The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Driving Under the Influence laws and issues

13»

Posts

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    The machine doesn't have a memory. The printouts are preserved obviously.

    If the cop stops a person without PC or has them blow without PC, that person can make a pretty good argument that that evidence should be suppressed at trial.

    The usual trick that the cops use to get around this is that they ask the person to do a breath test voluntarily. Typically, requests by police officers are treated as commands by most people, but since the cop asked, and you complied, you gave consent and there's no search issue.

    Yes, but why did they ask?

    A cop pulls you over for speeding and sees absolutely no signs of impairment. No glassy watery eyes, no smell of alcohol, no nothing. If he asks you to do a BAC and you do, that result's getting suppressed, because he had no basis to even ask that you take that test.

    Isn't it under the same category as police officers being allowed to search a house as long as the owner gives the okay?

    Not really, no.

    I mean on the most basic level of consent, it might be. But traffic stops and the stuff that happens thereafter kind of have their own rules.

    The truth is search and seizure law is pretty fucked up and complicated and I've probably already made a couple misstatements. But this is my understanding as of this point.

    I feel pretty confident that once you've got reasonable suspicion and you've conducted a legal stop, asking for a BAC out of the blue would fall into the same category as asking for a vehicle search out of the blue. You ask, and if the driver gives consent, there's just no Fourth Amendment issue.

    You hear about those kinds of cases all the time. Some cop pulls over a guy for a broken taillight, asks to search the car completely out of the blue, driver says ok, cop finds like fifty pounds of cocaine in the trunk, and the whole thing is legal because the stop was legal and the driver consented to the search.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    The machine doesn't have a memory. The printouts are preserved obviously.

    If the cop stops a person without PC or has them blow without PC, that person can make a pretty good argument that that evidence should be suppressed at trial.

    The usual trick that the cops use to get around this is that they ask the person to do a breath test voluntarily. Typically, requests by police officers are treated as commands by most people, but since the cop asked, and you complied, you gave consent and there's no search issue.

    Yes, but why did they ask?

    A cop pulls you over for speeding and sees absolutely no signs of impairment. No glassy watery eyes, no smell of alcohol, no nothing. If he asks you to do a BAC and you do, that result's getting suppressed, because he had no basis to even ask that you take that test.

    Isn't it under the same category as police officers being allowed to search a house as long as the owner gives the okay?

    Not really, no.

    I mean on the most basic level of consent, it might be. But traffic stops and the stuff that happens thereafter kind of have their own rules.

    The truth is search and seizure law is pretty fucked up and complicated and I've probably already made a couple misstatements. But this is my understanding as of this point.

    I feel pretty confident that once you've got reasonable suspicion and you've conducted a legal stop, asking for a BAC out of the blue would fall into the same category as asking for a vehicle search out of the blue. You ask, and if the driver gives consent, there's just no Fourth Amendment issue.

    You hear about those kinds of cases all the time. Some cop pulls over a guy for a broken taillight, asks to search the car completely out of the blue, driver says ok, cop finds like fifty pounds of cocaine in the trunk, and the whole thing is legal because the stop was legal and the driver consented to the search.

    I'll also add that in Vermont, if you are asked to perform a FST, you must comply or your license is automatically suspended. This is the same in many states, actually.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    I'll also add that in Vermont, if you are asked to perform a FST, you must comply or your license is automatically suspended. This is the same in many states, actually.

    same in NY.

    And remember guys, if you ever get into a drunk driving accident, make sure you've got a bottle of booze in your trunk so you can pretend that you were pounding that in the time it took for the cop to arrive.

    Not that I'm prepared to do any such thing, but it's the only possible way out of being fucked.

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Driving with a GPS system on

    I know I'm going back to the first page here, but I have to agree with this a thousand times. I drove to south west CT (i'm in south east MA) with a friend. We put his GPS on my window, just like normal.

    That thing was such a god damn distraction. The colors. The movements. The voice. I kept wanting to look at it and not the road. On top of that, being in my peripheral vision, I kept seeing it out of the corner of my eye and wondering subconciously what it was, since I'm not used to anything being there.

    Shit, I see them lit up in other cars at night, and I'm drawn to it like a fly and a flycatcher. I have to look at the glowing object. Same goes for DVD players in other people's cars. I'm just drawn to the glow.

    GPS' are a menace.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    I'll also add that in Vermont, if you are asked to perform a FST, you must comply or your license is automatically suspended. This is the same in many states, actually.

    same in NY.

    And remember guys, if you ever get into a drunk driving accident, make sure you've got a bottle of booze in your trunk so you can pretend that you were pounding that in the time it took for the cop to arrive.

    Not that I'm prepared to do any such thing, but it's the only possible way out of being fucked.

    Aside from not driving drunk in the first place?

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    The machine doesn't have a memory. The printouts are preserved obviously.

    If the cop stops a person without PC or has them blow without PC, that person can make a pretty good argument that that evidence should be suppressed at trial.

    The usual trick that the cops use to get around this is that they ask the person to do a breath test voluntarily. Typically, requests by police officers are treated as commands by most people, but since the cop asked, and you complied, you gave consent and there's no search issue.

    Yes, but why did they ask?

    A cop pulls you over for speeding and sees absolutely no signs of impairment. No glassy watery eyes, no smell of alcohol, no nothing. If he asks you to do a BAC and you do, that result's getting suppressed, because he had no basis to even ask that you take that test.

    Isn't it under the same category as police officers being allowed to search a house as long as the owner gives the okay?

    Not really, no.

    I mean on the most basic level of consent, it might be. But traffic stops and the stuff that happens thereafter kind of have their own rules.

    The truth is search and seizure law is pretty fucked up and complicated and I've probably already made a couple misstatements. But this is my understanding as of this point.

    I feel pretty confident that once you've got reasonable suspicion and you've conducted a legal stop, asking for a BAC out of the blue would fall into the same category as asking for a vehicle search out of the blue. You ask, and if the driver gives consent, there's just no Fourth Amendment issue.

    You hear about those kinds of cases all the time. Some cop pulls over a guy for a broken taillight, asks to search the car completely out of the blue, driver says ok, cop finds like fifty pounds of cocaine in the trunk, and the whole thing is legal because the stop was legal and the driver consented to the search.

    No, I don't think it is legal. We had a cop in my office just the other day to ask us this question. He stopped someone for a traffic violation and then asked to search their car. He found a bunch of drugs in the trunk. Problem was he had no reason to ask to search, he just did it to see if they would consent. All the attorneys agreed that that evidence would be suppressed.

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    I'll also add that in Vermont, if you are asked to perform a FST, you must comply or your license is automatically suspended. This is the same in many states, actually.

    same in NY.

    And remember guys, if you ever get into a drunk driving accident, make sure you've got a bottle of booze in your trunk so you can pretend that you were pounding that in the time it took for the cop to arrive.

    Not that I'm prepared to do any such thing, but it's the only possible way out of being fucked.

    Aside from not driving drunk in the first place?

    obviously, dur.

    Believe it or not, I first received that advice from my business law teacher in high school.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    I'll also add that in Vermont, if you are asked to perform a FST, you must comply or your license is automatically suspended. This is the same in many states, actually.

    same in NY.

    And remember guys, if you ever get into a drunk driving accident, make sure you've got a bottle of booze in your trunk so you can pretend that you were pounding that in the time it took for the cop to arrive.

    Not that I'm prepared to do any such thing, but it's the only possible way out of being fucked.

    Aside from not driving drunk in the first place?

    obviously, dur.

    Believe it or not, I first received that advice from my business law teacher in high school.
    You should also refuse all tests. Makes it harder for the prosecution to prove the case. The jury loves numbers.

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    I'll also add that in Vermont, if you are asked to perform a FST, you must comply or your license is automatically suspended. This is the same in many states, actually.

    same in NY.

    And remember guys, if you ever get into a drunk driving accident, make sure you've got a bottle of booze in your trunk so you can pretend that you were pounding that in the time it took for the cop to arrive.

    Not that I'm prepared to do any such thing, but it's the only possible way out of being fucked.

    Aside from not driving drunk in the first place?

    obviously, dur.

    Believe it or not, I first received that advice from my business law teacher in high school.
    You should also refuse all tests. Makes it harder for the prosecution to prove the case. The jury loves numbers.

    If you're without a doubt going to blow over the limit, definitely. There's certainly no upside to doing it.

  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    The machine doesn't have a memory. The printouts are preserved obviously.

    If the cop stops a person without PC or has them blow without PC, that person can make a pretty good argument that that evidence should be suppressed at trial.

    The usual trick that the cops use to get around this is that they ask the person to do a breath test voluntarily. Typically, requests by police officers are treated as commands by most people, but since the cop asked, and you complied, you gave consent and there's no search issue.

    Yes, but why did they ask?

    A cop pulls you over for speeding and sees absolutely no signs of impairment. No glassy watery eyes, no smell of alcohol, no nothing. If he asks you to do a BAC and you do, that result's getting suppressed, because he had no basis to even ask that you take that test.

    Isn't it under the same category as police officers being allowed to search a house as long as the owner gives the okay?

    Not really, no.

    I mean on the most basic level of consent, it might be. But traffic stops and the stuff that happens thereafter kind of have their own rules.

    The truth is search and seizure law is pretty fucked up and complicated and I've probably already made a couple misstatements. But this is my understanding as of this point.

    I feel pretty confident that once you've got reasonable suspicion and you've conducted a legal stop, asking for a BAC out of the blue would fall into the same category as asking for a vehicle search out of the blue. You ask, and if the driver gives consent, there's just no Fourth Amendment issue.

    You hear about those kinds of cases all the time. Some cop pulls over a guy for a broken taillight, asks to search the car completely out of the blue, driver says ok, cop finds like fifty pounds of cocaine in the trunk, and the whole thing is legal because the stop was legal and the driver consented to the search.

    No, I don't think it is legal. We had a cop in my office just the other day to ask us this question. He stopped someone for a traffic violation and then asked to search their car. He found a bunch of drugs in the trunk. Problem was he had no reason to ask to search, he just did it to see if they would consent. All the attorneys agreed that that evidence would be suppressed.

    That tends to hang up a lot of people - and it is all in how you articulate in your report. I get a lot of drug arrests, and a lot of them come from consent. I think i've only lost one case out of about 10 that actually went to trial because the guy/girl will usually plea out.

    I never ask to search a car unless I have some some sort of reason to believe there are drugs or some other illegal things going on. Be it their story not adding up, catching them in multiple lies, their behavior during the stop - it's called totality of circumstances. And it all goes in the report. Personally, I never ask to do my FST's out of the blue, and I never ask to search out of the blue. It's always the circumstances leading it up to it. Probably why I rarely lose a case that goes to trial.

    steam_sig.png
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    That thing was such a god damn distraction. The colors. The movements. The voice. I kept wanting to look at it and not the road. On top of that, being in my peripheral vision, I kept seeing it out of the corner of my eye and wondering subconciously what it was, since I'm not used to anything being there.
    Actually, I have this problem too. When I first acquired mine, I had it on all the time. Everywhere I went, long trips or just around the neighborhood, it was on and I was watching it. After awhile, though, I realized I was getting hypnotized by the damn thing. Watching it would start to put me into a fugue while I was driving, especially on long roads without a lot of other cars. I ended up turning it off and not turning it on again unless I'm driving somewhere unfamiliar and I haven't done a google map search on the location.
    I never ask to search a car unless I have some some sort of reason to believe there are drugs or some other illegal things going on. Be it their story not adding up, catching them in multiple lies, their behavior during the stop - it's called totality of circumstances. And it all goes in the report. Personally, I never ask to do my FST's out of the blue, and I never ask to search out of the blue. It's always the circumstances leading it up to it. Probably why I rarely lose a case that goes to trial.
    I realize that I can beat the rap and not the ride, but I really don't think I'd just agree to let them search my car. I realize the going thought of "it's not a problem if you have nothing to hide", and I have nothing to hide... the only thing I time I have anything remotely of interest in my car is when I'm going to and from the gun range... but I see no reason why I should consent to a search on the side of the road just because some cop's decided I'm going to be his huckleberry. I respect the uniform and the badge, but that doesn't mean I'm a push-over.

    Is it legal for me to say, "no, get a warrant" if I don't think the officer has probable cause to search? I do know that saying "no" isn't probable cause. I'm just curious as to how it works in your jurisdiction.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    My jurisdiction and every other one as far as I know unless an officer has PC to search or a warrant to search, and asks for consent, you can simply say no.

    Same thing applies to encounters on the street. I get out of my car and talk to the known dirt bags in my area all the time on a consensual basis. If they tell me to fuck off and keep walking, not much that I can do there. But if they stop and talk to me, and they consent to a search of their persons and I find dope on them...too bad so sad.

    People try to fight my consensual encounters a lot in court which is why I record every single encounter I have with my digital recorder. Saved my ass many many times. Nothing brings me more pleasure than them getting on the stand contradicting everything in my report and then I play the recording of our entire encounter. The look on their face....priceless.

    steam_sig.png
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008

    That tends to hang up a lot of people - and it is all in how you articulate in your report. I get a lot of drug arrests, and a lot of them come from consent. I think i've only lost one case out of about 10 that actually went to trial because the guy/girl will usually plea out.

    I never ask to search a car unless I have some some sort of reason to believe there are drugs or some other illegal things going on. Be it their story not adding up, catching them in multiple lies, their behavior during the stop - it's called totality of circumstances. And it all goes in the report. Personally, I never ask to do my FST's out of the blue, and I never ask to search out of the blue. It's always the circumstances leading it up to it. Probably why I rarely lose a case that goes to trial.

    Exactly.

    How long have you been in law enforcement?

  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Medopine wrote: »

    That tends to hang up a lot of people - and it is all in how you articulate in your report. I get a lot of drug arrests, and a lot of them come from consent. I think i've only lost one case out of about 10 that actually went to trial because the guy/girl will usually plea out.

    I never ask to search a car unless I have some some sort of reason to believe there are drugs or some other illegal things going on. Be it their story not adding up, catching them in multiple lies, their behavior during the stop - it's called totality of circumstances. And it all goes in the report. Personally, I never ask to do my FST's out of the blue, and I never ask to search out of the blue. It's always the circumstances leading it up to it. Probably why I rarely lose a case that goes to trial.

    Exactly.

    How long have you been in law enforcement?

    Two years now

    steam_sig.png
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.