DUI Question

[VUPDblue]

Is that why you let those who pass FSTs yet still blow high go with no charges?

I have never had that happen in nearly 500 dui arrests. When I administer SFSTs on someone and they pass, they drive away. This is not a game to me.

 

[rdavis006]

Do you have any idea in the universe what a right is, as opposed to a conditional or revocable privilege?

Sure, I Also believe in order to purse our rights to bear arms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes responsibilities. In order to continually experience our rights as promised; we have the responsibility to act responsibly, reasonably, and lawfully in order to protect those rights. This is were some in society have fallen short and therefore, in order not to lose the blessings of our rights, sole focus on our rights must be refocused to recognize the inherent and required responsibilities that we have and those our rights bestow upon us.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sure, I Also believe in order to purse our rights to bear arms, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes responsibilities. In order to continually experience our rights as promised; we have the responsibility to act responsibly, reasonably, and lawfully in order to protect those rights. This is were some in society have fallen short and therefore, in order not to lose the blessings of our rights, sole focus on our rights must be refocused to recognize the inherent and required responsibilities that we have and those our rights bestow upon us.

OK, you obviously don't.

 

[rdavis006]

OK, you obviously don't.

Your obviously one with erroneous views that no matter what your rights are your entitlement and you bare no responsibility. Does the same hold true for murderers, rapist, and pedophiles? Do they retain their irrevocable rights as well?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Your obviously one with erroneous views that no matter what your rights are your entitlement and you bare no responsibility. Does the same hold true for murderers, rapist, and pedophiles? Do they retain their irrevocable rights as well?

Please show me the asterisk and footnote following either the Second Amendment or Section 32. The fact that both are often disregarded does not change their nature. Even though you are trying to sensationalize in substitution for an actual argument, the same does in fact hold true and people who are too dangerous to be turned loose with all their rights should not roam free, but rather either be retained in prison or else executed. Please note that the 'exceptions' to the Second Amendment you mention were not discovered until 1968. Pretty damned strange if there were actual constitutional merit.

You should also consider that by your standards, drunk drivers should also be denied the rest of their rights as well. After all, why should we need search warrants when they have already demonstrated that they are 'untrustworthy' by your standards?

You, sir, are part of a very serious problem in the republic, such as it is at this time. Please do yourself and everyone else a favor and learn the difference between a right and a privilege.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that why you let those who pass FSTs yet still blow high go with no charges?

Fyi, kinda not possible.... or incredibly remote, as I have never seen such a thing.

Kut (points to nystagmus)

 

[VUPDblue]

Fyi, kinda not possible.... or incredibly remote, as I have never seen such a thing.

Kut (points to nystagmus)

Yep. Without failing SFSTs (and absent other cues) then there is no PC for impairment and implied consent doesn't apply.

This is not complicated.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Do you have any idea in the universe what a right is, as opposed to a conditional or revocable privilege?

Rights have limits, unless you wish to argue prisoners should be allowed weapons in their cells.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Rights have limits, unless you wish to argue prisoners should be allowed weapons in their cells.

Incarceration is an entirely different animal than denying free roaming people rights, especially rights which have absolutely nothing to do with the metric by which they are deemed unworthy. If this individual honestly believes that a drunk driving incident warrants stripping a person of rights which the Constitution does not provide for removing (however, while presented in the context of involuntary servitude, the Constitution as amended does provide for differentiating between time under incarceration and time roaming free), then I would suggest to him that there are a number of vacation spots with the level of rights available that he seems to find appropriate with North Korea landing near the top of the list.

 

[dudley0]

Yep. Without failing SFSTs (and absent other cues) then there is no PC for impairment and implied consent doesn't apply.

This is not complicated.

I have often wondered why an officer will do the FST instead of just doing the breathalyzer.

So the FST needs to be done before you can pull out the machine? I have never been in the situation where I have had either. Watched one FST on a girl that was in a crash, but that was about it.

 

[T.Lex]

Fyi, kinda not possible.... or incredibly remote, as I have never seen such a thing.

Kut (points to nystagmus)

I call BS. How can you point to a nystagmus when it keeps moving!?!?

 

[VUPDblue]

I have often wondered why an officer will do the FST instead of just doing the breathalyzer.

So the FST needs to be done before you can pull out the machine? I have never been in the situation where I have had either. Watched one FST on a girl that was in a crash, but that was about it.

FSTs are used to detect impairment. If you stop someone for bad driving behavior, they smell like booze and you think they may be impaired, you offer FSTs to develop probable cause to offer the breath/blood test. Now, if the person is boozer smelling, can't hardly speak, can't walk and falls all over themselves, you have enough PC to offer the breath/blood tests right there.

 

[wally05]

FSTs are used to detect impairment. If you stop someone for bad driving behavior, they smell like booze and you think they may be impaired, you offer FSTs to develop probable cause to offer the breath/blood test. Now, if the person is boozer smelling, can't hardly speak, can't walk and falls all over themselves, you have enough PC to offer the breath/blood tests right there.

This... I always try to do FSTs even if they are incoherent as at least I can note on the PC that they were incapable of doing the tests. I don't do a lot of DUI enforcement, but I want my stuff to be 150% solid to avoid being torn apart later. For prescription drugs, we'll do them, get a blood test and then release. Once the blood results come back, we file for DUI-drug charges. I guess you could always book under the general impairment statute and upgrade later, but our prosecutors don't like that.

 

[Denny347]

Is that why you let those who pass FSTs yet still blow high go with no charges?

Um, if you pass your SFST's then I have no PC to offer you implied consent.

 

[VUPDblue]

This... I always try to do FSTs even if they are incoherent as at least I can note on the PC that they were incapable of doing the tests. I don't do a lot of DUI enforcement, but I want my stuff to be 150% solid to avoid being torn apart later. For prescription drugs, we'll do them, get a blood test and then release. Once the blood results come back, we file for DUI-drug charges. I guess you could always book under the general impairment statute and upgrade later, but our prosecutors don't like that.

Our prosecutors want blood results for drug DUI. That makes it frustrating for me as a DRE to have to wait 6 months for my charges to get filed. If there is obvious impairment then I outright anyway and they just no-file until the chemical results come back.

 

[wally05]

Our prosecutors want blood results for drug DUI. That makes it frustrating for me as a DRE to have to wait 6 months for my charges to get filed. If there is obvious impairment then I outright anyway and they just no-file until the chemical results come back.

Just goes to show you how it differs county to county, prosecutor to prosecutor. What you do is how I did them until I was told to stop and the practice became filing for a warrant later.... which will probably not get served for an eternity. We don't have many DREs where I'm at due to the upkeep to keep that cert (or so I've been told).

 

[LP1]

Huh.

This is really interesting to me because I know a lot of gun owners who routinely "break the law" by carrying their firearms into prohibited places. They do so because they assert their right to self defense trumps the state's authority to deny it. They posit they're not infringing on anyone else's liberties by doing so and often, "minding their own damn business."

Yet, here we are on a public forum, and many of these same "law breakers" who believe you have the right to break the law when carrying a gun, do not believe that same logic applies when the combination of operating a motor vehicle and enjoying alcohol applies.

Why the difference? Is there "more risk" in one than the other? And, if that's your position, how on earth do you look anti-gunners square in the face and deny you're at no more risk than they are when it comes to shooting up the place?

I'm not one of the lawbreakers you refer to, but the difference between carrying in a NPE and drinking/driving should be obvious, but apparently it's not obvious to you.

When a person carries where it's not permitted, they pose no danger to others as long as they exercise good judgement. When a person gets behind the wheel while impaired, they pose a danger to every other driver on the road precisely because their judgement is impaired.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Incarceration is an entirely different animal than denying free roaming people rights, especially rights which have absolutely nothing to do with the metric by which they are deemed unworthy. If this individual honestly believes that a drunk driving incident warrants stripping a person of rights which the Constitution does not provide for removing (however, while presented in the context of involuntary servitude, the Constitution as amended does provide for differentiating between time under incarceration and time roaming free), then I would suggest to him that there are a number of vacation spots with the level of rights available that he seems to find appropriate with North Korea landing near the top of the list.

Then I would make that argument instead of suggesting he move or making the false distinction between rights and privileges. After all, I didn't note "unless incarcerated" in the 2nd either. I think that's part of the problem of why we can't have these discussions. The absolutist comes out and instead of talking about the merits, well, we get this instead. I think you're better than that, and you're more convincing when you stick to a logical look at the issue.

 

[VUPDblue]

Just goes to show you how it differs county to county, prosecutor to prosecutor. What you do is how I did them until I was told to stop and the practice became filing for a warrant later.... which will probably not get served for an eternity. We don't have many DREs where I'm at due to the upkeep to keep that cert (or so I've been told).

The upkeep on DRE is only two evals per year and attending the annual one-day re-cert training session. I can see where the re-cert day would be difficult for rural agencies since it usually happens in Indy.

 

[lrahm]

Um, if you pass your SFST's then I have no PC to offer you implied consent.

But part of the SFST's is the use of a PBT. That should give you plenty of PC to take the person in for a test on a certified machine (if the person is drunk). I have seen several people pass several stages of the SFST's and still test over the limit on the PBT. For us the last part can only be the PBT.