Woman with alcohol in the car swerves into me. Is there anything I can do?

[stealth2]

No one touched anything though? And like I said I have pictures and the fake id.

Thanks for assuming to know what happened. People are good at that

How do you have the fake ID, if no one touched anything? (Though, since she told the cops that she didn't have a license, it likely doesn't matter much...

And how did someone take pictures of bottles *under* the front seat (your words, I believe...)?

You're really not expressing yourself clearly, to be honest...

 

[Slay2055]

The id was on the floor. I picked it up and showed it to the cop. He told me it's a fake so I kept it.

All the doors to her car were open, which is how I was able to take photos

 

[stealth2]

The id was on the floor. I picked it up and showed it to the cop. He told me it's a fake so I kept it.

All the doors to her car were open, which is how I was able to take photos

So you stole the ID from her car. Yeah, you did.

And it's probably your nosing around that screwed up any investigation. You should've stayed out of the way.

 

[paddywakk]

No One Touched Anything?

No one touched anything though? And like I said I have pictures and the fake id.

Thanks for assuming to know what happened. People are good at that

What, did the fake ID magically follow you home and float into the house?

 

[Slay2055]

On the floor of the street morons...

People here obviously don't have reading comprehension. Good luck with all your future endeavors.

 

[HighwayMan]

On the floor of the street morons...

The "floor of the street"? Talk about morons...

 

[Zigner]

The fake I.D. means NOTHING in so far as your matter is concerned




[SUB]Floor of the street...that made me laugh[/SUB]

 

[CdwJava]

If Slay2055 had been poking around the other car before the police got there, then the other driver should have said something. If they did it when the police were there, the police should have said something. Though, if the other driver had no objection, then there's not much of an issue either way.

The empty bottles, by themselves, would not be evidence of DUI. The ripped up fake license would also not have been a crime, and certainly not an element of DUI. Moving them would not have done anything to their evidentiary value since they apparently had none.

Under the circumstances, there is likely little that could have been done to prove impairment. If you have a probable head injury and no trip to the hospital for tests that could be run and later subpoenaed, you are left with what you have at the scene. Now, it is possible that the odor of alcohol, an admission to drinking and driving, and even a description of impairment can combine to establish sufficient probable cause for an arrest and mandatory test, but either these other factors were not present or the officers did not seek them out. I'm hopeful that they were not present or obvious as I would hate to think the officers kissed off a DUI. In my experience, officers don't kiss off DUIs - paperwork or not. We're the guys who pull the mangled remains out of cars hit by DUI drivers, and have to notify families that loved ones won't be coming home ... that kinda makes one into a hardass when it comes to DUI enforcement. Most officers won't cut an impaired driver a break if probable cause exists.

Based upon the description, I would have done something a bit different, but that is not to say the officers were wrong or did not do their job. I wasn't there. Though, if the other driver declined to be transported and medically evaluated, I would have likely gone through with the FSTs anyway so that I could get my chemical test; let the defense attorney make their arguments later. It'd be harder to argue a head injury defense without a medical eval. Though, I suspect that prior to booking the suspect would ask for medical treatment.

 

[Slay2055]

I spoke to a cop about this and he told me based on the evidence I have and what the cops did I have a real shot at building a case against these cops. He said that the proper action in that situation would have been to take her to get her blood drawn. They also let a woman who with a head concussion who was visibly out of it drive home.

She committed 2 criminal offenses. Not only did she have open containers in the car, but she was driving without a license. The cop told me those 2 should have easily at least gotten her arrested.

And of course, there's the matter of not bothering to test whether she was drunk or not. And trying to impede with us taking pictures and video which is 100% legal and a cop can't stop you.

It's clear these cops did not want us taking pictures because photos are evidence. I don't know if this is a case of officer misconduct, or pure ignorance. Either way, they'll pay.

The empty bottles, by themselves, would not be evidence of DUI.

It might not be evidence of a DUI but it is by law a criminal offence. And is that not enough evidence to at least draw a blood test? That is incompetency man.

 

[CdwJava]

I spoke to a cop about this and he told me based on the evidence I have and what the cops did I have a real shot at building a case against these cops. He said that the proper action in that situation would have been to take her to get her blood drawn. They also let a woman who with a head concussion who was visibly out of it drive home.

Either there is info you are leaving out, or, your associate is unaware of DUI law.

Simply being in a collision does NOT grant law enforcement the right to take someone in for a compulsory test. In fact, to do so would subject the police officer to criminal charges. It's simply not legal. The mandatory test is ONLY permitted AFTER an arrest is made, and the arrest has to be made with articulable probable cause to believe that the person arrested was both impaired on a chemical substance and driving. Absent the element of impairment, there is no PC for the arrest.

And, by "action" against the cops, about all that can be done is a complaint made to the employing agency. No law in any state MANDATES that the police investigate most crimes, much less provide you with a competent investigation. Their agency can take administrative action against them if they failed to meet the agency's standards, but there is no lawsuit or other action that can be had against them from what you have provided here.

She committed 2 criminal offenses. Not only did she have open containers in the car, but she was driving without a license. The cop told me those 2 should have easily at least gotten her arrested.

Open and empty containers??? I doubt that anyone could make a case for an open container with an empty one. As for driving unlicensed, okay ... but, didn't you say they were issued a citation? That IS an arrest in most states. Also, note that had she been arrested for being unlicensed, there would still NOT be a mandatory chemical test as the arrest would have to have been for DUI. And, the jail would simply release her with a citation.

And of course, there's the matter of not bothering to test whether she was drunk or not. And trying to impede with us taking pictures and video which is 100% legal and a cop can't stop you.

Again, their actions or inactions as it might pertain to an investigation is an internal matter and you and your mom are free to complain to their agency.

It's clear these cops did not want us taking pictures because photos are evidence. I don't know if this is a case of officer misconduct, or pure ignorance. Either way, they'll pay.

I would hope that they also took photos. But, in any event, they'll "pay" only if their employer chooses to discipline or retrain them. However, I also suspect they will have a different interpretation of events, so any chastising by their supervisors is far from a done deal.

It might not be evidence of a DUI but it is by law a criminal offence. And is that not enough evidence to at least draw a blood test? That is incompetency man.

Nope. The presence of an empty bottle proves that you found an empty bottle. It does NOT prove that the driver had been drinking from them at that moment. BY THEMSELVES they are not evidence of DUI. When taken in conjunction with other elements (such as the objective signs of impairment on the subject being interviewed, observed driving, FSTs, etc.) the bottles can tend to support the allegation.

Television and the media often imply a great many things that are simply not true. That is why some of us here like to help sort out fact from fiction, and to clarify why things are done the way they are.

Again, based solely on what you have written, I would have pursued this differently. But, I am a DUI instructor and have never lost a DUI case. That being said, I was not present at the scene and am not experienced in the laws of your state or its nuances in this area. It is possible that law and/or policy prohibited further action from being taken given an obvious head injury - especially since the FSTs would likely be worthless after defense counsel got through with it. If there were no other objective indicia of impairment (whether the officers looked hard or not) then no arrest for DUI would have been legal. No arrest for DUI would mean no chemical test and no proof of a DUI.

However, the lack of a criminal prosecution does NOT preclude your mom from suing the other driver if their insurance is insufficient to cover the damages. But, keep in mind that they may not have anything to pay an award.

 

[quincy]

I spoke to a cop about this and he told me based on the evidence I have and what the cops did I have a real shot at building a case against these cops. He said that the proper action in that situation would have been to take her to get her blood drawn. They also let a woman who with a head concussion who was visibly out of it drive home.

She committed 2 criminal offenses. Not only did she have open containers in the car, but she was driving without a license. The cop told me those 2 should have easily at least gotten her arrested.

And of course, there's the matter of not bothering to test whether she was drunk or not. And trying to impede with us taking pictures and video which is 100% legal and a cop can't stop you.

It's clear these cops did not want us taking pictures because photos are evidence. I don't know if this is a case of officer misconduct, or pure ignorance. Either way, they'll pay.



It might not be evidence of a DUI but it is by law a criminal offence. And is that not enough evidence to at least draw a blood test? That is incompetency man.

What I have bolded above is incorrect. Driving without a license and driving with open containers of alcohol are both noncriminal traffic violations in Florida, subject to fines.

 

[CdwJava]

What I have bolded above is incorrect. Driving without a license and driving with open containers of alcohol are both noncriminal traffic violations in Florida, subject to fines.

Then it makes the cop friend either ignorant of the law in their own state, or, commenting based upon poor information.

Sometimes, the elements of a crime just cannot be proven to the legal extent required.

 

[quincy]

Then it makes the cop friend either ignorant of the law in their own state, or, commenting based upon poor information.

Sometimes, the elements of a crime just cannot be proven to the legal extent required.

I suspect Slay misunderstood what the officer said (or the officer never said it ).

 

[CdwJava]

I suspect Slay misunderstood what the officer said (or the officer never said it ).

My thoughts.

 

[Slay2055]

https://www.felonyflorida.com/driving-without-a-valid-drivers-license-florida-statute-322-03.html

Punishment
If you are driving a commercial vehicle without a commercial driver’s license, it is a first-degree misdemeanor which is punishable up to 365 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

If you are driving a non-commercial vehicle without a driver’s license, this is a second-degree misdemeanor which is punishable up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.

If the driver acts carelessly or negligently in the vehicle’s operation and another person is killed or seriously injured, it is a third-degree felony punishable up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

If you were driving under the influence with no valid driver’s license, you can have your vehicle seized and forfeited.

Driving without a license is indeed a criminal offense.

About the open container thing. You are right in the case that it is not a criminal offense in florida. The cop I spoke to works in a different state. And yes, apparently open container means not empty.

But again, she should have been arrested upon failing to show a driver's license. After that, they would have been able to test her sobriety, according to you.

My question is, since she has to go to court. Would she go to jail after the jury or judge or whatever decides her punishment or would she had been detained right then and there?


Some information I found relevant

If you get stopped and don’t have a license here’s what you can expect: https://www.aceable.com/blog/what-happens-if-you-drive-without-a-valid-license-in-florida/

If you get stopped and don’t have a license here’s what you can expect:

The law enforcement officer will give you a ticket. But it’s not any old ticket. It’s considered a criminal charge.
You’ll be charged with a second degree misdemeanor.
Keep in mind that if this happens you are technically arrested and released at the scene. You’ll receive a notice to appear at court. If you don’t show up you could be in even more trouble.
If you’re found guilty you could receive up to 60 days in jail and up to $500 in fines.