BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-25-2010, 06:31 PM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,577
Default Drinking & Driving discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Net Paulie View Post
Khabibrewin.

Don't drink and drive folks. No bueno.
And if you make that mistake, DO NOT blow or take a field sobriety test. Most importantly, STFU. Nothing you do will convince the officer to lighten up, so don't make your case a slam dunk.

Realize that DUI enforcement is more about revenue generation than public safety in many jurisdictions.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-25-2010, 11:26 PM
Wrong Net Paulie Wrong Net Paulie is offline
Mighty Mite
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flycoon View Post
And if you make that mistake, DO NOT blow or take a field sobriety test. Most importantly, STFU. Nothing you do will convince the officer to lighten up, so don't make your case a slam dunk.

Realize that DUI enforcement is more about revenue generation than public safety in many jurisdictions.
So very true.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-25-2010, 11:48 PM
WaiverWire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Realize that DUI enforcement is more about revenue generation than public safety in many jurisdictions.
As one that made these arrests for 33 years, I totally disagree. Very little is received by the agency or the county for the arrest. And FHP gets nothing. All that an agency gets is money towards a state training account. The rest is divided up among the courts, state and local governments and driving programs. The money goes to the jurisdiction they are in such as the county or the city. When I wrote a citation in the city, that city received the funds.

I can also assure you that it costs more to take a DUI suspect off the road for an agency then the fine itself.

Now you want to see a money maker for the cities and counties, look no further than the red light cameras.

And please remember, refuse and you lose the license for 1 year.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-26-2010, 08:28 AM
PEIBolt PEIBolt is offline
Old-Skool Assassin
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Prince Edward Island, Canada
Posts: 702
Default

Don't drink and drive, period!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-26-2010, 09:24 AM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,577
Default

Don't get me wrong, I am as opposed to drinking and driving as a reasonable person can be.

BUT, I feel it is foolish to not know your rights and the legal implications of surrendering those rights if you comply as you may (mistakenly) feel obligated to should be pulled over.

Ask ANY attorney if it is a good idea to blow in any situation where you have had any alcohol (and I mean any) and the answer will be a resounding NO! Your case (and there will be one) becomes much less defensible. Not to mention more costly.

This isn't directed at law enforcement, but at the hypocritical powers behind the efforts. Like the IRS, law enforcement is just doing their job. Take a look at getmadd.com.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy. Just bring back prohibition.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-26-2010, 10:24 AM
the_narrow_way's Avatar
the_narrow_way the_narrow_way is online now
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 4,874
Default

With the way the accuracy of the Breathalyzers being so much in question lately, I'd be leery of blowing too.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-26-2010, 10:52 AM
WaiverWire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Flycoon, I think I told you before that I think groups like MADD are way out of control and how much pressure they have used to push their agenda.

However in law enforcement we did have a saying about attorneys telling their clients to just say "no". It is not their butts on the line and they know they are going home. Can answering a few questions get you arrested, yes. But they can also allow you to be sent along your "merry" way, that is unless you got stopped by a DUI unit who sole purpose in life, in their eyes, is to take you to jail.

Don't trust the machines, ask for blood to be taken.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-26-2010, 02:28 PM
Flycoon Flycoon is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
Flycoon, I think I told you before that I think groups like MADD are way out of control and how much pressure they have used to push their agenda.

However in law enforcement we did have a saying about attorneys telling their clients to just say "no". It is not their butts on the line and they know they are going home. Can answering a few questions get you arrested, yes. But they can also allow you to be sent along your "merry" way, that is unless you got stopped by a DUI unit who sole purpose in life, in their eyes, is to take you to jail.

Don't trust the machines, ask for blood to be taken.
Agreed on all counts, WW. My point is that drivers, for the most part, don't know they have the right to refuse roadside sobriety tests as well as a breathalyzer test.

Drivers should know their rights and the ramifications of surrendering them.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-26-2010, 02:50 PM
WaiverWire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are correct about the roadside test, but not taking one could be a bad thing.

Moons ago when I stopped someone for their poor driving the first contact would allow me to use my sense of smell, hearing and vision to see if someone could be impaired. If I thought they were impaired they were asked to step out of the car. Before I even asked them to step out I would have enough PC to make the arrest. I used the testes to see if they could go home, without any further action by me. This is what many do today. If the tests back up what we thought you were taken to central breath testing where they would advise you that you did not have to blow, but if you did refuse you would lose the right to drive even if found not guilty.

i never lost a DUI case that refused. That was because I would document what I saw, heard and smelled at the initial stop. This I did on my back of the citation. I would then make it a point to get to court early so I could see the person again and how they were walking, talking and acting without knowing I was watching. The difference would be relayed to the judge when under oath and the charge would be upheld.

In short what I am saying is that by cooperating you may very well be able to show that you are not impaired and then are sent on your way home. But then that was me and I do not think I was really ever and AH unless I was treated like one first.

Last edited by WaiverWire; 02-26-2010 at 03:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-26-2010, 03:09 PM
the_narrow_way's Avatar
the_narrow_way the_narrow_way is online now
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 4,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
I used the testes to see if they could go home


Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
but if you did refuse you would lose the right to drive even if found not guilty
I can see that in most cases that the enforcement of that law is justified, but I think it's wrong and open for abuse. Why should anyone have to lose their license for refusing a potentially innacurate test?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.