Congrats Carmel PD.... You Made the News?!?!

[T.Lex]

This Chief hasn't a Clue. Carmel better go back to hiring Retired IPD for their Chiefs.

Green is not Fogarty. But, he doesn't have to be.

(Plus, I thought Tim had been IPD back in the day.)

Your analysis misses the problem, the traffic stop.

I think it was a defensible stop.

Haven't read the cases in several years, but as I recall the apparently trustworthy call-in, combined with unusual driving was sufficient for RAS.

Close call? I'll give you that. But it is a low hurdle. And once you're above it, it doesn't matter by how much.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think it was a defensible stop.

We shall have to agree to disagree on that matter.

 

[Fargo]

Why would h be fired?
His actions were consistent with his training and departmental policy.

I would think it would be very difficult to even discipline him. Maybe some "retraining".

Even if this was consistent with training/policy, that doesn't trump the actual law. ILEA has already said this is not consistent with his training, and I guarantee you the Lee Buckingham isn't going to say that his prosecutors office has a policy directly in contradiction to Indiana law as regards implied consent .

 

[T.Lex]

We shall have to agree to disagree on that matter.

Not the first time, probably not the last.

But, did a quick google.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12291102shd.pdf

Totality of the circumstances for initial stop... close IMHO, but in bounds. For me, the issues were the result of trying to do a field investigation as to possible prescription drug intoxication.

And I'm not sure what the right answer is.

Jim Irsay is probably wondering, too....

 

[T.Lex]

... guarantee you the Lee Buckingham isn't going to say that his prosecutors office has a policy directly in contradiction to Indiana law as regards implied consent .

Just because he says it, doesn't make it true.

 

[Fargo]

Not the first time, probably not the last.

But, did a quick google.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12291102shd.pdf

Totality of the circumstances for initial stop... close IMHO, but in bounds. For me, the issues were the result of trying to do a field investigation as to possible prescription drug intoxication.

And I'm not sure what the right answer is.

Jim Irsay is probably wondering, too....

My opinion of the legality of the stop hinges on whether there was a named complainant. As I read it, CPD won't say.

I still don't see how you get around an unlawfully prolonged traffic stop, an apparent reading of implied consent outside of statutory authorization, an arrest without apparent PC, and a video which contradicts the officer's sworn affidavit...

 

[T.Lex]

My opinion of the legality of the stop hinges on whether there was a named complainant. As I read it, CPD won't say.

Mine doesn't.

But, in a sense, it also doesn't matter. The prosecutor nolle'd without the video (probably). That was the right answer.

I still don't see how you get around an unlawfully prolonged traffic stop

Not sure how it was unlawfully prolonged. The FSTs are less than ideal in the absence of alcohol intoxication, but with the admission of prescription drugs, there was RAS to think there might be other intoxication.

Passing/failing FSTs remains subjective, despite efforts to graft objective criteria on them.

Oh, and assuming dude was sober for his on-screen interview, I though he was slurring his words even then. Probably an accent or something.

an apparent reading of implied consent outside of statutory authorization

I'm not convinced it was outside. Assuming there was even PC of prescription drug intoxication (Irsay), how else would he do it?

an arrest without apparent PC

I believe that's where the officer thought he was following the prosecutor's preferred treatment of this situation. Instead of catch and release while waiting for blood tests, he thought he was doing the right thing.

Training issue, most definitely.

video which contradicts the officer's sworn affidavit...

I was kinda confused on this. Is this regarding the FSTs? Of course, a camera is only going to get one angle, at an awkward distance. The officer on the scene thought some of them were failed. I don't think the video contradicts that.

Also, while they didn't show it, I presume the video confirms the guy admitted the ingestion of the prescription drug. So, that kind of thing cuts both ways.

 

[hoosierdoc]

But, he was following what he perceived to be the protocol to get the blood test. One issue I do have is why a supervisor didn't step in and use it as a teachable moment to say, "Uh... you sure this is the right thing to do?"

well... doesn't that just mean that the prosecutor will want a BAC if the officer truly believes the guy is impaired and believes that charges should be filed? The officer's discretion could have ended the stop at the 0.00 but he wanted to nail the guy, so he did what he knew the "nailer (prosecutor)" would want before attempting to prosecute the guy.

 

[voidsherpa]

What the LEO version of "malicious prosecution", is it just harassment?

 

[HoughMade]

Having watched the video, I have a couple of thoughts on this:

1) That coat over jeans and a t-shirt (v-neck!) comes close to probable cause, right there.
2) Jack Crawford really needs a haircut.

 

[Bfish]

This is pretty bad! I've had some issues like this, but never been hauled off.
On two different occasions, once I was detained for an hour and a half over similar crap, and on the other I was forced to do their dance and breath in the straw both to no avail.

The worst one I flipped my brights off when I saw oncoming traffic, the next thing you know the on coming car does a u turn and I'm pulled over. Supposedly driving with my brights on in the city is why I was pulled over. After interviewing both of us in the vehicle and one being removed and questioned, checking all of the numbers on the car, and what seemed to me like just making us sit; a friend of mine just volunteered us to take a breathalyzer. We had been hounded for the entirety of the stop about drinking. Drunk people drive with brights we were told, but I've never seen a guy so happy and giddy as when we volunteered. So I blew and after being told I blew with alcohol on my breath (joke by the officer he said or a trick for omission I don't know), when in fact blew 0.00 I was finally let go. I don't know if I was profiled but we were a few 20 year old college students on a Tuesday night who had been studying for our test the next day, and had an hour and a half of our time wasted over nothing.


Some of this stuff gets me a touch fired up because of previous experiences, like others have said there are a lot of good police officers out there, but I have come into contact with 2 or 3 that were just ridiculous, and it always seems to be over alcohol and driving. Or them getting something when they were so bent on it. Edit* I read that, and I'm really not trying to bash here, I love the LEO's and I'm glad they are out doing the job most of us are glad we don't have to do. I even feel like I give more slack than most, I used to feel more paranoid than safe when seeing officers driving around, but thankfully that is changing.

 

[frenchiectfd2203]

I'm not going to bash any officer that wears a uniform as I work with them every third day and know there importance. I will say that I have shared this with many of them and they all say the same thing, he had no PC, he had no reason to pull him out, he had no reason to further investigate and he definitely had zero reason to take him and do blood work. The prosecuted here would laugh at the officer and tell him to get bent and to never do this again, with that being said this officer is lucky to have a job if he hasn't been fired yet. Thank god I don't go to Carmel very often!! I would have a car paid off that's for sure!!

 

[BADWOLF]

Never give mor information than asked for from a cop, crack window 1 inch to be able to hear officer and be able to exchange paperwork... That's it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Never give mor information than asked for from a cop, crack window 1 inch to be able to hear officer and be able to exchange paperwork... That's it.

Crack the window one inch? Trust me, that the wrong way to do things.

 

[halfmileharry]

Never give mor information than asked for from a cop, crack window 1 inch to be able to hear officer and be able to exchange paperwork... That's it.

I leave my window all the way up so the officer and I have to yell back and forth. Then I breathe on the window to fog it up. I write in the fogged up window.. "I love you" and draw hearts and smiley faces. I never get a ticket.

 

[Jackson]

So, how does implied consent work? If you refuse the breathalyzer you lose your license?

But it doesn't apply to the blood test? For that, a warrant is required?

 

[BADWOLF]

They should be able to just do the blood drawn right there on the side of the road

 

[Beowulf]

Frankly, I'm not really surprised by this. CPD has been known to make some questionable traffic stops. 10 years ago, when I first moved to Indy and was driving a big white '91 Cadillac Deville with a huge dent in the side (it was paid off and the dent didn't stop the doors from working and as a just graduating college student, I wasn't about to go buy a new car). I was pulled over in Carmel for "making a wide left turn" whatever the hell that means. I have no idea how the officer judged that... other than my suspicion that he didn't like the car (no ticket issued, just a warning). I had another run in with IMPD for a similar pretense in that car (again no ticket, just a warning), and then yet again with Silverton Police in Cincinnati (that one was not using a turn signal to make a left turn from a turn lane on a green arrow). That last one ended up with me in the back of the first of three squad cars on the scene, while they tore my car apart looking for drugs... which they didn't find. Still no ticket, just a sneering question about whether I was a member of the NRA, since they found some loose 7.62x54R rounds that fallen out of my range bag and had been rattling around in my trunk for a while. All that happened over a few months, between May and August of 2005.

As soon as I could save up enough money, I got rid of that car for a newer and more respectable car and haven't been pulled over other than for legit reasons (I did get a speeding ticket, which I'll own). So, either my driving has gotten a lot better, or my car was no longer being profiled. This is why when some of my black friends complain about DWB, I 100% have no problem believing them.

No offense to the CPD and IMPD officers on here, but law enforcement in this country has a lot of work to do to regain the trust of a good portion of the citizenry. A few rotten apples spoil the barrel and all that.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, how does implied consent work? If you refuse the breathalyzer you lose your license?

But it doesn't apply to the blood test? For that, a warrant is required?

Been awhile since I worked DUI, but officer offers a certified chemical test of his choice, not yours. Usually breath, but blood and urine were on the sheet. If you refuse, officer seeks a warrant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Been awhile since I worked DUI, but officer offers a certified chemical test of his choice, not yours. Usually breath, but blood and urine were on the sheet. If you refuse, officer seeks a warrant.

Yes, this is correct. Keyword being "certified." A person is not on the hook for losing their license if they do not participate in SFST or blow into the PBT.