THIS is drunk driving??

Great Debates
41

With the key word being could, I would agree with you in this particular case with regards to this particular aspect of this particular law.

My point concerning date rape is directly in relation to you (and I apologize if I made it seem like it was directed as stating you were in favor of rape), but in that with serious offense (i.e. rape, murder, drunk driving) we do not want officer making decisions as to what are good laws and what are not or even whether the circumstances of the events warrant the charging of a crime or not. I used date rape as an example, because there are some people who feel that such cases are blown out of proportion. If such a person was a police officer you would not want them to simply dismiss the case lightly. Similarly with drunk driving, if an officer felt that drunk driving laws or some aspects of them were wrong you would not want them to dismiss it lightly either, since it is a very serious offense.

IMO, this particular case was a miscarriage of justice. There was a violation of the spirit of the law by upholding the letter of the law. And this is exactly my point. The process is supposed to be that the police uphold the letter of the law, and the courts uphold the spirit of it.

You are also correct in saying that reality and the way things should work do not also coincide, and this is deeply regrettable, but the fix to this is not to increase the discretionary powers of the police to a wider array of crimes.

42

Pesonally, I don’t see the problem. Was losing his SUV excessive? To me, if it was a first violation, perhaps. Considering that it was his third, not at all. That means that twice before he broke the law, was explained what the law was (I’m assuming, because in CA, you have mandatory classes following a DUI where it is spelled out for you), and did it a third time. The fact that he was testing his stereo loud enough and long enough for neighbors to call in a complaint tells me that his judgement wasn’t the greatest, and usually, neighbors don’t call the cops for stuff like that unless someone has a history of doing it. (Personally, I think that neighbors who are inconsiderate and play music in their driveways like that should go to an “annoying tank” for the night… you want loud music, buy fucking headphones… don’t make me listen to your shit) The fact that he was at home breaking a law (however silly anyone may think the law is, it’s still a law) makes no difference. Nor does the argument that the cop should have only done something about the original complaint. To me, does that mean that if the cops are called for a noise dispute, and find that the stereo is loud cuz a guy is beating the shit out of his wife, that the cops should just ticket him for the noise only? That’s different you say? Why? If the law says that keys in the ignition is operating the vehicle, then that’s the law. Break the law, get in trouble. Break it three times, get in three times as much trouble. Private property or not, if it’s illegal, it’s illegal. If a warrant is not required, oopsie on them.

43

We’re off topic from the original post but what the heck. While I agree that we do not want police officers making enforcement decisions based solely on their personal opinions to what laws are good and which ones aren’t, I disagree with the statement that we don’t want the police investigating whether or not in their judgment “the circumstances of the events warrant the charging of a crime or not.” In fact, we do want police to make those initial judgments: that is their job. It is up to the police, after proper investigation, to decide whether the facts of the case warrant appear to warrant charging that particular person with a particular criminal offense or not. We don’t let the cops decide whether the person is guilty or not, but it is the police who, in the exercise of their professional judgment, decide whether or not a person should be charged with a crime.

Applying it to date rape and any other kind of rape, cops must exercise their judgment decide whether to charge a particular person or not.

I’ve heard cops say that if the Defendant has an alibi its up to the court sort it out but to me that’s nonsense. Of course, when one considers that police get paid overtime for court appearances one can see why they prefer to have matters resolved in court rather than deciding in the squad room not to charge somebody in the first place.

44

In reply to Patrick’s post, isn’t that how it already works? If there is reasonable cause to bring a person in for a crime, that is what happens. At that point, they generally are not “arrested” but “detained”. During this time, there is a set amount of time, typically 24 hours, for them to find satisfactory evidence to actually charge a person and then “arrest” them, otherwise, they have to let them go free while further investigation is conducted, if need be. In the case of something like date-rape, by the time it even gets to a court, the cop has long been replaced by lawyers who have long since decided if the cop has enough evidence to reach that point. Also, in many areas, cops have to do court appearances on their own time, not with overtime pay. If my father had gotten paid overtime for all his court time, he’d be a very rich man right now.

45

I agree. It was poorly phrased statement.

What I meant was a police officer should only let the circumstances of the case warrant whether a charge is placed or not when the law allows for the circumstances of the case to be a judging factor.

Other than that allowing an officer to examine the circumstances outside of what the law allows calls for the officer to use his personal feelings, and this is a bad thing.

Keep in mind that police officers are not expected to have a deep understanding of the nitty gritties of the law (although we are required to have a basic understanding of the law).

Lets take a self defense case. What might seem like an obvious self defense to somebody with a basic understanding of the law might not be when examined by a professional lawyer. In New York, a person is expected to take every opportunity to escape before using violence to escape. So a person who shoots an attacker might logically have defended themselves, but a New York DA might disagree and wish to charge them if the circumstances of the case indicate that they didn’t attempt to escape the confrontation first.

We cannot trust or require a police officer to be able to know and understand the law at this deep of a level, and that is what would be required for a police officer to be able to examine the wholeness of the case and make a fair charge under the letter and spirit of the law.

Of course, a lot depends on the crime in question.

46

That’s right – and if you think that the BAL rule is too restrictive, then curb your drinking so that you don’t accidentally exceed it. After all, you don’t HAVE to down that extra bottle of beer, do you?

47

Just so that no one gets confused around here:
EddietheDane, I stand by my previous statement. Furthermore, I would like to add that you are completely wrong!! Police and other officials write all kinds of citations for violations of civil infractions. It’s not just limited to traffic.

A DUI in Florida is only a misdemeanor. Not a felony! I would not believe it is a felony where you are without a cite.

The penalties for a DUI in Florida are:

**…

  1. By a fine of:

a. Not less than $250 or more than $500 for a first conviction.

b. Not less than $500 or more than $1,000 for a second conviction.

c. Not less than $1,000 or more than $2,500 for a third conviction; and

  1. By imprisonment for:

a. Not more than 6 months for a first conviction.

b. Not more than 9 months for a second conviction.

c. Not more than 12 months for a third conviction.

(b) Any person who is convicted of a fourth or subsequent violation of this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084; however, the fine imposed for such fourth or subsequent violation may be not less than $1,000.**

If you know anything about the law, and I doubt you do, you will note that up to a third conviction of DUI the suspect still only commits a misdemeanor. (Notice it is less than “a year and a day”.) Keep in mind this means conviction. Most people arrested for DUI, plea bargain out of it, get their liscense suspended for a little while and pay some fines. It is possible to be arrested for DUI dozens of times and never committ a felony.

BTW, as defined by Florida State Statute 318.13, an “‘Infraction’ means a noncriminal violation that may require community service hours, but is not punishable by incarceration and for which there is no right to a trial by jury or a right to court-appointed counsel.”
All you can get is a fine and ‘maybe’ community service. You cannot go to jail for a traffic infraction!! Traffic infractions are not criminal! If they are in your state, I would like to see a cite.

48

The Ryan, from what I hear, in California, they consider almost any detention an “arrest”.

In Florida pulling a vehicle over is only a detention. The driver is at no point ‘under arrest’. Even while the officer hands the ticket over to be signed, the violator is not under arrest. The only time an arrest could occur from running the stop sign, would be if the driver refused to sign the ticket. That’s it. (Or the driver had 10 kilos of cocaine in the front seat or something like that)

Keep in mind that though this is only a detention, the driver is not free to leave until the officer says so. That California thing where the conversation goes-

“Officer am I under arrest?”
“No, not at this time.”
“Then fuck this, I am outta here!”

-is not applicable in Florida.
In Florida it would be like this:
“Officer am I under arrest?”
“No, but if your ass tries to leave, you will be!!” (For resisting an officer)
In Florida, a suspect is not free to go during a detention. I have heard that in California, if a suspect is not free to leave, it is considered an arrest. So things are a little different.

BTW, during a traffic stop, an officer can- for any reason- order ALL occupants to exit the vehicle and have a seat on the curb outside. Mimms VS Pennsylvania So though this is just a detention, the officer still has a lot of authority during a traffic stop.

49

Two interesting post, Bear! I for one, appreciate the info!

50

Thanks Glitch.

I don’t know why I didn’t think about it before, but this is really relevant.

Stop signs and/or speed limit signs in supermarket or mall parking lots are not enforceable since they are on private property. :smiley:

51

Yes, but in the UK, a mall parking lot is still a “public road or place” as it somewhere to which the public have free (ie easy) access. You could still be done for drink driving there. The stop signs and speed limits signs are not enforceable in the same way as the publically controlled roads, so you couldn’t be charged with speeding, but a failure to comply with them could be important in associating blame if a collision occurs. You may also be done for careless/dangerous driving.

I don’t know, but I would imagine that things are not too different in the US.

52

Iguana Boy,
You are correct, things are not that different here. Drunk Driving, because it is a criminal offense, IS enforceable in parking lots. DUI is enforceable anywhere.
Running a stop sign and speeding are both civil infractions. They are not enforceable in parking lots.
As far as careless/dangerous driving, well there are two seperate offenses here. One, careless driving, is a civil infraction. Careless driving is “[not] having regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and all other attendant circumstances, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.”(SS. 316.1952)
The other, Wreckless Driving, is a criminal offense. Therefore it is enforceable in parking lots. I explained wreckless driving earlier.

Sure one person can still be at fault in an accident, but that is a matter for the insurance companies to argue. If someone hits you because they ran a stop sign in a parking lot, they are at fault. You can sue them and get compensated. Or more commonly, your insurance company gets their insurance company to pay for damages. Either way, these such things are all civil matters which, if it comes down to it, will be handled in civil court.