On the other hand, a sober diabetic probably won't fail a HGN test, won't have divided attention problems,.03 won't justify action, and a blood test won't show alcohol intoxication.
>Now - what we do see in the media are deliberatly distorted statistics. If the victim in the accident has had something to drink they >stat "Alcohol was involved". The victim could be sound asleep in the passenger seat and there are cases of him being charged. 1) He >wasn't operating the vehical. 2) he wasn't even awake. 3) He never operated the vehical. 4) it was his buddy who was driving him home >and the car quit and his buddy went to get help.
There have also been plenty of cases where this kind of thing was the cover story, and the cops and the judge didn't buy it.
HGN is a very good indicator of alcohol intoxication. Good luck convincing a jury that a specialist is trying to end his career with perjured testimony about your eye test.
You may not realize that Arizona judges face routine confirmation votes in at-large elections.
Among other things, the sizeable Hispanic populations have a great deal of activism toward civil rights issues, and strong messages will be sent to judges that abuse their power.
Get the advice of a lawyer. But he will tell you you are screwed...
Roadside tests are admissible. If nothing else, testimony of an officer that you failed a 40 degree Nystagmus test is not only admissible (how can you not admit eyewitness testimony of the arresting officer?), it's considered conclusive evidence. The eye test alone can easily put you in prison in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Oklahoma. I'm sure it's the case in many other states. It might be easier to try to argue against an officer's judgment, but his ability to estimate a 45 degree angle can be evaluated. If you don't have a neurological condition for a defense, good luck convincing a jury that an experienced specialist police officer can't judge Nystagmus properly.
"At the current BAC levels, drinking and driving do not mean what you think they mean. Using mouthwash in the morning or before your drive home (some people brush their teeth more than twice a day) can mean you'll test positive."
Empirical, blind-test evidence of this claim, please.
"Before you get too worked up in your rant, most places in the world require a blood test before you are considered 'over the limit' to the extent where you can be prosecuted."
I've lived in several places where a police report that you failed a 40 degree Nystagmus test can put you in prison. No blood test, breathalyzer, etc. needed.
Of course, by the time they actually bring out the breathalyzer, they've probably already decided to arrest you based on the Nystagmus test. Most of the procedure is just misdirection to keep the suspect calm, thinking he still has a chance to avoid arrest, even though it's already a foregone conclusion. It gives the DUI suspect a chance to dig a deeper grave for himself... The breathalyzer result is more valuable for getting confessions in the field, rather than for evidence in court. They don't actually *need* mechanical sobriety tests, since HGN, one-leg-stand, walk-and-turn tests and the like, stand up just fine in court.
"A peace officer may ask someone to identify themself. That does not require that the individual do anything to confirm the identity. Therefore there is no requirement to produce any identity paper or document."
Likewise, a peace officer generally has broad latitude to take a questionable situation to a magistrate.
What's interesting here is that a magistrate agreed with the citation, meaning a District Attorney is prepared to argue a criminal case before a court hearing. Presumably, this means at least a 6-seat jury, unless the OP is dumb enough to waive his right to a jury trial (or if Ohio doesn't guarantee one.)
In my state, standing in front of a car, blocking the driver's egress where he has a right to leave, is misdemeanor assault. There are factors that make it a felony, for example, if you are armed while keeping someone from leaving. In that case, the victim has a reasonable apprehension that bodily harm may come to him if he does not comply with the detention -- and for that, you could (and should) find yourself in prison for years, possibly decades; life without parole if you've got three strikes.
"Whether they rent or own their spot on the property, doesn't it make that their property, and therefore their right due to it taking place on their property?"
So... I can make a restaurant and enforce a "no Jews, Blacks, or Irish" policy? It's my property, so I have the right to pick and choose whatever laws I want to follow, whatever rights of others I want to respect. Is that your position? Ownership of property makes one king within the boundaries of that property.
At Sam's club or Costco, you sign a contract that says they can examine your cart and receipt. There's some language where they can go as far as to void your sale if they decide it's not right.
In my state, the scenario being described is clear assault. Speed or the force of bumping is not relevant until it gets promoted to attempted homicide or manslaughter.
On one hand: Trying to block someone's egress from a place he has a right to leave, is misdemeanor assault. On the other hand: Trying to discourage them from blocking you by tapping them with your moving vehicle, is felony assault, and the driver will certainly have to face an argument made that it was attempted murder.
If someone testified that a product contained trade secrets, and it was shown otherwise, how is that not perjury? Shouldn't we be reading about contempt citations, disbarment, etc.?
When they hand you your receipt, put it down your pants.
When they demand to see it, explain that they will have to get it themselves, which puts them in the position of either putting their hand down your pants (a serious crime), or strip searching you (something they genuinely have no right whatsoever to do.)
Make *them* call the police, and force them to go on record with a sworn accusation of shoplifting with no evidence.
>I handed her the birth certificate I carry around. > >-- That's all you have? she asked. >-- That's all you'll get, I answered and she looked even more pissed-off because she could not ask for anything else and she knew it.
I carry my US Passport for this reason. Police tend to handle a State Department instrument differently from a state drivers license, partly because there are actually rules about handling a passport. It seems to make them nervous. And unless you're driving, they *know* they can't ask for any other ID, because doing so would imply that they have rejected the validity of a legitimate US passport. They will take your drivers license and routinely keep it long enough to cross-reference your information. To do that starting with a Passport requires strong probable cause or a warrant.
I don't do much activism these days, so it has been a while since I've experimented. But I have found that using a Passport for ID seems to put you in a different category -- and it seems to persuade police to adopt a slightly more professional demeanor.
One good way: Make the STORE call the police, force them to go on record with a false accusation of a crime, and then use that to force
them into a very large cash settlement rather than being dragged into court.
What really happens in this situation, is that the police find no evidence, and that's the end of it -- because store employees usually know better than to make the arrest themselves (an "arrest" without evidence is, exactly, assault; which appears to be the case in this case.)
>Its nice that he tied up 911 for his "emergency".
You put "emergency" in quotes, but he was being assaulted, detained against his will, and the store employee had placed himself violently in a position where he could have caused serious bodily injury to himself. This is definitely an emergency, a violent crime is in progress, and a major disturbance of the peace is possibly imminent.
>Hmm, is this not technically ASSAULT (with a deadly weapon)?
Not technically, it *is*. Two wrongs do not make a right.
In my state, standing in front of a car in order to restrain the driver, is not only assault, it is also carjacking (but probably not on your private parking lot.)
If they touch you while you are detained against your will, and you can prove it, you own them. You can send them to prison.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, a sober diabetic probably won't fail a HGN test, won't have divided attention problems, .03 won't justify action, and a blood test won't show alcohol intoxication.
>Now - what we do see in the media are deliberatly distorted statistics. If the victim in the accident has had something to drink they
>stat "Alcohol was involved". The victim could be sound asleep in the passenger seat and there are cases of him being charged. 1) He
>wasn't operating the vehical. 2) he wasn't even awake. 3) He never operated the vehical. 4) it was his buddy who was driving him home
>and the car quit and his buddy went to get help.
There have also been plenty of cases where this kind of thing was the cover story, and the cops and the judge didn't buy it.
HGN is a very good indicator of alcohol intoxication. Good luck convincing a jury that a specialist is trying to end his career with perjured testimony about your eye test.
You may not realize that Arizona judges face routine confirmation votes in at-large elections.
Among other things, the sizeable Hispanic populations have a great deal of activism toward civil rights issues, and strong messages will be sent to judges that abuse their power.
>Absolutely not, when using mouthwash an hour earlier can cause you to blow far over 0.00.
Yeah, I carry a flask of Bushmill's 16 for mouthwash too, but I don't have delusions about it.
Get the advice of a lawyer. But he will tell you you are screwed...
Roadside tests are admissible. If nothing else, testimony of an officer that you failed a 40 degree Nystagmus test is not only admissible (how can you not admit eyewitness testimony of the arresting officer?), it's considered conclusive evidence. The eye test alone can easily put you in prison in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Oklahoma. I'm sure it's the case in many other states. It might be easier to try to argue against an officer's judgment, but his ability to estimate a 45 degree angle can be evaluated. If you don't have a neurological condition for a defense, good luck convincing a jury that an experienced specialist police officer can't judge Nystagmus properly.
"At the current BAC levels, drinking and driving do not mean what you think they mean. Using mouthwash in the morning or before your drive home (some people brush their teeth more than twice a day) can mean you'll test positive."
Empirical, blind-test evidence of this claim, please.
>The new ridiculously low BAC forced by the feds (0.08) can get you nailed even if you are fine to drive.
.08.
Ridiculously low? I think I can drink three glasses of Bushmill's Malt and not blow
>That's the most ridiculously heavy-handed bullshit I've ever heard in my life. almost.
You are a poor driver trying to blame others for your deficiencies.
Example: Where do you drive that has a 65MPH speed limit leading up to a stop light?
And don't try the "everybody speeds and if you don't it's unsafe" argument with me.
>I've heard of people being 'caught' for simply being a foot past the stop line.
Over the line is in the intersection, or in the crosswalk.
You've never had your toes broken playing darts in a rowdy pub, have you?
Over the line is over the line. You ran the light.
"Before you get too worked up in your rant, most places in the world require a blood test before you are considered 'over the limit' to the extent where you can be prosecuted."
I've lived in several places where a police report that you failed a 40 degree Nystagmus test can put you in prison. No blood test, breathalyzer, etc. needed.
>Does the friggin' device work?
Of course, by the time they actually bring out the breathalyzer, they've probably already decided to arrest you based on the Nystagmus test. Most of the procedure is just misdirection to keep the suspect calm, thinking he still has a chance to avoid arrest, even though it's already a foregone conclusion. It gives the DUI suspect a chance to dig a deeper grave for himself... The breathalyzer result is more valuable for getting confessions in the field, rather than for evidence in court. They don't actually *need* mechanical sobriety tests, since HGN, one-leg-stand, walk-and-turn tests and the like, stand up just fine in court.
"A peace officer may ask someone to identify themself. That does not require that the individual do anything to confirm the identity. Therefore there is no requirement to produce any identity paper or document."
Likewise, a peace officer generally has broad latitude to take a questionable situation to a magistrate.
What's interesting here is that a magistrate agreed with the citation, meaning a District Attorney is prepared to argue a criminal case before a court hearing. Presumably, this means at least a 6-seat jury, unless the OP is dumb enough to waive his right to a jury trial (or if Ohio doesn't guarantee one.)
In my state, standing in front of a car, blocking the driver's egress where he has a right to leave, is misdemeanor assault. There are factors that make it a felony, for example, if you are armed while keeping someone from leaving. In that case, the victim has a reasonable apprehension that bodily harm may come to him if he does not comply with the detention -- and for that, you could (and should) find yourself in prison for years, possibly decades; life without parole if you've got three strikes.
"Whether they rent or own their spot on the property, doesn't it make that their property, and therefore their right due to it taking place on their property?"
So... I can make a restaurant and enforce a "no Jews, Blacks, or Irish" policy? It's my property, so I have the right to pick and choose whatever laws I want to follow, whatever rights of others I want to respect. Is that your position? Ownership of property makes one king within the boundaries of that property.
Try again.
At Sam's club or Costco, you sign a contract that says they can examine your cart and receipt. There's some language where they can go as far as to void your sale if they decide it's not right.
In my state, the scenario being described is clear assault. Speed or the force of bumping is not relevant until it gets promoted to attempted homicide or manslaughter.
On one hand: Trying to block someone's egress from a place he has a right to leave, is misdemeanor assault.
On the other hand: Trying to discourage them from blocking you by tapping them with your moving vehicle, is felony assault, and the driver will certainly have to face an argument made that it was attempted murder.
If someone testified that a product contained trade secrets, and it was shown otherwise, how is that not perjury? Shouldn't we be reading about contempt citations, disbarment, etc.?
I cannot think of an artist who would be more likely to have, say, a retired judge with time on his hands, as a fan.
Just sayin.
When they hand you your receipt, put it down your pants.
When they demand to see it, explain that they will have to get it themselves, which puts them in the position of either putting their hand down your pants (a serious crime), or strip searching you (something they genuinely have no right whatsoever to do.)
Make *them* call the police, and force them to go on record with a sworn accusation of shoplifting with no evidence.
>I handed her the birth certificate I carry around.
>
>-- That's all you have? she asked.
>-- That's all you'll get, I answered and she looked even more pissed-off because she could not ask for anything else and she knew it.
I carry my US Passport for this reason. Police tend to handle a State Department instrument differently from a state drivers license, partly because there are actually rules about handling a passport. It seems to make them nervous. And unless you're driving, they *know* they can't ask for any other ID, because doing so would imply that they have rejected the validity of a legitimate US passport.
They will take your drivers license and routinely keep it long enough to cross-reference your information. To do that starting with a Passport requires strong probable cause or a warrant.
I don't do much activism these days, so it has been a while since I've experimented. But I have found that using a Passport for ID seems to put you in a different category -- and it seems to persuade police to adopt a slightly more professional demeanor.
>ANY OTHER WAY HE MIGHT HAVE MADE IT?!
One good way: Make the STORE call the police, force them to go on record with a false accusation of a crime, and then use that to force
them into a very large cash settlement rather than being dragged into court.
What really happens in this situation, is that the police find no evidence, and that's the end of it -- because store employees usually know better than to make the arrest themselves (an "arrest" without evidence is, exactly, assault; which appears to be the case in this case.)
>Its nice that he tied up 911 for his "emergency".
You put "emergency" in quotes, but he was being assaulted, detained against his will, and the store employee had placed himself violently in a position where he could have caused serious bodily injury to himself. This is definitely an emergency, a violent crime is in progress, and a major disturbance of the peace is possibly imminent.
>Has anyone asked the obvious question, "why didn't he just show his receipt and let everyone get on with their day?"
Do you have a list of illegal and unreasonable requests that you think people should comply with, or is this the only one?
How about if they required each customer to prove he wasn't circumcised? Would you suggest he just comply and let everyone get on with their day?
There is no real difference between my example and the receipt business.
>Hmm, is this not technically ASSAULT (with a deadly weapon)?
Not technically, it *is*. Two wrongs do not make a right.
In my state, standing in front of a car in order to restrain the driver, is not only assault, it is also carjacking (but probably not on your private parking lot.)
If they touch you while you are detained against your will, and you can prove it, you own them. You can send them to prison.