DUI to the slightest degree

[dave33]

No, he doesn't "always" have one, and, no the arrest is not (or SHOULD NOT) be based upon that test. In fact, I do NOT use it in the FSTs simply to avoid the perception that it might have skewed my opinion. If I cannot determine that a person is impaired based upon my evaluation, than I need to go back for better training. I carry the PBT because, sometimes, it may be the only test available, or, in the case of minors or persons on DUI probation, they could be required to take the PBT in the field. The PBT is only one of the FSTs, it is not a test to establish the BAC of the driver. And, in the case of a drug DUI, it is pretty much worthless accept to rule out the presence of alcohol.


A refusal to blow into a field PBT is not a crime ... at least I don't know of any state where it is.


I can honestly say it doesn't make any difference to me or the officers I know. An Adam Henry can wear a suit or blue jeans, and a guy who is polite can be dressed either way as well. His money doesn't concern me, his attitude and inebriation does.


No, I can do those tests that are accepted and that the local prosecutor is willing to defend. If I make someone do hand and palm flipping and recite the alphabet, those are grand, but they are not standardized field sobriety tests, and I cannot support them in court. In some cases they might be effective on a video to show that someone is either uncoordinated or illiterate, but they cannot legally establish impairment on their own.


If you say so. I testify as to what I observe. I also make notes on my observations. And, there is often video of the procedure - at least audio even if the video is not clear due to angle or darkness.


Better spent on what? Sorry, but taking impaired drivers off the road and saving lives is money WELL spent. Period. Some states - Colorado, in particular, is spending even MORE money right now because of the problems that stoned drivers are now placing upon the police and the justice system there. We will soon see it out here as well.


This planet. Earth. California, in particular. I've done i, other officers do it, it happens. All because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. True, most people evaluated are arrested ... not because the officer is making it up, but because the officer has observed the objective signs of impairment.


I can think of quite a few ... but, I live in a small county and know a great many of the people here. If you asked me if I had any friends or family memebrs that were released after an FST, I'd have to say "no" ... but, then, they were all impaired and admittedly so, so I would expect them to be arrested.

The police tend to evaluate people that seem impaired, it's not random.


I suspect I read far more police reports than you do. With only two exceptions have I ever read reports where the articulated observations were clearly exaggerations or at least left that impression.


And what kind of "physical evidence" would you be willing to tolerate? How invasive do you want it to be? Roadside blood tests on suspicion alone? Urine tests? Mandatory breath, blood or urine upon contact?

An arrest must be based upon articulated probable cause. That probable cause is established based upon the officer's observations from before the stop, through the contact and into the arrest.


I can't speak to every situation everywhere, but, I can say I have never seen or heard of this, and I have certainly never instructed this.


I have yet to see a video that reflects odor, nystagmus, skin temperature and tone, etc. Are you aware of any camera that does this?


Many years ago, I'd say that you might be right. But, the reticence was rarely in order to perpetuate malfeasance, but reflected a lack of trust in the administration. There was and is a fear that video will be randomly reviewed to find reasons to discipline officers and that some officers who run afoul of an administration for political reasons might find their videos being scrutinized more frequently in others in order to find issues to use for discipline. There are also legal questions involved such as videos revealing personal information of people NOT related to the case. Personal identification info comes over the radio of others people involved and that can result in issues - which is why the CHP will often not release MVARS video in discovery without a court order, but WILL allow people to review them at the office.

The same fear came about a couple decades ago when GPS devices were put onto cars. In one rural county the Sheriff started reviewing the driving patterns of his officers, and officers got written up for speed. So, the deputies started traveling only at the speed limit and response times to calls rose from about 20 minutes to nearly 40. The Sheriff then backed away from random reviews, and only would review these records when they became an issue. A similar fear existed early on with body cameras. For the most part, that reluctance has given way to more reasonable policies for the use and review of cameras. For instance, my department used to have a "shall use" policy for cameras and the fear was what happened if the camera malfunctioned or the officer forgot to turn it on? The last thing we wanted was an officer to be thinking of turning on his camera when he should be thinking tactically in an unfolding event, or, that he might get in trouble if the camera died or did not record. This had to be addressed before officers became comfortable with them.


See above.

1. O.k. maybe not always, 99.9% of the time. as you pointed out, minors, people on d.u.i. probation. I've never heard of an officer not giving a pbt because it might skew their opinion. It's simply hard to swallow.
2. I didn't mean the pbt, I meant the test at the station. To refuse that in my state is a refusal and is a crime and people are rarely if ever convicted of both a d.u.i. and a refusal even if they refuse. They plead guilty to the refusal and the d.u.i is dropped. But, as in many situations when overcharging people to make the states case or plea position stronger they are still charged even though they know it will be dropped to force them to plead to the refusal.
3. Well, if you draw no conclusion from a persons appearance you are truly impartial and should consider a judgeship.
4. The alphabet recital is standard d.u.i. protocol in my state, but the breath test results are always of interest. In my state it's rare for a conviction with no b.a.c.
5. I'm sure you do testify when needed, but really Carl how many cases get that far? Very,very few percentage wise.
6. Money can be spent on many things that weould be better than something that may have a negative consequence. How about an actual victim of a crime? Food, military, infrastructure. I thought I was keeping up on the Co,orado situation and I have yet to hear that stoned drivers have caused a problem. How is it now a problem but was not in the past? After the legalization passed, every smoker decided to get stoned and drive down the street?
7. One or two suspected drivers may have been released but again I,ve never heard of it and almost never happens. How do you know he observed or didn't observe impairment?
8. Carl, in all your years you only saw two reports that were clearly exaggerations? I call b.s. That's a ridiculous statement. I have never ever seen a report that reflected the complete truth. Ever. Cops don't lie? I fear you maybe losing touch with reality.
9. Not invasive at all. A pdf is the most portable somewhat reliable single thing that may relay a reliable result. Even that is not reliable enough to be admitted in court. It's just enough for an arrest. That's the problem with only testimony. The defendant is impaired if the officer says he is, regardless if it's true or not. You cannot defend against a lie.
10. Come on Carl! Now you've never heard of an officer embellishing a little (lie) in his report to strengthen the states case. Again, b.s. That's just ridiculous. I find it hard to believe anyone would believe this. Another officer may support and reiterate your statement but that's the whole blue wall thing.
11. A camera may not reflect odor and skin temperature? Who cares. That's not i9mpairment, that's odor and skin temperature. Even if this were accurate, what could it hurt. Let a second set of eyes review the footage just to make sure no mistakes were made. I mean we are talking about peoples lives and all the other family and friends this effects. What could this hurt? I think I know the answer. What about the few states that made it a felony to tape police? I wonder if it was odor and skin temperature they were worried about? Why the secrecy if they are being honest and honorable.1
12.So an officer does not want a body camera because an administration officer may scrutinize the video. Maybe he has reason to. If the officer is not breaking the law or policy or both than what is therer to be worried about. Let them scrutinize away. The administration is officers sand since we now know they don't embellish or blatantly lie, An officer being scrutinized should get a good nights sleep.
What about a citizen protecting his rights with a camera. That is the bigger issue here right? So the cop may be worried about the footage, so let's not give innocent people proof of innocence so the officer does not have to go through the inconvenience of being scrutinized? really? This is supposed to be a government for the people not a government for officer comfort.
13. I nor anyone I know has never been able to get footage of their arrest even when there were several cars there all equipped withj video technology. Some were off some were broken. I do not believe not one worked. You of course will support this, somehow sighting officer safety.

 

[dave33]

Again sidetracked. You've heard enough of my balderdash, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[CdwJava]

1. O.k. maybe not always, 99.9% of the time. as you pointed out, minors, people on d.u.i. probation. I've never heard of an officer not giving a pbt because it might skew their opinion.

Now you have. I also don't recommend it in my training of officers because if that reading makes the difference, then you are not doing the evaluation properly. Additionally, I have seen some officers that rely too heavily on it even going so far as justifying the release of impaired driver because they blew under .08! Hello! Drugs have a 0.00 BAC! Not to mention that people can and often are impaired at UNDER .08 even on alcohol.

2. I didn't mean the pbt, I meant the test at the station. To refuse that in my state is a refusal and is a crime and people are rarely if ever convicted of both a d.u.i. and a refusal even if they refuse. They plead guilty to the refusal and the d.u.i is dropped. But, as in many situations when overcharging people to make the states case or plea position stronger they are still charged even though they know it will be dropped to force them to plead to the refusal.

Ah, well, in those states like mine where a refusal is not a crime, only an admin. punishment, then we have to rely on the officer's observations and testimony. I think only a minority of states make it a separate crime. And, the PBT reading cannot generally be used to establish the legal BAC, only the presence of alcohol.

3. Well, if you draw no conclusion from a persons appearance you are truly impartial and should consider a judgeship.

Jerks come in all shapes and sizes - as do decent folks. I've heard it argued that cops are harder on rich people because of jealousy or some such thing. SO, I guess it all depends on what side of the spectrum you are on as to whether cops are easier or harder on those that look rich.

4. The alphabet recital is standard d.u.i. protocol in my state, but the breath test results are always of interest. In my state it's rare for a conviction with no b.a.c.

The alphabet recital is not a standardized or supported test. It can be fun, but it is not one I'd like to defend on the stand as it is a literacy test, not so much a sobriety test.

Well, since people can now refuse a chemical test and the police cannot force a blood draw without a search warrant, there may be a change in that practice. Or, more cases dropped once the drunks realize they can refuse a test and walk away.

5. I'm sure you do testify when needed, but really Carl how many cases get that far? Very,very few percentage wise.

Most cases plead out. It's rare to go to court on a DUI unless the defendant has a lot to lose. If the reasonable suspicion for the stop and the probable cause for the arrest are good, then it's usually a plea. If they are questionable, then the attorney will seek to suppress those ... if they lose, it's time for a plea.

6. Money can be spent on many things that weould be better than something that may have a negative consequence. How about an actual victim of a crime?

Okay ... so, you'd be okay with drunk drivers killing more people?!?! Really?!?!

In my state, impaired drivers represent about 30-35% of fatal and serious injury collisions! I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to see that rate increase!

I thought I was keeping up on the Co,orado situation and I have yet to hear that stoned drivers have caused a problem.

Earlier this year it came out that they had seen a 400% increase in drugged driving since marijuana was legalized. If it were to remain on that pace, it would surpass alcohol DUI in a few years (though I suspect it will peak before it gets there ... maybe).

How is it now a problem but was not in the past?

Because marijuana was illegal and there was a paranoia attached to its use. Now, without that paranoia, it's on par with alcohol with regards to users driving.

After the legalization passed, every smoker decided to get stoned and drive down the street?

It suddenly became a viable option apparently.

7. One or two suspected drivers may have been released but again I,ve never heard of it and almost never happens. How do you know he observed or didn't observe impairment?

It clearly happens more than you are aware.

8. Carl, in all your years you only saw two reports that were clearly exaggerations? I call b.s.

Call it what you will. It's true. Though I'm not present at all those evaluations to see what was written. I have been at present at many and then read the reports and had not seen the exaggeration. Why? There's no need as the facts speak for themselves. You don't need to be a sloppy drunk to be impaired.

The two that I read that were bad were ones that I was NOT present at, but, had discovered that they were mirror images of each other and clearly boilerplate with only the names, dates, and locations changed. I reported this to the watch commander and action was taken ... it was not sufficient in my opinion, but, I was only a two-striper in those days. I don't recall reading a misrepresentation in any report I have witnessed the evaluation.

That's a ridiculous statement. I have never ever seen a report that reflected the complete truth. Ever. Cops don't lie? I fear you maybe losing touch with reality.

I'm sure that somewhere some cop has lied for whatever skewed reason he or she considered. What I said was that *I* have seen it only twice as I have mentioned - both with the same officer. I never said it has never happened, only that I had seen it only twice.

9. Not invasive at all. A pdf is the most portable somewhat reliable single thing that may relay a reliable result. Even that is not reliable enough to be admitted in court. It's just enough for an arrest. That's the problem with only testimony. The defendant is impaired if the officer says he is, regardless if it's true or not. You cannot defend against a lie.

Well, if you are going to argue that the officer COULD lie, then all bets are off and we might as well chuck the whole system. Again, there is no reliable roadside chemical test for drugs, and the roadside PBT is not generally currently acceptable as THE mandated chemical test.

10. Come on Carl! Now you've never heard of an officer embellishing a little (lie) in his report to strengthen the states case. Again, b.s. That's just ridiculous. I find it hard to believe anyone would believe this. Another officer may support and reiterate your statement but that's the whole blue wall thing.

<Sigh> See above ...

11. A camera may not reflect odor and skin temperature? Who cares.

If you understood DRUG impairment, you would! And odor can be a key factor in the identification of both drug and alcohol impairment.

That's not i9mpairment, that's odor and skin temperature.

They are also indicators of being under the influence of drugs. The SFSTs for a drug user are not going to look like those of a DUI alcohol driver, and the dope user may be far more impaired than the alcohol user, but far less obvious.

Let a second set of eyes review the footage just to make sure no mistakes were made.

They do. Many of these are recorded these days. Remember when I mentioned that the SFSTs are a "battery" of tests and not a single one? When dealing with drug impairment, the additional tests can help to ferret out just what type of drug the person is on.

What about the few states that made it a felony to tape police?

In what state sis that the law????

12.So an officer does not want a body camera because an administration officer may scrutinize the video. Maybe he has reason to.

If only it were that simple. Let's say your boss doesn't like you and is looking for a chance to fire you. Let's say he now has 48 hours a week of video footage to review to see if you violate one or more policies - even minor ones. Let's say your policy manual is 600+ pages long. Do you think you could stand up to that scrutiny? I couldn't. I KNOW I'd probably violate something during the shift - some minor policy I did not recall, did not know, had forgotten, or was never informed of. And if your head were on a chopping block already, it'd spell doom. But, that's only one reason to question their use and come up with a policy governing their use and distribution.

What about a citizen protecting his rights with a camera. That is the bigger issue here right?

I don't care if you record me. It'd be awfully boring. As long as you are not a threat, not inciting anyone to act like an idiot, and stand far enough back so that I don't see you as a threat, I don't care. It's legal and always has been ... at least here.

13. I nor anyone I know has never been able to get footage of their arrest even when there were several cars there all equipped withj video technology. Some were off some were broken. I do not believe not one worked. You of course will support this, somehow sighting officer safety.

What do you think I will cite??

We give up video all the time to court. In fact, we play it all the time at court ... had a guy plead out last week to an armed robbery when we were prepared to play his interview with the officers for the court. Love it.

I can't speak to all departments and all video policies and practices. Is it possible that some officers and agencies somewhere play fast and loose with video and even lie about their availability? Sure! Is it something I have personally encountered? No. I have been fortunate enough to work around more professional people and in more professional agencies. Maybe in a more professional state than where you are.

 

[Silverplum]

I mock your cop "statistics," and provide real data: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2014/dec/15/charles-chuck-spahos/drugged-driving-claim-base/

 

[dave33]

Now you have. I also don't recommend it in my training of officers because if that reading makes the difference, then you are not doing the evaluation properly. Additionally, I have seen some officers that rely too heavily on it even going so far as justifying the release of impaired driver because they blew under .08! Hello! Drugs have a 0.00 BAC! Not to mention that people can and often are impaired at UNDER .08 even on alcohol.


Ah, well, in those states like mine where a refusal is not a crime, only an admin. punishment, then we have to rely on the officer's observations and testimony. I think only a minority of states make it a separate crime. And, the PBT reading cannot generally be used to establish the legal BAC, only the presence of alcohol.


Jerks come in all shapes and sizes - as do decent folks. I've heard it argued that cops are harder on rich people because of jealousy or some such thing. SO, I guess it all depends on what side of the spectrum you are on as to whether cops are easier or harder on those that look rich.


The alphabet recital is not a standardized or supported test. It can be fun, but it is not one I'd like to defend on the stand as it is a literacy test, not so much a sobriety test.

Well, since people can now refuse a chemical test and the police cannot force a blood draw without a search warrant, there may be a change in that practice. Or, more cases dropped once the drunks realize they can refuse a test and walk away.


Most cases plead out. It's rare to go to court on a DUI unless the defendant has a lot to lose. If the reasonable suspicion for the stop and the probable cause for the arrest are good, then it's usually a plea. If they are questionable, then the attorney will seek to suppress those ... if they lose, it's time for a plea.


Okay ... so, you'd be okay with drunk drivers killing more people?!?! Really?!?!

In my state, impaired drivers represent about 30-35% of fatal and serious injury collisions! I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to see that rate increase!


Earlier this year it came out that they had seen a 400% increase in drugged driving since marijuana was legalized. If it were to remain on that pace, it would surpass alcohol DUI in a few years (though I suspect it will peak before it gets there ... maybe).


Because marijuana was illegal and there was a paranoia attached to its use. Now, without that paranoia, it's on par with alcohol with regards to users driving.


It suddenly became a viable option apparently.


It clearly happens more than you are aware.


Call it what you will. It's true. Though I'm not present at all those evaluations to see what was written. I have been at present at many and then read the reports and had not seen the exaggeration. Why? There's no need as the facts speak for themselves. You don't need to be a sloppy drunk to be impaired.

The two that I read that were bad were ones that I was NOT present at, but, had discovered that they were mirror images of each other and clearly boilerplate with only the names, dates, and locations changed. I reported this to the watch commander and action was taken ... it was not sufficient in my opinion, but, I was only a two-striper in those days. I don't recall reading a misrepresentation in any report I have witnessed the evaluation.


I'm sure that somewhere some cop has lied for whatever skewed reason he or she considered. What I said was that *I* have seen it only twice as I have mentioned - both with the same officer. I never said it has never happened, only that I had seen it only twice.


Well, if you are going to argue that the officer COULD lie, then all bets are off and we might as well chuck the whole system. Again, there is no reliable roadside chemical test for drugs, and the roadside PBT is not generally currently acceptable as THE mandated chemical test.


<Sigh> See above ...


If you understood DRUG impairment, you would! And odor can be a key factor in the identification of both drug and alcohol impairment.


They are also indicators of being under the influence of drugs. The SFSTs for a drug user are not going to look like those of a DUI alcohol driver, and the dope user may be far more impaired than the alcohol user, but far less obvious.


They do. Many of these are recorded these days. Remember when I mentioned that the SFSTs are a "battery" of tests and not a single one? When dealing with drug impairment, the additional tests can help to ferret out just what type of drug the person is on.


In what state sis that the law????


If only it were that simple. Let's say your boss doesn't like you and is looking for a chance to fire you. Let's say he now has 48 hours a week of video footage to review to see if you violate one or more policies - even minor ones. Let's say your policy manual is 600+ pages long. Do you think you could stand up to that scrutiny? I couldn't. I KNOW I'd probably violate something during the shift - some minor policy I did not recall, did not know, had forgotten, or was never informed of. And if your head were on a chopping block already, it'd spell doom. But, that's only one reason to question their use and come up with a policy governing their use and distribution.


I don't care if you record me. It'd be awfully boring. As long as you are not a threat, not inciting anyone to act like an idiot, and stand far enough back so that I don't see you as a threat, I don't care. It's legal and always has been ... at least here.


What do you think I will cite??

We give up video all the time to court. In fact, we play it all the time at court ... had a guy plead out last week to an armed robbery when we were prepared to play his interview with the officers for the court. Love it.

I can't speak to all departments and all video policies and practices. Is it possible that some officers and agencies somewhere play fast and loose with video and even lie about their availability? Sure! Is it something I have personally encountered? No. I have been fortunate enough to work around more professional people and in more professional agencies. Maybe in a more professional state than where you are.

1.Well , maybe, just maybe you didn't give a pbt because you did not want to skew your opinion. Again Carl you are referring to the one in a million to make a point but it just isn't relevant because it almost never happens. The facts exist in the majority not in the Haleys comet. Ya know, it happens once every seventy five years. It's so uncommon it could easily be considerd a deliberate deception to support an unrealistic position. It would be remiss of me not to point out of course , many times when a perso does not have a bac it does not mean drug use, it means sobriety.
2. The pbt cannot establish the legal bac, but it does give the officer probable cause to make an arrest.As unreliable as it has proven to be, it's still enough to make an arrest. I have also never heard of a situation where an officer takes a pbt and the result is over the legal limit but the officer lets the person go because he did not observe an unusual body temperature or unusual or unpleasant odor. It just is not a common occurrence.
3. This may be an extreme example( but if you get to always use the one in a million, what's good for the goose and all that...) I wonder if that white ford Bronco would have driven for hours if Jim Bob the poor local farm hand was behind the wheel running from the cops accused of killing his wife. I actually don't wonder, I'm sure I know the answer.
4. Good . At least until they have some evidence. Physical evidence.
5. Most cases plead out because it's your word against the officers and your attorney almost without exception tells you to plead out or lose.Not because you were impaired and not because they have evidence but rather because the officer said you were acting funny or smelled funny or whatever.
6. The reasonable suspicion and probale cause are almost always good because the police know and are trained very well to make a case stick. They also never just have one reason, they always have a back-up, always without exception. You can't say this concept was not drilled into their head.
7. Of course I'm not o.k. with drunk drivers killing more people. The problem is that what's done is done. Embellishing p.c. does not help the perso n who's already gone, it just hurts the people that are still here.
8. 400%, it must be because a cop would never embellish or exaggerate. You made that very clear that as far as you know it's only happened twice in the last thirty years. I mean what are the odds? Two times in thirty years. So regardless of what info we can find on the computer or news paper or any other research entity, it simply must be . It must be because testimony is evidence and there exists no more accurate evidenve than a cops word. It's only right to get the truth out there. So who's going to call the t.v. media and the papers and tell them that their stats are wrong and we got offricer testimony that can set them straight. Again I must point out only twice in thirty years, that's much better accuracy stats than any media outlet. An officers word is beyond contestation.
9. I disagree, because it's legal people no longer care about right and wrong and risking lives. That simply makes no sense to me.
10. Again disagree. It became a vkiable option over night? Nah, That 400% is inaccurate, therefore everything proceeding it is also wrong.
11.

 

[dave33]

Istopped the response because I have also had good experiences with the police and they let me go when they had plenty of evidence to arrest me. Whether I feel the officers actions were wrong a violation or whatever, bottom line they very well may have saved my life more than once.Although I have ben shocked at the actions of some officers, this attitude is not absolute. I have had enough of this thread, so I'll live to fight another day. Carl, goodluck.

 

[CdwJava]

I mock your cop "statistics," and provide real data: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2014/dec/15/charles-chuck-spahos/drugged-driving-claim-base/

Don't know about Georgia as I have never read ANY statistics on Georgia drugged driving. I referred to Colorado - and, a general trend nationwide that poly-substance DUI and marijuana alone DUI is on the rise in many places.

 

[Silverplum]

Don't know about Georgia as I have never read ANY statistics on Georgia drugged driving. I referred to Colorado - and, a general trend nationwide that poly-substance DUI and marijuana alone DUI is on the rise in many places.

Way to scan the link I provided and fail to see that it's ABOUT Colorado's statistics. And those statistics, which are from the DOT and other measurements, are nothing like the absurd 400% you blurbled.

 

[CdwJava]

1.Well , maybe, just maybe you didn't give a pbt because you did not want to skew your opinion.

Frankly, I don't NEED one. It also allows for the defense argument in a suppression motion that the defendant "passed" the SFSTs, and the "only reason" he was arrested was based upon the PBT reading of .08 or better. NOT using it removes that discussion from the mix entirely. And, for less experienced officers, it removes the conundrum they might feel if they get a reading under .08 and still see impairment and then second guess themselves (discounting the possibility of alcohol and drug use in conjunction with each other). Yes, I have seen this among younger and less experienced officers. A lack of confidence in their ability to evaluate non-alcohol DUIs in particular results in bad arrests, or, in NO arrest when one should have been made.

Again Carl you are referring to the one in a million to make a point but it just isn't relevant because it almost never happens.

I dare say I know far more officers than you do. And while most DO use the PBT, it is not as uncommon as you might think.

It would be remiss of me not to point out of course , many times when a perso does not have a bac it does not mean drug use, it means sobriety.

Of course! Precisely why people get let go after an evaluation when there exists no evidence of impairment.

2. The pbt cannot establish the legal bac, but it does give the officer probable cause to make an arrest.

By itself, no, it does not. Legally, it is but one of the FSTs.

As unreliable as it has proven to be, it's still enough to make an arrest. I have also never heard of a situation where an officer takes a pbt and the result is over the legal limit but the officer lets the person go because he did not observe an unusual body temperature or unusual or unpleasant odor. It just is not a common occurrence.

If the person blew .08 or over, then it stands to reason that the officer likely observed the objective symptoms of alcohol impairment (likely to include the ODOR of alcohol).

3. This may be an extreme example( but if you get to always use the one in a million, what's good for the goose and all that...) I wonder if that white ford Bronco would have driven for hours if Jim Bob the poor local farm hand was behind the wheel running from the cops accused of killing his wife. I actually don't wonder, I'm sure I know the answer.

The fact it was on live TV may have played a part in that as well. Keep in mind that he was not currently fleeing the scene of the crime, he had been scheduled to turn himself in, and the initial reports were that he was holding his pal - the driver - hostage. It was not simply an occasion where they said, "He's rich, we need to be careful. This was also in the post-Rodney King L.A. where the cops were uber-sensitive to video tape and officers dealing with black "motorists" (aka "fleeing felons").

5. Most cases plead out because it's your word against the officers and your attorney almost without exception tells you to plead out or lose.Not because you were impaired and not because they have evidence but rather because the officer said you were acting funny or smelled funny or whatever.

It is more than "acting funny: or "smelled funny." If only it were THAT easy.

6. The reasonable suspicion and probale cause are almost always good because the police know and are trained very well to make a case stick.

Well, yeah! It doesn't do to make a bad contact and a bad arrest. I would hope they know how to identify RS and PC! But, when a DUI case is lost, it is most often lost on one of those two issues. If you lose the stop, you lose the investigation and the DUI in its entirety. If you lose the arrest, you lose the mandated chemical test and the case relies solely upon the testimony, which - if the officer is green or not all that articulate or well trained/experienced - can lose the case.

They also never just have one reason, they always have a back-up, always without exception. You can't say this concept was not drilled into their head.

Why? Multiple reasons are great, but you only need one. Speed is a good one. Weaving in the road AND speed is better. I often have only one observed reason for a stop, though two or more does happen - particularly if you follow the car long enough. But, it really doesn't take long to identify most impaired drivers. Many times, however, you do not identify the additional reasonable suspicion until after contact. A driver who rolls through a stop sign and, upon contact, smells of alcohol, for instance. It's rare that you KNOW what you have before you stop him/her.

7. Of course I'm not o.k. with drunk drivers killing more people. The problem is that what's done is done. Embellishing p.c. does not help the perso n who's already gone, it just hurts the people that are still here.

I have never advocated "embellishing" anything - certainly not falsifying reports or other records. There is simply no need. I am sure it happens and I have heard horror stories about it occurring from time to time. But, there's no point to it and it dumbfounds me that anyone would consider it. It's not like you get a cash bonus for a DUI arrest.

8. 400%, it must be because a cop would never embellish or exaggerate.

Those were the states published by the CO state police. It was news all over the place. That figure may represent a combination of things including better drug evaluations by officers, a keener sense for drug impaired drivers, or more frequent blood or urine tests that test for the presence of an impairing level of THC whereas before that if we had alcohol we didn't test for anything else. The extent of the drugged driving population has not been accurately evaluated because marijuana has historically tended to be a polydrug substance and when we have alcohol, we don't need to evaluate or test for THC. The 400% increase in arrests can be from increased drugged driving in conjunction with improved evaluation techniques. It could also be that these folks had ALWAYS been driving impaired on the roads, but they simply had not been identified as often. We don't know.

You made that very clear that as far as you know it's only happened twice in the last thirty years.

No, that would be twice in 23. I said that was what I observed - I NEVER said that it does not happen. And when it does happen, it is certainly not nearly as rampant as you seem to want it to be. In some states or jurisdictions where the standards are lower, perhaps there are reasons to push the envelope or make crap up. I haven't seen it because there is simply no reason to do it. I doubt I have been working with the only honest cops in the country, so I'd venture to say that my experience is relatively common on the average.

9. I disagree, because it's legal people no longer care about right and wrong and risking lives. That simply makes no sense to me.

I have no idea what this statement refers to.

10. Again disagree. It became a vkiable option over night? Nah, That 400% is inaccurate, therefore everything proceeding it is also wrong.

Again, not sure what you are talking about here.

And the CO increase may be small. Even if the 400% cite was accurate, it could be an increase from 3% to 12% (which I think was the percentage of DUI arrests involving marijuana in CO in 2012). The point being that in CO many of those who are using marijuana are apparently finding their way behind the wheel more often than they used to. Only time will tell how steady the numbers will be. Have they spiked? Will they ebb and flow? Or, will they drop as the newness of the marijuana heyday wears off? Who knows. But, the entire nation is looking to CO to see how they address the issue. Sadly, CA will probably be going the same route in 2016 ... Heaven help us!

 

[CdwJava]

Way to scan the link I provided and fail to see that it's ABOUT Colorado's statistics. And those statistics, which are from the DOT and other measurements, are nothing like the absurd 400% you blurbled.

Yeah, I didn't read all of it. My bad.

That was the figure cited a couple years back by CO. If I can find it, I'll pass it along. As I said, a 400% increase can be a small total amount, but, it's still statistically significant. 3% to 12% of arrests would be statistically significant. And as I mentioned above, any increase can be attributed to any number of factors including improved detection and identification, less paranoia, and even as cited in your story, a number of marijuana users (21% of younger males, I believe) that were unaware that they could be cited for driving under the influence of marijuana. And, even today, if these potheads are smoking the dope and using it with alcohol, since alcohol is easier to evaluate and test for, I suspect the pot is being ignored.

The point in all of this is - or should be - that impaired driving is a risk to everyone. Whether it's dope or alcohol, impaired driving kills. And a full third of fatal collisions are as a result of impaired driving. Granted, they are mostly alcohol, but that is also because we don't tend to test for other substances when we have alcohol on board. I'm all for getting ALL impaired drivers off the road - I don't care WHAT you are impaired on. Fortunately, society still believes in pursuing impaired drivers so we shall continue to do so.

 

[davew128]

Precisely what one of the major problems is!

The first cameras we had possessed enough storage space to hold about 1 1/2 hours of recordings, and had a battery life of about 10 hours. While the battery might make it through a shift, two lengthy calls and the recording would stop and you would not know it until you got to the office and tried to review it. They also were susceptible to foulups that reset the digital clock to midnight on July 1st 1999.

Policies must reflect both technical foul-ups and tactical situations.

And that was the one of the concerns from government here in SD. The amount of digital storage space required is enormous, and then there are the requirements of public records laws. it really ISN'T as simple as "always leave it on".