Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Civil Liberties Issues' started by BossGodfrey, Feb 26, 2014.
^ Reason Internal Affairs departments exist.
I find it particularly humorous how they said Marijuana wouldn't necessarily show up on tests, when thats the controlled substance that stays in your system the longest due to how its retained in your fat cells.
I hope he sues and wins. Gotta reign that kind of good ol' boy crap in.
Seriously? This is seriously what you think? GD this world is full of people just looking to cry.
Tell the guy 'Oops, we are very sorry, have a great day".
"I'm sorry" is for when you make a mistake. This was not a mistake. This was malicious and intentional. When such an action occurs, especially with the police, it is necessary to hold people responsible to ensure future officers realize this conduct is unacceptable. As a private citizen, you have 2 practical options:
1) File a grievance and hope they're disciplined
2) Sue the department and ensure they're disciplined
Guy fails a subjective field sobriety test after running a red light. His breathalyzer is 0.00 so they suspect drugs. He is released after the blood test comes back LATER. (not arrested after a negative blood test like the tv moron says)
Pretty simple stuff.
So, a man runs a red light (ticket him, please ticket him for that), and then is pulled over. No evidence of alcohol or drugs mentioned. Just that he couldn't stand on one leg and touch his nose with his opposite hand while whistling Dixie and hula-hooping. And they haul him in for DWI because of a lack of balance and coordination.
And you think thats an acceptable practice? Better yet, do you think a reasonable person would think thats an acceptable criteria for suspicion of a crime? I don't.
Are you aware of how many pillbillies are driving around stoned who would breathalyze 0.00? What's the point of even having a field sobriety test? If you fail it, you will go in for further investigation. They investigated further and none of the drugs tested for were in his system. Then they let him go.
And while I'm thinking about it, if they had let someone go who HAD been high on drugs, then that person crashed into someone and injured them. We'd be talking about the victim and how the police didn't do their job. You'd probably be the first to say "I hope he sues and wins." in reference to the victim.
These people are hired to do a job. If the criteria for investigations needs to change. Go that direction. If you think there is an issue inside this department where the subjective nature of a field sobriety test is being abused to target people then investigate that. But from the information given... everything looks good to me.
First, some folk don't get the difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, some folk don't get the difference between "impaired" in the DWI charge and the totally separate per se charge.
Third, some folk don't get that a DWI arrest has to be made before a breath test can be compelled.
Next, some folk don't get that the turn-around time on a blood test isn't one commercial break like in their favorite CSI show.
And finally, some folk don't get that we don't get to unarrest DWI suspects when the BAC (which does come back quick) comes back under the legal limit.
We might add that there's some study that can be had for the difference between marijuana metabolites in the urine and what shows up in blood, and their respective detectability, but that's probably asking way too much.
Still, my heart is warmed that in spite of all this monumental ignorance some folk are willing to accuse me of misconduct and pontificate that they know my job better than I. Maybe you should take your Cheetos-stained fingers back to mom's basement if you're not willing to investigate and learn before you run on.
No basements in the Florida Peninsula. The water table is too high and sinkholes are too numerous.