TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I watched the video, and saw enough clues on Walk and Turn, and the one leg stand to make an arrest.

This can also be a false indicator. I have a younger brother with MS. The disease affects walk and gate and in turn his capability to do these types of tests well even if he is totally on his game.

Absolutely agree - that is why an officer has to gather as much info as he can out on scene (as you well know). I didn't see that as a factor in this case, but the video was edited, so I can't be sure.

Imagine this case where the only evidence is testimony of an officers observations, field sobriety not required. No breath, no blood, because options to provide those to law enforcement don't exist.

That's the bar required for public intoxication or carrying while intoxicated.

Be careful.

I've got no problem with an arrest if some fails field sobriety - that's a judgement call and everyone knows that alcohol isn't the only substance that causes impairment. I do have a problem with a LEO that might use lesser charges for solving a problem at hand.

I wonder how much the "man" here spent in regard to this charge - vehicle recovery, perhaps hiring an attorney, and spending the night in jail? The arrest itself is punitive.

Here's another link with the local news video on the story...

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/DEFENDER ... 77541.html

This is what irritates me about this:

A Defenders review finds similar statistics for 2013. Of 5,648 new DWI cases filed last year, 1,559, a little less than 30 percent, were dismissed.

Police are still abiding by a take-no-chances policy, even if it means the cases are later thrown out.

That dismissal rate is way too high I think. I feel sorry for the almost 1/3 of people arrested for DWI there are innocent but still have to pay a great cost for the ride. The "take-no-chances" policy is ridiculous...

texanjoker wrote: I always prefer to err on the side of caution vs making a bogus arrest hence I have never lost a DWI / DUI case. Better to let one go then do this to an innocent.

I agree with this. If it is so close and hard to tell that you have to invoke the "better safe than sorry" policy, then the policy should be to let them go.

Superman wrote:

texanjoker wrote: I always prefer to err on the side of caution vs making a bogus arrest hence I have never lost a DWI / DUI case. Better to let one go then do this to an innocent.

I agree with this. If it is so close and hard to tell that you have to invoke the "better safe than sorry" policy, then the policy should be to let them go.

A "better safe that sorry policy" for arresting people for any crime is a very scary thought.

Superman wrote:Here's another link with the local news video on the story...

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/DEFENDER ... 77541.html

This is what irritates me about this:

A Defenders review finds similar statistics for 2013. Of 5,648 new DWI cases filed last year, 1,559, a little less than 30 percent, were dismissed.

Police are still abiding by a take-no-chances policy, even if it means the cases are later thrown out.

That dismissal rate is way too high I think. I feel sorry for the almost 1/3 of people arrested for DWI there are innocent but still have to pay a great cost for the ride. The "take-no-chances" policy is ridiculous...

The dismissal rate comes from no chemical evidence. They need to take forced blood draws on anybody that refuses, via a search warrant. Otherwise the cases often get tossed.

Superman wrote:

A Defenders review finds similar statistics for 2013. Of 5,648 new DWI cases filed last year, 1,559, a little less than 30 percent, were dismissed.

Police are still abiding by a take-no-chances policy, even if it means the cases are later thrown out.

That dismissal rate is way too high I think. I feel sorry for the almost 1/3 of people arrested for DWI there are innocent but still have to pay a great cost for the ride. The "take-no-chances" policy is ridiculous...

As much as I have distaste for laws that can be enforced simply at the "professional judgment" of the officer, I'd certainly don't think that the 1/3 of the people arrested for DWI and get their cases dismissed are "innocent". I'd have a much narrower view of PI or armed while intoxicated because I've seen it used much more subjectively. I'd wager that most of those 1/3rd arrested have both good attorneys and were smart enough to shut up and not voluntarily give up evidence via breathalyzer or field sobriety.

As a pilot, if we're stopped for DWI and don't blow or cooperate with officers, the FAA takes that as an indication of heavy intoxication. We're done. It's worse than blowing a .09 or .10.

WildBill wrote:

Superman wrote:

texanjoker wrote: I always prefer to err on the side of caution vs making a bogus arrest hence I have never lost a DWI / DUI case. Better to let one go then do this to an innocent.

I agree with this. If it is so close and hard to tell that you have to invoke the "better safe than sorry" policy, then the policy should be to let them go.

A "better safe that sorry policy" for arresting people for any crime is a very scary thought.

I agree. Put them in a taxi, get them a ride. Do the right thing.

texanjoker wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Superman wrote:

texanjoker wrote: I always prefer to err on the side of caution vs making a bogus arrest hence I have never lost a DWI / DUI case. Better to let one go then do this to an innocent.

I agree with this. If it is so close and hard to tell that you have to invoke the "better safe than sorry" policy, then the policy should be to let them go.

A "better safe that sorry policy" for arresting people for any crime is a very scary thought.

I agree. Put them in a taxi, get them a ride. Do the right thing.

texanjoker wrote:Nothing to do with this arrest, but I would NEVER take a field sobriety test. They are not required and as you get older are hard to do. That is not saying that after you are arrested the blood or breath is not required, because that is. Having been in the DWI and DUI courses in two states, I have been told to practice to make sure I don't mess up showing the example.

I would like to see a thread about your experience and recommendations on traffic stops that benefit and protect the rights of citizens, i.e. searches, field sobriety tests, etc.

WildBill wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Nothing to do with this arrest, but I would NEVER take a field sobriety test. They are not required and as you get older are hard to do. That is not saying that after you are arrested the blood or breath is not required, because that is. Having been in the DWI and DUI courses in two states, I have been told to practice to make sure I don't mess up showing the example.

I would like to see a thread about your experience and recommendations on traffic stops that benefit and protect the rights of citizens, i.e. searches, field sobriety tests, etc.

That could be interesting......................................

I can't see myself doing the circus act either. However, you have to accept the fact that you will likely get arrested.

Kinda-Sorta happened to me also.

I got in a crash, DPS arrived, I took and passed the breath test, but could not pass the roadside gymnastic exam. (Side note here: I'v been taking arthritis med for about 10-15 yrs at that time and advised the nice DPS Trooper.) But I still took the ride. Both me and my vehicle got arrested. I needed a bail Bondsman and an Attorney. After a time, the District Attorney declined to prosecute, but it was up to me to have, for a substantial fee, have the 'Arrest Record' expunged.

If, in a casual conversation, you hear when someone uses the expression 'they can't do that', you may be correct. In this situtation, corrective action was expensive.

LEOs, especially State Troopers with a local JP overseeing the process, can 'do' many things. It is costly for you to 'un-do' those actions.

salty

I have actually tried to do the stand on one leg and walk the line and I can't do them well enough to pass muster. I can do the touch my nose deal and would have no problems with the alphabet or numbers or eye test, but based on my physical limitations I would refuse a FST.

saltydog452 wrote:Kinda-Sorta happened to me also.

I got in a crash, DPS arrived, I took and passed the breath test, but could not pass the roadside gymnastic exam. (Side note here: I'v been taking arthritis med for about 10-15 yrs at that time and advised the nice DPS Trooper.) But I still took the ride. Both me and my vehicle got arrested. I needed a bail Bondsman and an Attorney. After a time, the District Attorney declined to prosecute, but it was up to me to have, for a substantial fee, have the 'Arrest Record' expunged.

If, in a casual conversation, you hear when someone uses the expression 'they can't do that', you may be correct. In this situtation, corrective action was expensive.

LEOs, especially State Troopers with a local JP overseeing the process, can 'do' many things. It is costly for you to 'un-do' those actions.

salty

I don't know what you blew, but asking for field sobriety after an accident places you at a big disadvantage. If you blew 0 and they asked for field sobriety, I'd have a big problem with that. I assume you'd get the automatic license suspension if you declined.

I had an opposite experience. I was rear ended at a red light by an SUV that didn't stop. I had been at that light for a while. It wasn't recently red. Literally, that SUV went over my vehicle. I woke up in a bank parking lot with what remained of my car running. The SUV rolled. a 6-pack of beer came out of the destroyed window. Driver declined field sobriety. They arrested him anyway, 3rd DWI. City attorney contacted me and politely suggested that I might have observed him stumbling or smelled alcohol on his breath. I told her that I did observe stumbling, but I was stumbling too from the accident and I wouldn't testify that I could smell alcohol on his breath. They declined to prosecute because I wasn't "cooperating" enough.