Mangino gets $2.3 million

[MiamiBuffs]

And I'm not sure that's a good example of a program doing the right thing for its future.

Your right. Barnett cost CU a lot more than his salary in the end.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Oh yeah, you're a cop...do you think it would work?

Honestly, no I don't believe it would work. All I have to do is prove why I stopped you in the first place based on my video in the car, weaving within your lane, crossing the center line, crossing the fog line, etc. This would also provide proof that you were actually driving the vehicle. Then after I would observe you drinking your alcoholic beverage all I have to do is wait 15 minutes from that time and I can PBT you based on this time limit. There is no way that the alcohol you just drank is going to impair you in that fast to affect any of the field sobriety tests that I put you through. If you decided that you didn't want to stop drinking the alcohol when I asked you to I would just taze you and make you stop. :smile2:

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Honestly, no I don't believe it would work. All I have to do is prove why I stopped you in the first place based on my video in the car, weaving within your lane, crossing the center line, crossing the fog line, etc. This would also provide proof that you were actually driving the vehicle. Then after I would observe you drinking your alcoholic beverage all I have to do is wait 15 minutes from that time and I can PBT you based on this time limit. There is no way that the alcohol you just drank is going to impair you in that fast to affect any of the field sobriety tests that I put you through. If you decided that you didn't want to stop drinking the alcohol when I asked you to I would just taze you and make you stop. :smile2:

What if he refused the field sobriety tests?

 

[Buffarino]

What if he refused the field sobriety tests?

My thoughts exactly. Refuse the field test and demand a blood test. By the time they were at the station and did the blood test, the stuff you drank would already be in your system.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

My thoughts exactly. Refuse the field test and demand a blood test. By the time they were at the station and did the blood test, the stuff you drank would already be in your system.

Blood tests are usually done at a hospital, too. I haven't done much criminal defense (did do some prosecution of DUI's last year) but I am pretty sure that a defendant can demand blood work instead of a field sobriety or even a breathalizer test. But-- it could be that your license is automatically suspended if you refuse those.

Of course- a police officer doesn't HAVE to have any measure of intoxication to cite someone.. it could just be that he "smelled an odor of alcohol on his person" and saw "bloodshot eyes" and whatever other horsesh!t they try to get away with these days.

 

[77buff]

Honestly, no I don't believe it would work. All I have to do is prove why I stopped you in the first place based on my video in the car, weaving within your lane, crossing the center line, crossing the fog line, etc. This would also provide proof that you were actually driving the vehicle. Then after I would observe you drinking your alcoholic beverage all I have to do is wait 15 minutes from that time and I can PBT you based on this time limit. There is no way that the alcohol you just drank is going to impair you in that fast to affect any of the field sobriety tests that I put you through. If you decided that you didn't want to stop drinking the alcohol when I asked you to I would just taze you and make you stop. :smile2:

If it came down to one person's account of what happened vs a cop - I think the judge would favor the cop. No?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

If it came down to one person's account of what happened vs a cop - I think the judge would favor the cop. No?

As in all criminal prosecutions it would defend on the facts.

If it was a first time offender, the prosecutor would probably plea down to a reckless driving / transporting open container charge - both of which have significant impacts on an individual's driving record / insurance.

If it was someone with a long history - the prosecutor would probably go for it - realizing that neither the judge nor the jury is going to buy the defendant's story.

 

[96 Buff]

Of course- a police officer doesn't HAVE to have any measure of intoxication to cite someone.. it could just be that he "smelled an odor of alcohol on his person" and saw "bloodshot eyes" and whatever other horsesh!t they try to get away with these days.

Lots of cases where this is done, too. Gotta make those arrest numbers!

 

[Dorn09]

dollar per pound!

 

[87toInfinity]

So I guess I probably shouldn't test out my signature? :wink2: I still think it's a good idea. :smile2:

 

[buffwoman526]

Blood tests are usually done at a hospital, too. I haven't done much criminal defense (did do some prosecution of DUI's last year) but I am pretty sure that a defendant can demand blood work instead of a field sobriety or even a breathalizer test. But-- it could be that your license is automatically suspended if you refuse those.

Of course- a police officer doesn't HAVE to have any measure of intoxication to cite someone.. it could just be that he "smelled an odor of alcohol on his person" and saw "bloodshot eyes" and whatever other horsesh!t they try to get away with these days.

I know in NM you can demand a blood test. I would imagine many states follow suit. I also have a feeling that hospitals test the blood pretty damn quick once the suspect is brought in.

If you were to refuse roadside sobriety tests, refuse blood draw or BAC test at the station, I wonder what would happen. You would lose your license for a year, but schedule a DMV hearing and you can get a work permit license. Then all they have left is the reason for pulling you over (failure to stay in lane, not stopping at a stop sign, following too closely, etc.). If you aren't completely slurring your words and unable to stand (while refusing roadsides), it might be hard to prove on behavior alone.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

What if he refused the field sobriety tests?

Oh of course that is he/she's option if they want to. To be honest with you I want them to refuse the test because it makes my report alot shorter and the defense attorney can't try to tear apart your field sobriety tests. If they refuse the datamaster test here in Iowa they automatically lose their license for a year if it's their first offense and 2 years if it is their second or subsequent offense.

My thoughts exactly. Refuse the field test and demand a blood test. By the time they were at the station and did the blood test, the stuff you drank would already be in your system.

You can ask for a blood test here in Iowa, but only if you take the breath test that I offer you. If you refuse to take the breath test I won't even give you the option to get a blood test and even if you do it on your own it I believe they will not allow it in court.

Blood tests are usually done at a hospital, too. I haven't done much criminal defense (did do some prosecution of DUI's last year) but I am pretty sure that a defendant can demand blood work instead of a field sobriety or even a breathalizer test. But-- it could be that your license is automatically suspended if you refuse those.

Of course- a police officer doesn't HAVE to have any measure of intoxication to cite someone.. it could just be that he "smelled an odor of alcohol on his person" and saw "bloodshot eyes" and whatever other horsesh!t they try to get away with these days.

Don't like cops I see? Your right about us just having to prove their impairement based on our training and experience. How the person was driving and what we observed or smelled at the driver's window is all that we would have to prove.

If it came down to one person's account of what happened vs a cop - I think the judge would favor the cop. No?

Nothing ever favors a cop is just based on the evidence at hand. I can see your point though because cops are "supposed" to be honest on the stand and not lie about anything, but that doesn't always happen. Some cops will lie just to win cases because they feel they need to win those cases to boost their egos. When I arrest someone for OWI I've already won the case to me because I got that person off of the streets for that night. Anything that happens beyond that really doesn't matter to me and is up to the prosecution and how they need to feel about their job.

As in all criminal prosecutions it would defend on the facts.

If it was a first time offender, the prosecutor would probably plea down to a reckless driving / transporting open container charge - both of which have significant impacts on an individual's driving record / insurance.

If it was someone with a long history - the prosecutor would probably go for it - realizing that neither the judge nor the jury is going to buy the defendant's story.

While that's true I just recently arrested a guy for his 3rd OWI which in Iowa is a D Felony. The prosecution still worked a deal up for the guy and after the night that I arrested him all I did was a phone hearing on his driving priviledges and that was it.

Lots of cases where this is done, too. Gotta make those arrest numbers!

Jeez, the police don't have quotas or certain numbers we are supposed to meet. Obvioulsy a conspiracy theroist huh?! :lol:

So I guess I probably shouldn't test out my signature? :wink2: I still think it's a good idea. :smile2:

You can test it out if you want, but honestly I don't think it would work.

I know in NM you can demand a blood test. I would imagine many states follow suit. I also have a feeling that hospitals test the blood pretty damn quick once the suspect is brought in.

If you were to refuse roadside sobriety tests, refuse blood draw or BAC test at the station, I wonder what would happen. You would lose your license for a year, but schedule a DMV hearing and you can get a work permit license. Then all they have left is the reason for pulling you over (failure to stay in lane, not stopping at a stop sign, following too closely, etc.). If you aren't completely slurring your words and unable to stand (while refusing roadsides), it might be hard to prove on behavior alone.

I won't stop a car just for weaving within it's lane if I can help it. I wait until the driver crosses the center line, doesn't use turnsignal, etc. Here in Iowa all we need to stop someone on suspicion of driving while intoxicated in resonable suspicion which is lower than probable cause. For example if I see someone weaving within their lane, driving 10 to 15 miles an hour, etc. that is only resonable suspicion. Now if someone crosses the center yellow line, doesn't use turnsignal, speeds, etc. that is probable cause. It just helps my case for stopping them that much more if I can get probable cause.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Don't like cops I see?

Actually- I've spent my entire legal career either prosecuting municipal citations for the cops, or defending cops when they've allegedly committed constitutional violations.

For the most part, I think there are a lot of really good police officers out there who work hard, do a good job at what they do, and are just pretty good people.

But at the same time, I've also had cops who would arrest a person during their off time, while driving their own vehicle (not a patrol vehicle), while wearing plain clothes, just because they saw him driving a car while they knew his license was suspended. If I remember correctly, that cop even went so far as to pull his firearm because the other driver wouldn't stop.

I've also had enough illegal seizures of drugs thrown out to know that sometimes the cops forget that they have to follow proper procedure.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Actually- I've spent my entire legal career either prosecuting municipal citations for the cops, or defending cops when they've allegedly committed constitutional violations.

For the most part, I think there are a lot of really good police officers out there who work hard, do a good job at what they do, and are just pretty good people.

But at the same time, I've also had cops who would arrest a person during their off time, while driving their own vehicle (not a patrol vehicle), while wearing plain clothes, just because they saw him driving a car while they knew his license was suspended. If I remember correctly, that cop even went so far as to pull his firearm because the other driver wouldn't stop.

I've also had enough illegal seizures of drugs thrown out to know that sometimes the cops forget that they have to follow proper procedure.

Very good points and I can totally see where you are coming from. When I'm off-duty unless it's a life threatening situation I'm off-duty and not a cop. Some cops need this job to able to have a meaning in life.

 

[unbiasedtruth]

here is a good one. a lady beat a dui based on the fact that she asked for a blood test. in the state of texas a law officer is not qualified to draw blood under state law. she beat the dui/dwi because the blood the officer drew is not permisable in a court of law. this case goes back to 2005 and it was just ruled on this past week.

wonder what thats going to do to all the dui cases in texas where an officer drew the blood.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

here is a good one. a lady beat a dui based on the fact that she asked for a blood test. in the state of texas a law officer is not qualified to draw blood under state law. she beat the dui/dwi because the blood the officer drew is not permisable in a court of law. this case goes back to 2005 and it was just ruled on this past week.

wonder what thats going to do to all the dui cases in texas where an officer drew the blood.

That just doesn't make any sense why they would have the officers draw the blood!? They are just asking to lose cases that way???

 

[unbiasedtruth]

That just doesn't make any sense why they would have the officers draw the blood!? They are just asking to lose cases that way???

I am sure now that all suspected DWI/DUI cases will be taken to a local hospital to have the blood draw but someone that is licensed by the state to draw blood. No more police officers doing it at a temporary command post unless they are licensed by the state.

oh and remember this was just ruled on this past week. Thats why I said what I did ablove.

 

[Darth Snow]

Very good points and I can totally see where you are coming from. When I'm off-duty unless it's a life threatening situation I'm off-duty and not a cop. Some cops need this job to able to have a meaning in life.

See, I totally knew that Harold and Kumar go to White castle was based on at least SOME facts!

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

See, I totally knew that Harold and Kumar go to White castle was based on at least SOME facts!

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[87toInfinity]

You can test it out if you want, but honestly I don't think it would work.

I'll pass, but thanks for the support? :huh:

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I'll pass, but thanks for the support? :huh:

No problem. :lol: