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.
My litmus rest was always "do I really want to put my name on this and look a judge, or jury in the eyes and testify on the merits of this case?"
Easy to find better solutions for weak cases when viewed in that light. Lots of borderline drunks able to call sober friends.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
And, somehow, you got the impression that I 'asked' for for a heel-to-toe, stand on one foot, wiggle your ears, solo tango on the side of the road after a 60 mph, no injury, dark thirty crash with an abandoned vehicle on the shoulder of the road? ...and this was after I passed the breath screen exam? Apparently, although it was months later, the District Attorney disagreed with the nice Trooper.
Folks can be 'charged' (read 'accused') for many violations. The accused has to pay an expensive someone to unravel a large can of worms.
LEO guys and gals can't try cases on the street, but after-the-fact written reports should not be an exercise in creative writing.
cb1000rider wrote: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. I do have a problem with a LEO that might use lesser charges for solving a problem at hand.
Your concerns are valid. I can guarantee you it happens...and there's no defense to it. You can be arrested and charged and put in jail with no evidence if the officer wants to do it. As for addressing it after the fact, the only way you can win is to "prove a negative", which is impossible to do since there was no physical evidence required to begin with. The officer testifies that in his judgment the defendant was impaired, and he felt the safest action was to let him "sleep it off" in jail, for his own safety. It becomes the officer's word against the defendant's, and with no BAC from breath or blood required, who's to say he wasn't drunk. The only defense available is to claim that the officer is lying.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
texanjoker wrote:
I agree. Put them in a taxi, get them a ride. Do the right thing.
My litmus rest was always "do I really want to put my name on this and look a judge, or jury in the eyes and testify on the merits of this case?"
Easy to find better solutions for weak cases when viewed in that light. Lots of borderline drunks able to call sober friends.
Good on ya'll...that was the "old school" approach...eliminate the danger with as little negative repercussions as possible.
As far as PI, I really wish TX would get rid of the criminal aspect (prosecution/fine/ect). In CA you hook them up if needed, which is the same criteria anyhow (basically they can't care for their safety or the safety of others)they sleep it off at the jail or a detox center depending on where you were and that is the end of it. No criminal case. Our drunk tank was full of drunks on the weekends. Some were cooperative and some were naughty until they sobered up meaning they spent more time in time out. When you had a problem drunk with 5 or more PI's in 90 days then you wrote a case on them. I find this much better then the criminal aspect in TX.
texanjoker wrote:
I agree. Put them in a taxi, get them a ride. Do the right thing.
My litmus rest was always "do I really want to put my name on this and look a judge, or jury in the eyes and testify on the merits of this case?"
Easy to find better solutions for weak cases when viewed in that light. Lots of borderline drunks able to call sober friends.
Good on ya'll...that was the "old school" approach...eliminate the danger with as little negative repercussions as possible.
As far as PI, I really wish TX would get rid of the criminal aspect (prosecution/fine/ect). In CA you hook them up if needed, which is the same criteria anyhow (basically they can't care for their safety or the safety of others)they sleep it off at the jail or a detox center depending on where you were and that is the end of it. No criminal case. Our drunk tank was full of drunks on the weekends. Some were cooperative and some were naughty until they sobered up meaning they spent more time in time out. When you had a problem drunk with 5 or more PI's in 90 days then you wrote a case on them. I find this much better then the criminal aspect in TX.
It may be my imagination, but a lot of PIs are for stupid college kids "celebrating" on a weekend, spring break or after finals. As long as they aren't driving or tearing up a place, I don't care too much.
It may be my imagination, but a lot of PIs are for stupid college kids "celebrating" on a weekend, spring break or after finals. As long as they aren't driving or tearing up a place, I don't care too much.