasonable hour when the stores were open and the parking lot was even marginally full. Even if the parking lot wasn't that full and there were other nearby spaces I'd applaud it simply because too many Americans are overweight and need to walk more. But my guess is that a 3:00 am stop at an ATM is somewhat dangerous and the customer was concerned about his safety. The general public would find that forgivable.

And, to answer your question, I cite from Penal Code section 4:

4. The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be
strictly construed, has no application to this Code. All its
provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their
terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.​

If there was a better use of his time, I suspect he would have been doing that other thing. Yes, parking tickets are a gold mine for a city as almost all of it goes to the city with a minute portion going to the county. Moving violations are a money loser, parking cites are a money maker. But, most police officers do not bother with them.

That's interesting giving my friend once got a moving violation for over $500 for violating the car pool lane at about 2:00 am after work on a completely empty freeway (the car pool lane provided a significant shortcut to an exit leaving to a much shorter and safer drive home). I've only had one parking ticket except for forgetting the street sweeper day a couple times. But all three tickets didn't involve a police officer; instead it was some sort of parking enforcer (which AFAIK isn't a real police officer - please correct me if I'm wrong).

Never have seen the show ... sorry.

Don't quite understand how embedded links work on this forum. On my favorite forum you can embed links in the form title of link. They did disable the use of tinyurl (apparently some problem directing people to bad links so many of my archived posts have dead links). Years ago you needed tinyurl for long links.

Highly recommend you visit YouTube and enter the string "The Wire paper bag". The lead link omits the intro (an officer died in a minor drug bust) but it can be found a little ways down. Turns out this clip also is ranked first if you type in "The Wire best moments". YouTube links from The Wire could provide an entire evenings entertainment. If you have Netflix put it on your Queue.

You do not get a "preliminary hearing" as these are only for felonies and have to do with the establishment of probable cause. You get an arraignment and then, maybe, a status conference and motion hearings if your attorney tries to suppress stuff.

Unless I can get one on the cheap I'll attend this hearing without an attorney (but with the intention of retaining a PD).

You'll have to work that math for yourself. The two days of jail time is in addition to any other penalties. You might be able to do jail time in lieu of some part of the fine, but fees and assessments will still be on you, I believe.

Thanks for the info.

I am unfamiliar with The Wire, but I really like like Southland.

Southland was just added to my Netflix Queue. On the huge forum I post on there was a giant debate (on one of the sub-forums where people in the field discuss film, art, TV, politics and so on) regarding what was best, "The Wire" or "The Shield" (which I thought had major flaws). The Wire won. I highly recommend it and hope you find time to check out a few highlights.

As for realistic, two old shows come to mind for elements of realism: Barney Miller (yes, most of police work is PAPER work), and Hill Street Blues.

Big fan of Hill Street Blues (and NYPD Blue). Barney Miller is a surprise (I'll look into it) but loved the discussion of paperwork and bureaucratic infighting in the middle book in the famous John LeCarre cold war trilogy (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Honorable Schoolboy, and Smiley's People).

The others are hit and miss. CSI is WAY, WAY off the track with regards to police work, though I tend to like all three versions for the stories and the characters.

Agree. Also don't like "24". The real world of interrogation and counter-terrorism simply doesn't work like that AFAIK.

Please do check out the links to "The Wire". It's a great show.

I'm a bit tired so will sign off. If you are interested I'd love to post or PM you a fair draft as to whether or not "the general public" would approve of a $400+ ticket for the 3:00 am traffic stop. I wouldn't post it here or on my home forum (unless I came up with an alternative screen name) but might work on a large forum where off topic stuff is discussed.

Once again thanks for your help. Interesting debate and discussion is a lot more rewarding than eating chips on the couch while watching the usual TV drivel.

Regards,

larboard

 

[CdwJava]

How are you not for prohibition? You're saying that it should be illegal to have a couple of beers.

Where did I say that? I just don't think a person has a right to drink and drive while impaired. If you want to get sloshed at home, or get tipsy with a designated driver, go right ahead. I enjoy watching drunks embarrass themselves as much as the next guy.

If you're for arresting people when they're not even intoxicated you've gone beyond the realm of keeping the roads safe and you're just criminalizing social drinking.

Actually, I am for arresting drivers who are impaired and for keeping impaired people off of our roads. Perhaps by lowering the per se level, and getting away from this misleading term "legal limit" more people would become cognizant of the facts and think a little more about it.

But, never fear Master Moron, it is highly unlikely that we will ever see a .05 per se level in this country in my lifetime.

If you correct a judge and tell him that he's using the wrong term I don't think he's going to be too happy about it. The term legal limit is commonly understood by the public and is used by nearly everyone, so I'm going to continue to use it.

That's fine and dandy. It's misleading and not correct, but go ahead. I will continue to make the clarification as necessary.

But, as long as the officer writes in his report that the suspect smelled like alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and had trouble walking, that will be enough. Maybe in your state officers are honest, but in this state it's standard for cops to list those signs of intoxication in their reports even if they weren't observed. They don't want their cases to get thrown out for lack of probable cause so they always list signs of intoxication whether they were there or not.

Then if things are so lax there, maybe you should agitate for greater supervision and training. But, it is not uncommon to see some of the same symptoms in an alcohol DUI. After all, it is generally the odor of alcohol that attracts an officer's attention. And when you have impairment from alcohol you often DO have red and watery eyes, slurred speech, and an unsteady gait. The fact that these are prevalent with alcohol DUIs simply reinforces these as objective symptoms, it does not detract from them.

 

[CdwJava]

For brevity let's put all the debate regarding the FST to rest.

I like brevity ... my Starbucks cup is almost empty, and my shift is over shortly ... and we just finished making a DUI arrest - DUI drugs (meth.). Oddly enough <I say with great sarcasm> the passenger was also high on meth. Yes, it is a shocker!

I acknowledge I failed it (but still believe I would eventually stumble stone cold sober even if a big $$ prize was awarded on not stumbling).

There are a minority of people that cannot pass the SFSTs for whatever reason. But, they tend to be the minority of people. And, as was opined by one legislator I once heard, should people who cannot pass the FST sober be allowed to drive? Are they capable of driving even if sober? The question raises a valid point in that regard since driving IS a divided attention activity and the SFSTs when taken as a battery are designed to test for this, it is a valid question. Personally, I think you would do fine if sober. I think you give yourself too little credit on that front.

AFAIK most responsible adults are aware of the DUI laws bit aren't aware of how strictly they can be enforced. I think if they read these forums a significant percentage would never have more than a single public drink (if that) given the consequences of running into a sobriety checkpoint or getting stopped for let's say a rolling stop through a stop sign.

I would be tickled pink if that were the case.

Actually, we found that during periods of high enforcement activity changes to include less drinking and more sober drivers. The enforcement worked to change behavior even without a real spike in arrests.

I'm familiar with slippery slope arguments and have used them in my work when employed. But a 3:00 am ticket in an empty lot for using the handicapped spot near an ATM is so far away from any sort of significant slope

But, again, you come to the "where do you draw the line" argument?

I know some officers that would not issue a handicapped cite in the circumstances you outline and others that would. Both are proper exercises of discretion.

I doubt the general public would applaud the 3:00 am ATM ticket in an empty lot.

Of course, why would someone absolutely NEED to park in that handicapped spot at 3 AM anyway?

That's interesting giving my friend once got a moving violation for over $500 for violating the car pool lane at about 2:00 am after work on a completely empty freeway (the car pool lane provided a significant shortcut to an exit leaving to a much shorter and safer drive home).

Carpool lanes and such are generally given pretty strict enforcement because that is what the public generally demands. If the police ignore it, they hear about it.

Most the car pool lanes I know of are time specific ... where is there a carpool lane in operation at 2 AM?

I've only had one parking ticket except for forgetting the street sweeper day a couple times. But all three tickets didn't involve a police officer; instead it was some sort of parking enforcer (which AFAIK isn't a real police officer - please correct me if I'm wrong).

Parking enforcement personnel are rarely peace officers. Yes, peace officers can issue parking cites, but they tend not to concern themselves with them too often or unless they are told to ... when I worked a beat near the beach, I gave out a lot of parking cites. Where I work now, we give them out very rarely and usually as a result of a complaint by a resident or business owner.

Don't quite understand how embedded links work on this forum.

They have been disabled for a few years ... unfortunately.

Highly recommend you visit YouTube and enter the string "The Wire paper bag". The lead link omits the intro (an officer died in a minor drug bust) but it can be found a little ways down.

I'll give it a look-see at home some time this week when I'm off.

Unless I can get one on the cheap I'll attend this hearing without an attorney (but with the intention of retaining a PD).

The arraignment will be where the charges are read - if the DA is pursuing them - and where you will be asked about a plea and about legal counsel.

Southland was just added to my Netflix Queue.

You can watch past episodes for free on tnt.com.

On the huge forum I post on there was a giant debate (on one of the sub-forums where people in the field discuss film, art, TV, politics and so on) regarding what was best, "The Wire" or "The Shield" (which I thought had major flaws). The Wire won. I highly recommend it and hope you find time to check out a few highlights.

I'll give it a look. I did not like the Shield because it had far too many fatally flawed characters, and did not seem like any agency I had ever been acquainted with ... I found I did no really like ANY of the characters and really hoped almost all of them would fall. It was a good show for drama, action, and Hollywood cops and robbers, but not as a representative program of the job.

Agree. Also don't like "24". The real world of interrogation and counter-terrorism simply doesn't work like that AFAIK.

I was never a fan of that show. I like Kiefer Sutherland, but not 24.

I'm a bit tired so will sign off. If you are interested I'd love to post or PM you a fair draft as to whether or not "the general public" would approve of a $400+ ticket for the 3:00 am traffic stop. I wouldn't post it here or on my home forum (unless I came up with an alternative screen name) but might work on a large forum where off topic stuff is discussed.

Fine with me.

Though a 3 AM traffic stop is different than a 3 AM parking ticket ... unless you were issued a parking cite while at the scene. I'm not arguing for against it, only that it is both lawful and proper to issue it based upon the law as written. It also perfectly valid for an officer to exercise his or her discretion NOT to issue a parking cite under that circumstance.

Once again thanks for your help. Interesting debate and discussion is a lot more rewarding than eating chips on the couch while watching the usual TV drivel.

My teenagers eat all the chips before I get home, and between shuttling kids to sports and school activities on days off and working late shifts I do not see much TV unless it has commercials involving ED treatments ... ever notice that every program after midnight is filled with those? Makes me wonder ...

 

[larboard]

DUI checkpoints bring in a lot of money. Why do you think California uses them? Don't believe that public safety nonsense. DUI checkpoints brought in 40 million dollars in revenue to California in 2009: California Cops Exploit DUI Checkpoints to Rake in Cash | Immigration | AlterNet

Tomorrow when I'm not so tired I'll look up the link. That said 40 million is chump change relative to California's budget problems. From what I observed my arrest was sort of like the door prize at a party where nobody else showed up. I'm really curious as to how many arrests were made that night (especially considering the amount of staff at the checkpoint and the nearly empty jail I served my time in). I was arrested in a pretty big city and expected something like a scene from Hill Street Blues.

There was a study in 1992 where police officers were asked to determine whether subjects were asked to perform the field sobriety tests and police officers were asked to determine whether they were intoxicated. The officers determined that 49% of the subjects were too drunk to drive. All of the subjects were completely sober.

Most studies can be set up to favor a predetermined result but if this was done fairly then it's a real eye opener (or not surprising at all depending on your point of view).

It's always best to refuse the field sobriety tests even if you think you're not intoxicated. Why give the police probable cause to arrest? You also made the mistake of admitting to the officer that you had a few drinks. As I learned from CdwJawa, saying you had a couple of beers is the most common answer that police officers hear, so when you say that they will think you're lying. It's best to politely refuse to answer any questions.

Somewhere on a DUI forum I read the CdwJava comment regarding the most common answer of two drinks (post arrest of course). Since I drink moderately if at all I never anticipated being stopped or arrested. I've never concerned myself with "how to respond in case I'm stopped at a DUI checkpoint" since I have (before the arrest) bigger things on my plate.

Why on earth do you applaud the efforts of MADD? You need to do more research on MADD before you blindly sing their praises. If MADD had their way the legal limit would be .06 and you would be completely screwed by getting a .07 on the blood test.

Haven't had that much time to look up MADD's efforts but I'm willing to go on record that although I support efforts to reduce drinking and driving I don't blindly applaud MADD. Without researching here at 3;00 am let's say MADD is successful in reducing the amount of deaths associated with DUI to zero (not counting people who drink at home and then go out). Would that make the world a better place? I think not. IMO a nice lounge/bar/restaurant with drinking takes place has it's place in a somewhat chaotic world. To encourage people to drink responsibly and/or use a friend as a designated driver or use taxis is a noble goal. If some pubs/bars/restaurants that serve alcohol remain in business alcohol related deaths (due to driving post visit) will never be zero (of course there will always be deaths related to incompetent driving or simply bad luck). OTOH keeping the trend downward (as documented in a link I made from another post) is a very worthy cause. But the goal should not be reducing DUI related deaths to zero. A world such as this would hardly be worth living in.

I don't know about California, but in my state the police need a bare minimum of probable cause to arrest for dui. Improper lane usage is about all they need to throw you in jail. As for suing a cop for false arrest, most civil rights lawyers charge contingent fees, so you need to show some measure of damages. A night in jail isn't gonna cut it. You're going to have to prove that the arrest caused you to miss a significant amount of work or cost you in some other way.

I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints. Although you might consider your car a private place the fact is it operates in a public arena where others safety in in jeopardy. So your car really isn't private looking at it from this perspective.

 

[larboard]

Almost out of mental gas so I'll only respond to a few points.

There are a minority of people that cannot pass the SFSTs for whatever reason. But, they tend to be the minority of people. And, as was opined by one legislator I once heard, should people who cannot pass the FST sober be allowed to drive? Are they capable of driving even if sober? The question raises a valid point in that regard since driving IS a divided attention activity and the SFSTs when taken as a battery are designed to test for this, it is a valid question. Personally, I think you would do fine if sober. I think you give yourself too little credit on that front.

I could get in a massive car wreck (sober of course) tomorrow but I'm confident that my driving skills are in the high percentile for any age (the evidence, with what I realize has a high degree of standard deviation/variance over a short lifetime, would be my driving record). OTOH some people get in a lot of "accidents" not because they were unlucky but because they simply are clueless when driving.

I'm amazed how many drivers tailgate, have little or no positional awareness (e.g. they stay in the "blind spot" of other drivers) and don't anticipate problems ahead. They drive through a green light blindly assuming others observe the red light (I don't). Text messaging while driving is so silly/unsafe it's almost beyond belief yet people do it.

Carpool lanes and such are generally given pretty strict enforcement because that is what the public generally demands. If the police ignore it, they hear about it.

Most the car pool lanes I know of are time specific ... where is there a carpool lane in operation at 2 AM?

A real good guy who works in my field got pulled over at what must have been 3:15 am (I'm estimating based on the fact I know his shift ended at 2:45 am). It was where the 105 freeway going East intersects with the 605 north. Only the carpool lane exits to a street allowing a shortcut to the 5 freeway south (this was a few years ago, I think it's been corrected now). Anyway when he was pulled over he made the "spirit of fairness" argument. He got the $271 or so fine anyway. The freeway was nearly empty.

I'll give it a look-see at home some time this week when I'm off.

Many think "The Wire" was the best show ever on TV. I thought the last year was weak but enjoyed almost every moment. I'm amazed how many great scenes can be viewed on YouTube.

The arraignment will be where the charges are read - if the DA is pursuing them - and where you will be asked about a plea and about legal counsel.

Thanks for the info.

You can watch past episodes for free on tnt.com.

That's cool. I never had cable until my Mom visited last year and felt I needed it for her. So much is available on Netflix streaming (which can be moved around the home via the cheap Roku box or a blu-ray player), Hulu, and the Internet in general I'm considering dropping cable. I might get mlb.com (which streams through the Roku) so I can watch baseball games. American Idol is reachable in HD with a regular antenna from my home so no cable is needed there. I'll miss O'Reilly but can pick up clips on the net.

I'll give it a look. I did not like the Shield because it had far too many fatally flawed characters, and did not seem like any agency I had ever been acquainted with ... I found I did no really like ANY of the characters and really hoped almost all of them would fall. It was a good show for drama, action, and Hollywood cops and robbers, but not as a representative program of the job.

That was my sense of the show too. How could Vic Mackey (the Michael Chiklis character) know so much of the street when he was hardly on the street. How could he and his cohorts be so brazen? I have some awareness of the Ramparts scandal but the whole show didn't ring right. The Wire is so much better although I suppose it has moments which would make a professional eyes roll.

I was never a fan of that show. I like Kiefer Sutherland, but not 24.

I love the magazine "Atlantic Monthly" which seems to be in the middle politically and tends to have long, in depth articles. They had one on real world interrogation of terrorists. From the article the whole Jack Bauer "tell me where the nuke is or I poke your eye out" interrogation technique is absolutely implausible. Real interrogation is much more subtle.

My teenagers eat all the chips before I get home, and between shuttling kids to sports and school activities on days off and working late shifts I do not see much TV unless it has commercials involving ED treatments ... ever notice that every program after midnight is filled with those? Makes me wonder ...

I had to Google "ED treatments". Since I watch little TV and use the TIVO to fast forward through the commercials and a moment ago I thought ED meant "Eating Disorder" given the number of fast food commercials on TV

 

[Zigner]

A couple of things on the 105/605 interchange:

I have traveled in the area for well over 10 years. For that entire time the carpool only portion of that interchanged has ended prior to the off-ramp, so cars with no passengers can exit on to Studebaker. Your friend did NOT get a carpool violation for that.

Furthermore, with a "nearly empty" freeway, it is MUCH faster, easier and safer to take the 605 North to the 5 South, as opposed to taking Studebaker to Imperial and heading east to the 5, or as opposed to heading north on Studebaker to (what is considered) the Florence onramp leading to the 5 south.



Now, for Carl. The carpool lanes on the 10 entering/leaving L.A., on the 210, on the 605 and on the 105 are NOT time-specific. (The 10 is limited to 3 or more during peak hours, but in the off-peak hours, it drops to 2 or more iirc). I think L.A. County doesn't "do" the time-specific thing


And now...back to your regular scheduled thread

 

[larboard]

A couple of things on the 105/605 interchange:

I have traveled in the area for well over 10 years. For that entire time the carpool only portion of that interchanged has ended prior to the off-ramp, so cars with no passengers can exit on to Studebaker. Your friend did NOT get a carpool violation for that.

Furthermore, with a "nearly empty" freeway, it is MUCH faster, easier and safer to take the 605 North to the 5 South, as opposed to taking Studebaker to Imperial and heading east to the 5, or as opposed to heading north on Studebaker to (what is considered) the Florence onramp leading to the 5 south.

The "friend" above was someone I described as a "real good guy who works in my field" and if memory serves (this was a few years ago and the ticket could have been issued well before that) the discussion actually started on the topic of a ruling he made in the spirit of fairness in "our field". Perhaps I got the details wrong.

My best friend did get a ticket (during day traffic) when about six years ago he was driving alone and cut into the carpool lane near the interchange to get to Studebaker, make a left, then an immediate right to go down Imperial (he lives off Imperial). During the day (especially when the 105 East to the 605 North ramp is backed up) this option can save time and he paid the price. It was $271 x 2 - $1 = $541). The "x 2" was because he (in his words) mouthed off to the officer (as an aside he just called one minute ago for other reasons and I asked him to clarify the details). He said he expressed his frustration that he couldn't get to Studebaker driving alone and that the interchange setup was silly. He got the double ticket for what he described as entering the HOV lane improperly (crossing the yellow lines) and then for being in it. Don't know why they subtracted a dollar; that's always been a bit of a mystery.

He told me that today it is set up different. A passenger traveling alone can get to Studebaker without entering the HOV. If my memory serves (I don't need to get to Studebaker/Imperial much from this direction) I think they did this without major construction. I believe they eliminated the HOV well before the interchange allowing drivers to use all options. He thought the change was made about three years ago.

He ended the call by saying the fine is now well over $300 and there are additional fees not mentioned on the sign.

 

[Zigner]

Your friend is still wrong. I have lived very close by for over a decade and it has ALWAYS been set up so that you don't have to enter the HOV to exit there...
And, "during the day" destroys your entire (bogus) argument for "fairness".

The "friend" above was someone I described as a "real good guy who works in my field" and if memory serves (this was a few years ago and the ticket could have been issued well before that) the discussion actually started on the topic of a ruling he made in the spirit of fairness in "our field". Perhaps I got the details wrong.

My best friend did get a ticket (during day traffic) when about six years ago he was driving alone and cut into the carpool lane near the interchange to get to Studebaker, make a left, then an immediate right to go down Imperial (he lives off Imperial). During the day (especially when the 105 East to the 605 North ramp is backed up) this option can save time and he paid the price. It was $271 x 2 - $1 = $541). The "x 2" was because he (in his words) mouthed off to the officer (as an aside he just called one minute ago for other reasons and I asked him to clarify the details). He said he expressed his frustration that he couldn't get to Studebaker driving alone and that the interchange setup was silly. He got the double ticket for what he described as entering the HOV lane improperly (crossing the yellow lines) and then for being in it. Don't know why they subtracted a dollar; that's always been a bit of a mystery.

He told me that today it is set up different. A passenger traveling alone can get to Studebaker without entering the HOV. If my memory serves (I don't need to get to Studebaker/Imperial much from this direction) I think they did this without major construction. I believe they eliminated the HOV well before the interchange allowing drivers to use all options. He thought the change was made about three years ago.

He ended the call by saying the fine is now well over $300 and there are additional fees not mentioned on the sign.

 

[larboard]

Your friend is still wrong. I have lived very close by for over a decade and it has ALWAYS been set up so that you don't have to enter the HOV to exit there...
And, "during the day" destroys your entire (bogus) argument for "fairness".

Perhaps I didn't make the distinction between the two HOV incidents clear, both involving different people.

My close friend got the double ticket for crossing the HOV lane near the 105 East to 605 North interchange to reach Studebaker. For the record IMO he deserved it. He drives me crazy with tailgating and too many lane changes; he's the only person I've known where I often use the passenger foot brake. BTW he's a teetotaler. I also may have mixed up the time of day in the above posts regarding my close friends double ticket.

The argument for fairness regarding this interchange was made by a former co-worker who I was friendly with. It was a few years ago when we had the discussion and the incident could have been years before that. The time was correct though; it was on a nearly empty freeway.

My own argument for "the spirit of fairness" pertained solely to the $400 plus ticket for parking in the handicapped spot in an empty lot at 3:00am.

The 105 opened just around the time the movie "Speed" was released in 1994 (Speed is the movie where Dennis Hopper hijacked the bus and had set a bomb that would go off if the bus dropped below something like 40mph. Current Oscar winner Sandra Bullock was the bus driver.) Primary filming was performed on the almost completed but not yet opened 105 freeway (you can see the rail line in the film; it was supposed to be the 10 freeway). I commuted five days per week using the 105 freeway from 1995 to 1999. The Eastbound HOV lane had a double yellow line at the point of the intersection which had the exit to Studebaker. An HOV lane traveler would exit about a half mile back if he wanted to take the 605 either way. A non HOV lane traveler had no easy legal way to get to Studebaker from the 105 freeway since he couldn't enter the HOV lane.

Some years ago the double yellow lines were removed for the last half mile or so on the Eastbound side so the problem was solved at minimal cost. Eliminating the HOV lane for this short stretch seemed a good idea since these travelers usually had to merge to the ramps leading to the 605 anyway (prior to this they had to have the knowledge to leave the HOV lane about a half mile back before the double yellow lines were again present).

My close friend and I also both live near this intersection and are 100% sure this is correct per a discussion we just had during our morning exercise routine. Perhaps another member can confirm our version or find a good link.

If you guys are interested I'll write a draft in a nuetral, non leading manner regarding the fairness of the ATM ticket. I'll post it here and anyone can comment until all agree it's absolutely fair (I'm very well known for writing very accurate and fair lead post in my own field.

I think The largest Message Boards and Forums on the web! is a decent site that lists and ranks all message boards (if there's a better one let me know). Anyway, find any reasonable board that has an off-topic discussion area and we can post a final draft and poll there (as an aside I first thought of the AVS forum but they don't have much of an off-topic area). I'd beleive the public would find that the 3:00 an ATM ticket was not issued in the "spirit or fairness". In fact most citizens might find it outragous.

My best friends not an Internet guy but he brings over clips regarding the latest news from the Orange County Register. One of today's is somewhat related to this thread. I of course found the link FYI:

$20 traffic ticket? More like $150 | fine, state, base - News - The Orange County Register

Good reading I think.

 

[CdwJava]

The definition of what is "fair" is going to vary by the reader. So posting an essay on what is "fair" in your view may not be seen the same way in someone else's viewed. What might be a reasoned position may or may not be "fair," and what is legal may have no relationship to the perception of fairness at all.

As for the $20 fine costing much more than that you can thank your state legislators. The state has decided - for right or wrong - to require that those penalized for their transgressions will pay the costs of their prosecution and even contribute to the kitty for special enforcement and education funds related to traffic crimes. Some think that local government (i.e. the city and the cops) gets this money, but that is untrue. The percentage the city might get is based upon a small portion of that original $20 base fine. When you subtract the cost of the time it takes the officer to write the ticket, the city might see a $4 or $5 per citation ... but, every citation that goes to court will blow away the meager windfall made from 20-30 additional cites. In the end, moving cites are a money loser for local government. Red light cameras tend to be the exception to this. And, of course, parking cites are big money makers for local government and why many parking enforcement agencies are largely self supporting.

 

[larboard]

The definition of what is "fair" is going to vary by the reader. So posting an essay on what is "fair" in your view may not be seen the same way in someone else's viewed. What might be a reasoned position may or may not be "fair," and what is legal may have no relationship to the perception of fairness at all.

We can put this aside since time is precious and for a while I have to move on to other things. Had we gone on with it it wouldn't be an essay with opinion; rather it would include a brief "just the facts" Dragnet style description of the incident at the ATM with a poll or questions along the lines of:

"Do you think the officer did the right thing/upheld the law correctly/was fair issuing the ticket"? If yes, why? If no, why?

Doesn't really matter I suppose in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks again for all your help. Don't forget to check out "The Wire"

 

[LakersFan]

Because I hate the use of that innacurate term "the legal limit." It implies that there is a BAC level that is okay. This is simply not true. One can be impaired well below .08.

What if OP had refused the FST then all DA would have is .07 to prosecute with. How often have you seen DA take on a case w/o traffic violation and no FST with BAC less than .08. what do you call .08 if not legal limit?

Also, If there were no BAC limits how do you explain National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) slogan. Titled ‘Drunk Driving: Over the Limit. Under Arrest.’?