B.G. why don't you include with your post the results of the field studies done in California, Colorado and Florida. You know that when the test are done correctly (i.e. the officer knows what he is doing) between 91 and 95percent of the time the correct arrest decision is made. This means that if the person was arrested he blew over a 0.08 are if he were let go he blew under a 0.08. I know you don't want to make the public aware of this. If you really wanted to make the public aware of this you would either allow the to state to do so or you would do so yourself at your next trial. By the way did this guy blow. I bet not. Why? I have an idea tell all of your clients and the citizenry at large to submit to a blood test if arrested. Is there any better evidence of guilt or innocence in a DWI trial? I think not! Why not make it the law that you have to submit to a blood test if arrested for DWI. That is already the law if you kill or seriously injure someone and you are suspected of DWI. As you like to say "if the state is doing the accusing let them do the proving." Problem is an elected prosecutor cannot run for the Texas house or senate without giving up his or her elected prosecutorial position. Defense attorneys can and it is you all who make the laws and who slant the rules as much as possible in favor of your client. I have been around people who drink all of my adult life and rarely if ever saw someone drink two beers. After being in law enforcement for several years one would believe that is all anyone drinks based upon the stories of those arrested for DWI. The truth is that 99% of those people who claim they only had two beers are lying. If a person truly only had two beers then it is scientifically impossible for that person to reach a 0.08 blood alcohol content. Therefore anyone who truly only drank two beers should blow because they will blow below a 0.08 and this is great evidence in their favor.
Actually what got him arrested was speeding and driving drunk.
Yep Barron but the HGN never lies.
You could do both those tests with people who have not had a drop and there would still be percentage who fail; whether it be not following instructions or inability to perform test properly.
BARRY - Why don't you post the rest of the field sobriety test results (HGN, etc)? Barry is now "the media" as he tries to sensationalize everything!You can't even get the whole truth on "The Blog" anymore!
What is the rest of the story? Did he fail the HGN and the breath test and I really don't know of anyone still using the counting test or letter test these are not standardized and that is why they are not recommended anymore. There has to be more. When was the last time the agency had thier officers retrained,
All I can say is that I've tried more than once to pass the "roadside test" stone cold sober, and I could never do it.
Poor, poor criminals... Poor, poor attornies who want to help these poor, poor criminals...Screw the victims, there's no money in it.
I was asked to perform roadside once, and yes, I had had two beers. That is possible. I passed without problem but it occurred to me, and I commented to the officer, that the test clearly discriminates against stupid people.Sorry 2:43..... nothing personal.
72 in a 65 shoudn't even warrant a speeding ticket much less this. This county has a bunch of dottering old fools for drivers.
you think 7 over isn't a good enough reason to pull someone over what world are you living in!
Any thing 5 over warrants a stop and anything 10 over warrants a ticket otherwise a warning....IMOI have never had to do a roadside test before..but then again i dont drink and drive. If the officer preformed the test in the first place it was because he thought that there was a good chance the man could be drunk. If you think he could be and then he fails the 2 of the test then yeah he should have been arrested. Did it go to trail? If so the DA thought there was enough reason to believe he was drunk. But you didnt tell us if he blew or not and what the resualts were of that.
The real question is whats he look like on tape "uses arms for balance" he might be swing like the Walinda's on a tight rope, but it still only gets a check mark. Tase him if he ignites theres to much alcohol in the blood if he doesn't set him free.
Wow, 11:12 AM, seriously? According to your well researched comment [sarcasm implied], between 91-95% of the time the correct arrest decisions are made.This means at least 5-9% of the time people were arrested who did nothing wrong. I have a serious problem with arresting people for crimes they did not commit. You seem to have no issues with arresting innocent people. Unlike many people, I actually believe the protections stated in the 5th amendment are something we should keep around, no matter how big the MADD marketing machine becomes. MADD , based in Irving, Texas with a reported annual budget of $45 Million, works well as a counter balance down in Austin to your conspiratorial Criminal Lawyer Lobby.Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare.Which is why, if you truly are a law enforcement officer, you are REQUIRED to remind people of their Miranda rights. Specifically their right to remain silent. Surely, you understand why that right exists. If not read about the history of how our concept of self incrimination originated.The rest of your post was pure drivel. Learn to cite your sources so others can fact check them.In case you haven't read it in a while, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"5th Amendment to the Constitution
It's real easy to take just one part of any stop or arrest (or any story) and tear it to shreds. What people generally don't understand is that it is a "Totality of the Circumstances", i.e. was there any bad driving facts, was there the smell of alcohol on driver's breath, the condition of the eyes, speech, the HGN. Most of us have seen an intoxicated person and most of us have seen a drunk person(and yes, there is a difference). How many of you would put your teenage child in a car out on the roads if you knew for a fact that the drivers in front of and behind them were "Intoxicated". Please remember the Officers are trying to protect us, and when they suspect something wrong, they investigate it further. Sometimes they can make mistakes -- and that's why we have the great thing knows as the JURY SYSTEM -- because it's not just left up to one person!Also, if you think that your are innocent, just blow in the intoxilizer and prove the officer wrong -- that way your attorney will have something to work with!By the way, if an officer drove by your house and saw someone using a pry bar to open your front door, would you want them to stop and ask questions or drive on by and wait until you get home to make the call that you've been broken into?
B,Have you had a bad day? Did something happen to make you feel the need to vent about your DWI cases on the internet blog? Every time you do this, it grows from your little liberal, anti-prosecution slant to a misinformation snowball to rival the state capitol. This is for the courtroom where all of the evidence can be heard and decided upon by a judge and jury. Giving little snippets to the general public only serves to muddy the water.To illustrate: I listened to KRLD news as I was driving in the other day. They were talking about the police officers that were acquitted for shooting the man at the strip club (and I don't even remember what town it was in). They continually said that he was black, he was unarmed, and it was his wedding day. Later, they added that it was outside of a strip club. I listened for the entire story, but that is all I got that morning. If you listened to the radio, you would be outraged that this poor unarmed black man was gunned down by a hail of fifty bullets as he exited a strip club on his wedding day. I bet the jury in that courtroom heard a whole lot more than that about the story.People need to understand that verdicts are supposed to be based on the totality of the credible evidence heard in the courtroom under the instructions given by the Judge, that's it.This is why jurors are instructed not to read the papers or listen to news broadcasts or any other media while they are deliberating a verdict.Why do you want to go on about this? Are we to believe that a police officer can't determine whether or not the person before him in intoxicated? It does not require an expert opinion (according to the law). I believe that I can tell beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not someone is intoxicated. Do you not think you can?
3:15Reference Miranda, It is not required unless the suspect is to be questioned. People get arrested all the time, without the Miranda warning being read.
Post a Comment