Power corrupts-You'd better pay your tax bills in Ohio or else-this is crazy!

Re: Let's be fair to the cop...

In CA, in the mid-80's, the dispatcher would always say warrant, how much, what for, and the issuing agency. I suspect that most of Ohio is at least up to late 90's technology and has all of this stuff displayed on their on-board computers. I never rested my hand of my gun unless I was serious.

 

Re: Re: Let's be fair to the cop...

In Illinois there would be a threshold amount but no specific amount. Hand on the wweapon is something I always discouraged in my patrolman but old habits die hard. It is a convenient hand or arm rest....

 

Re: Re: Re: Let's be fair to the cop...

When I was a police officer in Tampa a Sheriff's deputy was killed by someone when serving a misdemeanor warrant. I don't treat anyone I am going to take to jail any differently.

If I knew there was a warrant before I made the traffic stop then felony traffic stop procedures would be used -even if it was for a misdemeanor warrant for not paying tax of $1.16. She would have been removed from the car at gunpoint and secured.

I don't do that anymore, but my first rule was I and the people I work with go home in the morning. Just because she was Miss Ohio does not mean she could not turn into Ms. Meth with a gun.

She needs to STFU and pay her taxes -with the forms.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101968.html


This is the zero tolerance article referenced by Mr. Engineer.

Zero tolerance = zero common sense.

 

So you are in favor of people driving after having consumed alcohol? It seems that is what you are saying.


In every state suspension of a drivers license can be the result of a criminal conviction or an administrative civil act. The civil action has a much lower proof threshold. Just as civil court requires a preponderance of the evidence and criminal convictions require certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt, civil DL suspensions require only a preponderance of the evidence.

The article is a bit misleading. In the first paragraphs it mentions the 0.3 g/210 l BrAC on the Intoxilyzer 5000. That instrument cannot be operated in the field; it must be supplied by landline or filtered power not available in a police car. Therefore the office had no way of knowing what her level of intoxication was. He relied on his training and experience.


It is stated in the article that she was driving at night without headlights. She must have had an odor of alcohol about her as the officer inquired as to her drinking. She initially lied to the officer about drinking. Her failure of FSTs (although I’m not certain if the HGN is admissible as evidence of impairment in DC It is a valid and reliable test,) led to her arrest. The officer could not have known how impaired she was, but he knew from her actions, demeanor, and from speaking with her that she should not be driving. To let her drive further could subject him and the department to civil and criminal penalties were she to continue to drive after having consumed alcohol without allowing time for it to be excreted from her body (at a rate of about 25g/dl each hour or .025 g/210 l BrAC).



Should she have been allowed to drive and killed some kid on a bike you can bet people would be calling for the head of the officer. But since he arrested someone who committed a traffic infraction (driving w/o lights) that brought to his attention her criminal act of DUI people are complaining that he enforced the law too harshly.


The law applies to everyone equally. Had the prosecuting attorney’s office been more organized and not lost her file she probably would have been convicted.


A woman who has to be reminded to not drink alcoholic beverages before driving, and who needs a post it not to remind her to turn on her lights should not be driving a car. It is unfortunate that she was not convicted, and it just as unfortunate to note that she felt the alcohol counseling would not be beneficial for someone who drinks and drives.

 

Anything above .01? Sounds like loss of common sense to me. Especially when most jurisdictions require eight to ten times that.

 

No one ever said a word about allowing someone to drive drunk. But do you think that the 0.08 level was pulled out of a bureaucrats ass? No - doctors actually studied the effects of alcohol on one's abilities and came up with that number. (by conducting real science) What you are saying might as well be "lets close all eating establishments, bars and sporting events that serve any alcohol in the least". For a crime ridden hell hole like DC to have such a law shows how silly the city really is (they should focus their efforts on cocaine addicted mayors).

I guess you haven't driven down a well lite parkway - it is pretty easy to forget to turn on your lights

MdDoniel - do you drink at all? If so, using your line of thought -- you must be an alcoholic and need help. If you smoke, then you must be suicidal - lets 5150 you. If you ever smoked dope, then you are a felon for life - lets lock you up.

Lets get real...

 

(1) Has there been more than one of these lately?

(2) What's a 5150?

 

Following that line of thought, let's criminalize alcohol and anyone caught drinking same gets a drug conviction.

 

5150W&I

1. A law which states that an officer can detain and deliver someone to a mental facility for up to 72 hours if they are deemed to a danger to themselves or others.

2. A Van Halen album

3. commonly referred to as "arresting a crazy person"

 

Yes I do, but I don't drive afterward. I also have a pilot’s license and the eight hours from bottle to throttle rule seems just fine for car drivers as well. In my country we have cabs and sober people to drive us home.

Don't smoke never have, and in Florida involuntary commitment is called the Baker Act so someone is Baker Acted... although of course your example was hyperbole so it can't really be considered.

Never smoked dope, sorry. If I go to Amsterdam someday I might, but I doubt it.


I never said anything about closing down bars and restaurants. It is unfortunate that you can't understand that adults can legally drink but not legally drink and drive. Impairment is not a number it is a physiological response to alcohol ingestion.

Do you want your children riding their bikes on a road where one driver has detectable quantities of alcohol in their blood, or do you want your kids riding their bikes on a street with no drivers who had been drinking.

Does your argument for allowing people to drink and drive even with one glass of wine now change?

 

I was kinda worried that that might be what a 5150 is. Anyway, I need a cig!

 

Big question is: Would you inhale if you went to Amsterdam?

 

If that one glass of wine was such good stuff (or if the glass was so tall) that it put them over .08 blood alcohol level, sure, toss 'em in the klink!

 

If you want these types of laws passed, then go to your state legislature and have them passed. Of course, I doubt it will happen in Florida. It is unfortunate that you don't understand that the law states 0.08. "under the influence" is deemed at 0.05 (in case you are in an accident - more for insurance and suing purposes). Drinking a single glass of wine at dinner hardly impares you to any significant degree. If memory serves me right, they even proved that in a study.

And yes, we do have cabs in my country. Although I suspect that Florida is in fact a foreign country than the rest of the US. (Where else would they elect a guy named Jethro as Governor??)

Smoking = suicide. Using your argument against any and all drinking and driving, looks like 5150 to me.

I have been to Amsterdam at least 20 times. Never sparked up once. I suspect the real rate of usage is less than an American city. (which is usually the case when a drug is legal)

 

Md:

What kind of girls are attracted to you simply because you are a member of Mensa?

I have an IQ of 140 and never tout it, especially to pick up women. Most engineers are boring so I avoid tech talk outside of the workplace.

 

While reading this string, I was thinking about the term "driving while impared"

Lets see, what qualifies you as impared:

1. Of course DUI
2. Drugs
3. Large doses of caffine
4. Lack of sleep because your boss beats you down everyday.
5. Cold medicine. Even the stuff without alcohol
6. Prescription medicine : especially the anti-depressants given out like candy.
7. Kava (yes, there was a guy in Foster City arrested for just that)
8. Too much sugar. yes - that does impare you. Just ask Dan White -- or perhaps not, he is dead
9. Talking on your cell phone
10. Sex while driving (try explaining that to your 6 year old while driving down the freeway on Christmas day)
11. Not wearing your prescription glasses while driving (if necessary)

If drinking a single glass or having a BA of <0.02 is an arrestable offense, surely the other 11 on the list should have simuliar consequences.

 

You may not have jumped up on the podium and exclaimed: "I'm in favor of closing down all the bars and restaurants!" However, advocating arresting anyone who operates a motor vehicle after having had a single beer in the last eight hours is advocating a policy which will likely have a significant negative effect upon alcohol-related businesses. So it is effectively saying the same thing.

 

The notion that "impairment is not a number it is a physiological response to alcohol ingestion" is quite the disingenuous argument since physiological responses, like many other things, can be quantified.

 

An impaired driver should not operate a motor vehicle and while I am not completely familiar with the laws of DC I am familiar with the laws of Florida and there is no numerical standard of impairment.

I think you are confusing the legal limit with something it is not. In Florida the .08 g/210 l BrAC (or 08. mg/ dl blood alcohol) concentration is the level at which a prima facie case of impairment is made; that is impairment need not be proven at that level. Having less than .08 is not evidence of lack of impairment. Anyone arrested with a lower blood alcohol level can be charged with DUI to the point at which the statute notes a blood alcohol level is not impaired. I presume DC does not explicitly state a level at which one may not be considered impaired. Florida Statutes have a lower limit of 0.5 mg/dl.


Driving without headlights, lying to a police officer, being oppositional are all hallmarks of an impaired driver. Impairment need not be by alcohol, prescription or nonprescription medications often factor into DUI arrests either in combination with alcohol or alone. I doubt sugar plays any role in impairment, but if you believe it does I'll not argue the point. Also please do not confuse impaired with distracted, while distractions may impede your driving ability they are not physiological changes.
You point about driving without required prescription glasses is well founded as it is a crime (as opposed to a violation like speeding or running a red light) in Florida and I would suppose many other locations.

Reckless driving is also a criminal offense with which persons who are driving recklessly and who have been drinking alcohol are often charged.

If you want to continue to be apologists for driving after drinking feel free. But I am opposed to it, as well as anything else that detracts from giving your full attention to driving.

MADD has been advocating arresting drivers who drink for decades; I doubt my personal views on driving after drinking will have a significant negative impact on the food and beverage industry. People can and do call cabs or use designated drivers.

Saying that physiological responses can be quantified and that quantification can be applied across the board to everyone is absurd. Some chronic alcoholics can drive quite well at .10 mg/dl blood alcohol concentrations and some people would be falling down drunk at a tenth of that. To suggest otherwise is simply reckless and to be truthful I find it amazing that anyone could make such a stupid argument among this learned crowd.