GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-28-2012, 21:38   #201
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Are you saying that anytime a law enforcement officer works overtime, he or she has a financial interest in both the mode of work and the results of that work?

When officers staff either saturation patrols, such as those done this time of year, or checkpoints, it does involve extra duty overtime for some officers so regular patrol areas remain adequately covered.

Do you object to paying overtime for saturation patrols? Grants fund those, too. Grants for Law Enforcement DUI saturation patrols
Russ - I asked you some questions above that you dodged. Now you come back with a set of questions of your own?

Here's what I'm saying. Perhaps this is clearer:

When federal grants fund DUI checkpoints to cover overtime for the officers working those checkpoints, yes, the officers have a financial interest in the checkpoints, and grants, continuing. If the checkpoints don't yield results, the chances of the grants, and the overtime pay, is lessened.

Do you disagree with this? If so, what part?

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 12-28-2012 at 21:39..
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 21:40   #202
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
That, too. It just doesn't fit the agenda...
What agenda?
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 21:42   #203
blastfact
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge View Post
Thanks. Now I'm trying to get a handle on the "no refusal" component here. Most traffic attorneys advise clients to...
  • Refuse to take a breath test on the side of the road, and instead tell the officer you want to take a breath test at the station (In my understanding this advice is based on the idea that the small roadside device is inaccurate)
  • Refuse to take a "field sobriety test", as they are not legally obligated to do so, and it is completely subjective nonsense anyway.
  • Do take the breath test at the station.
Based on this common legal advice, where does "no refusal" fit in?

Edit to add: In the OP's linked article, it states that "...law enforcement will be able quickly get a search warrant to take a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver who refuses to take a breathalyzer test" -- and my question is -- Will refusing just the small portable breath tester result in a search warrant that will enable LE to forcibly draw your blood? Or do you have to refuse the calibrated breath tester found in the station or DUI patrol truck?

More importantly -- If refusal to take the breath test at the station results in automatic DUI conviction anyway (as I think is the case in most states) what is to be gained by getting a warrant and forcibly drawing someones blood? The forcible blood draw seems pretty intrusive to me, and would seem to run afoul of medical informed consent law.
In Texass if the police think you are impaired and a death results from a accident you are involved in be it your fault or the other party's. They will by force draw your blood if you refuse a breath test. I had got rear ended near Longview. Hit and run no less heading to a meeting in Fort Worth. A friend was from Shreveport was meeting our client and I in down town Fort Worth. Mind you I got rear ended, hit and run. He got rear ended on the LBJ after the meeting. We each had two beers with our full course meal. The dude that rear ended my partner died! The police took his blood by force. He would have been cleared of all charges if he taken the breath test. It was the dead dudes fault! Judging by the pictures I saw the big headed texagan thugs did not get the blood very easy.
blastfact is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 21:44   #204
arizona_andy
Caliber Realist
 
arizona_andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnd View Post
If you havent been drinking then theres nothing to fear. if you have then the penalties are never enough.
Agree 1000%. In my book you should go away for a very, very long time for drinking and driving. First offense. It demonstrates a complete and utter lack of responsibility and total disregard for the lives of others. IMO it is no different than firing a weapon with the knowledge that there are people somewhere downrange.
__________________
G19 Gen3 / G26 Gen3

"Only tyrants need fear tyrant-killers."
arizona_andy is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 21:49   #205
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,163


Quote:
Originally Posted by OlliesRevenge View Post
Thanks. Now I'm trying to get a handle on the "no refusal" component here. Most traffic attorneys advise clients to...
  • Refuse to take a breath test on the side of the road, and instead tell the officer you want to take a breath test at the station (In my understanding this advice is based on the idea that the small roadside device is inaccurate)
  • Refuse to take a "field sobriety test", as they are not legally obligated to do so, and it is completely subjective nonsense anyway.
  • Do take the breath test at the station.
Based on this common legal advice, where does "no refusal" fit in?

Edit to add: In the OP's linked article, it states that "...law enforcement will be able quickly get a search warrant to take a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver who refuses to take a breathalyzer test" -- and my question is -- Will refusing just the small portable breath tester result in a search warrant that will enable LE to forcibly draw your blood? Or do you have to refuse the calibrated breath tester found in the station or DUI patrol truck?

More importantly -- If refusal to take the breath test at the station results in automatic DUI conviction anyway (as I think is the case in most states) what is to be gained by getting a warrant and forcibly drawing someones blood? The forcible blood draw seems pretty intrusive to me, and would seem to run afoul of medical informed consent law.
LE has a small handheld box for field tests and the large standardized machine used statewide which is normally housed at a different location. In GA the only refusal that has penalty is the state test.

Refusing the state test suspends your license, it looks bad at trial but is not an 'automatic conviction' criminally. The warrant for blood can be obtained for scientific proof of intoxication to be submitted as evidence to the judge and jury at trial.
ray9898 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 21:54   #206
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
.... From an ethical standpoint, any time someone has a financial interest in something like this that should be pointed out and taken into consideration.
If you think a DUI checkpoint has some overtime, think about a complicated homicide scene in which the homicide and crime scene investigators are on the scene for twenty four hours.

And here is six or seven figures worth of ethicsThe Okie Corral
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 21:55   #207
blastfact
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by arizona_andy View Post
Agree 1000%. In my book you should go away for a very, very long time for drinking and driving. First offense. It demonstrates a complete and utter lack of responsibility and total disregard for the lives of others. IMO it is no different than firing a weapon with the knowledge that there are people somewhere downrange.
What about the sober idiots that cause far more property damage and lose of life year in and year out behind the wheel?
blastfact is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 21:58   #208
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
If you think a DUI checkpoint has some overtime, think about a complicated homicide scene in which the homicide and crime scene investigators are on the scene for twenty four hours.

And here is six or seven figures worth of ethicsThe Okie Corral
You can see the guy in the photo saying, "Its just weed, mon!"

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 12-28-2012 at 21:59..
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:01   #209
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by arizona_andy View Post
Agree 1000%. In my book you should go away for a very, very long time for drinking and driving. First offense. It demonstrates a complete and utter lack of responsibility and total disregard for the lives of others. IMO it is no different than firing a weapon with the knowledge that there are people somewhere downrange.
Agreed. Also any violations for texting, eating, applying makeup, excessive speeding, careless and reckless and failing to maintain control.
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:07   #210
MAC702
Senior Member
 
MAC702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clark County, NV
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
So, in your state, you are allowed to drive without an inspection sticker, a license plate, proof of insurance, or a license?
How did you get that from what I posted?

While we do not have inspection stickers, you are required to have your license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, yes.

Now, let's actually look at the point I made instead of whatever you tried to make it out to be.

The police, in my state, do not have the right to stop you for no reason other than just to see that you have your documents.

A traffic stop here must be for an observed offense, or reasonable suspicion (such as characteristics of drunk driving).
__________________
Owner: Blue & Gold Firearms Training
NV, UT, & NRA Private Concierge Instruction
MAC702 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:14   #211
MAC702
Senior Member
 
MAC702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clark County, NV
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLB768 View Post
I've got no problem with DUI checkpoints, but then again, my Uncle was hit by a drunk while on his motorcycle, and left dead in the road. Some time later, he was hit by a second car, that didn't see him in time. The drunk, he drove on home, and went to bed.
You should hate DUI checkpoints. Have you seen how many police officers are at a typical checkpoint? Statistics prove that when that same number of police officers go on a saturation patrol actively looking for drunk drivers, they catch far more of them. Without making anyone late for dinner, too.
__________________
Owner: Blue & Gold Firearms Training
NV, UT, & NRA Private Concierge Instruction
MAC702 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:18   #212
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,163


Quote:
Originally Posted by blastfact View Post
What about the sober idiots that cause far more property damage and lose of life year in and year out behind the wheel?

Roughly 1/3 of all traffic deaths the last few years, over 10k per year, are the result of impaired drivers who were over the 0.08 limit. Compare that number with the overall sample of drivers and you should easily see impaired drivers are a huge danger.

I would love to see the number which encompassed those who were impaired but not over the per se limit. I bet it would be close to 50%.

Last edited by ray9898; 12-28-2012 at 22:22..
ray9898 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:19   #213
*ASH*
Senior Member
 
*ASH*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: nc
Posts: 22,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
You should hate DUI checkpoints. Have you seen how many police officers are at a typical checkpoint? Statistics prove that when that same number of police officers go on a saturation patrol actively looking for drunk drivers, they catch far more of them. Without making anyone late for dinner, too.

well i know here they dont care really. me and the wife spotted a green truck ,running off road then to the other side .he was either drunk or high.
wife called 911 went straight to our sheriffs dept, dispatch said " what location " " oh state patrol handles that " i will patch thru to HP . waiting on phone for over 10 minutes ,and nothing , so i hung up and went home .
*ASH* is online now  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:19   #214
MAC702
Senior Member
 
MAC702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clark County, NV
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
Oh, don't get me wrong travel is a right.

But you choose to travel in an automobile, means you must obey the limitations and restrictions you agreed to abide when you got a liscense.

You do not have a right to get in a car without a liscense and do as you please.
To clarify, this is only if you will be the operator of the vehicle.

Ever wonder why rich people and politicians have their own drivers? It's not so they can conduct business in the back seat (well, okay, SOMETIMES they do conduct "business"), but it's so that they have give up no rights of privacy. If their driver gets pulled over, another car shows up and they continue on their way, while their old driver deals with the police. They don't even have to tell the police who they are.
__________________
Owner: Blue & Gold Firearms Training
NV, UT, & NRA Private Concierge Instruction
MAC702 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:20   #215
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,158
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
That means 66% are sober, kind of ugly odds on both sides.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:22   #216
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
How did you get that from what I posted?

While we do not have inspection stickers, you are required to have your license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, yes.

Now, let's actually look at the point I made instead of whatever you tried to make it out to be.

The police, in my state, do not have the right to stop you for no reason other than just to see that you have your documents.

A traffic stop here must be for an observed offense, or reasonable suspicion (such as characteristics of drunk driving).
I am sure there is enough articulable facts to stop you and check to see if you have the appropriate state licencing material. Following too closely, speeding, unsafe lane change, aggressive driving, etc. etc.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:23   #217
MAC702
Senior Member
 
MAC702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clark County, NV
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by *ASH* View Post
well i know here they dont care really. ...
There's something we can mostly agree on.

Here, they are much more pissed off if you remain silent until they let you go (your right) than if you are actually drunk and they catch you for it.

The checkpoint is not for catching drunks. It's to remind us who is in charge.
__________________
Owner: Blue & Gold Firearms Training
NV, UT, & NRA Private Concierge Instruction
MAC702 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:24   #218
MAC702
Senior Member
 
MAC702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clark County, NV
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
I am sure there is enough articulable facts to stop you and check to see if you have the appropriate state licencing material. Following too closely, speeding, unsafe lane change, aggressive driving, etc. etc.
Somehow you think this is acceptable?

FWIW, The biggest speeding, illegal turns, cell-phone-talking, and red-light-running offenders around here have red and blue lights on the top of their car.
__________________
Owner: Blue & Gold Firearms Training
NV, UT, & NRA Private Concierge Instruction

Last edited by MAC702; 12-28-2012 at 22:25..
MAC702 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:25   #219
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,163


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
That means 66% are sober, kind of ugly odds on both sides.
The vast majority of drivers are sober....impaired drivers are a fraction of the total pie yet they account for 1/3 of the deaths.
ray9898 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:26   #220
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
Somehow you think this is acceptable?
Oh, I know for a fact you can be stopped and ticketed for all those offenses. I have had quite a few groups of people turned over to me by the locals on just such a stop.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:28   #221
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Roughly 1/3 of all traffic deaths the last few years, over 10k per year, are the result of impaired drivers who were over the 0.08 limit. Compare that number with the overall sample of drivers and you should easily see impaired drivers are a huge danger.

I would love to see the number which encompassed those who were impaired but not over the per se limit. I bet it would be close to 50%.
Clearly sober drivers are a far greater danger than drunk drivers.

With statistics like that it makes me wonder how many of those deaths involving drivers over the 0.08 limit would have happened anyway. In other words, just because a driver with a BAC of 0.08 was involved we can't automatically assume that the BAC was the cause of the accident or even a significant contributing factor. Certainly in a % of those cases it was simply "a factor".

How can one find out how many fatalities are the direct result of a drunk driver?
certifiedfunds is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:28   #222
MAC702
Senior Member
 
MAC702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clark County, NV
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Roughly 1/3 of all traffic deaths the last few years, over 10k per year, are the result of impaired drivers who were over the 0.08 limit. ...
HOW FAR over that limit?

I'd like to know how many drivers under 0.10% are killing people.

Lowering the standard from 0.10% to 0.08% was all about the money.

How many arrests are made for drivers between 0.08% and 0.10%?

I am NOT advocating drinking and driving.
__________________
Owner: Blue & Gold Firearms Training
NV, UT, & NRA Private Concierge Instruction
MAC702 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:30   #223
MAC702
Senior Member
 
MAC702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clark County, NV
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
Oh, I know for a fact you can be stopped and ticketed for all those offenses. I have had quite a few groups of people turned over to me by the locals on just such a stop.
Let's continue to ignore my point, shall we?

You should not be randomly stopped to check for documents or other non-observed offenses.

Do you or do you not agree?
__________________
Owner: Blue & Gold Firearms Training
NV, UT, & NRA Private Concierge Instruction
MAC702 is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 22:37   #224
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,582
Blog Entries: 1


MAC,

What is your knowledge of the law and court rulings in this area?
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 23:28   #225
Random
AtticRat
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,326
Let's see if I can catch back up.

1) Last NOLA cop I asked did say checkpoints were overtime for them

2) They used to post the "success" of the big checkpoints in the paper. I'll see if I can find it this time around. It is interesting reading. Maybe one dui taken into custody, a few dozen expired tags (fines), a few expired or suspended licenses(they let them DRIVE away, but give them a fine and a summons...yeah, I'm not joking), several drug possessions (taken into custody), a few warrants for outstandings(?), a few for brakelights and whatnot.

3) Bren, no I'm not a cop. I'm a fireman. I did have a brief employment in N. Texas, but I don't believe I've ever mentioned that here.

4) Rolling your window down partly and passing your papers through it will not work here. Especially if you are under 25 years old. Your window will be broken and you will be pulled out through it.

5) Sadly, I must repeat YES, choosing not to take the breathalyzer on the side of the road is all they've been using to justify taking your blood forcibly. A couple of you are stuck in good guy mode and find it tough to swallow, but I have seen it happen more than once.

6) Bren said: "Here's a hint: if the police were arresting people and getting search warrants on the evidence you claim, we'd know, because the trouble the police and judges would be in would be all over CNN. Louisiana doesn't get to define "probable cause" and, if they do, they have to answer to the federal courts. "

That's so cool that you think that and I wish that was the way things actually worked. Oversight and accountability for the police AND the judges. Nah, man. Haven't seen it. But I have seen a cop punch a driver in the mouth because the driver said "Hey, you're kind of short". Saw that one the first time we provided lighting for a checkpoint. It was... eye-opening. Pulled the guy out of the car and then told him to walk a straight line. The punch drunk dazed guy then couldn't so he got arrested for dui. Blood came back negative. No charges for the cop or driver.




**It may look like I'm trying to create a thread to rile people up, then I disappear for hours when they ask me a question. I'm not being evasive. The time difference in Iraq just puts me on the forum when everyone else is asleep. I miss all the action and good debate**

Last edited by Random; 12-28-2012 at 23:29..
Random is offline  
Closed Thread


Tags
call me by my title, doctor danat, drive sober, moving goalpost, roadblocks, still get pulled over
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:47.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 747
199 Members
548 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42