I have never seen anyone win a case on an estimate. Radar units have a moving mode as well as a stationary one. No one is just accepted as an expert. It has to be part of your training. I remember being tested on it. You are supposed to estimate the speed just as a part of the burden of proof. You see the car going at a high rate of speed then confirm the actual speed with the radar unit.
Of course I can only directly comment on what I am familiar with, which is how things are done in New Jersey.
I know she doesn’t have a bad driving record. I’ve known her for 40 years. She may well have been convicted of reckless driving, which is the point I’m trying to make. The distance from the bowling alley to her house is approximately 1/2 mile and the speed limit is around 40 mph if I remember correctly. It is a major road and she’d have two stop lights to go through on that route. Obviously, I cannot provide a cite. I’m going by what she told me and I have no reason to think she’d lie. The cop had no evidence of DUI so she was almost certainly convicted of reckless driving. She still had a 6 month suspension. Her lawyer did a shitty job.
Here is a case of someone who was impaired through lack of sleep.
Due to the serious nature of the incident, the driver was charged with dangerous driving.
This can actually carry a life sentence, not the 14 years as in the link, however, bad as this is, it is not anywhwere near bad enough to qualify for the maximum, unless the driver has previous.
I’d expect no more than 8 years, probably a few less.
The point you are trying to make is unclear. The OP is about impairment. You stated that your friend “was pulled over after NO drinks, NO drugs, NO lack of sleep.” Your friend was then “booked” even though she did nothing wrong. Booked means arrested. She was arrested for DUI? She was arrested for running a red light? It doesn’t make sense. Did you use the wrong term? Maybe you meant she was cited? In fact you said specifically “Her license was suspended for 6 months, presumably because she was “impaired in some way.” So yes, they can do whatever the hell they want and you have little recourse.” This being GQ and all I asked for some sort of proof. There are two elements that have to be proven in a DUI case, operation and impairment. Operation in this case is not an issue. Impairment must be proven.
Now you are backtracking. Instead of "Her license was suspended for 6 months, presumably because she was ‘impaired in some way’ ", it is now “She may well have been convicted of reckless driving, which is the point I’m trying to make.” I can understand that you trust your friend. I doubt your friend is telling you the whole story. She went to trial, she was convicted of a serious offense. Something happened. Unless you have anything to back it up pronouncements like “So yes, they can do whatever the hell they want and you have little recourse” have no place in GQ.
I won’t dispute the 6 months supension for reckless driving. It doesn’t seem right to me either but I know sentencing is different from state to state. In NJ it is possible to get that long a suspension for it but it would probably have to be for an accident with serious injuries or multiple offenses. To compare, your first DUI will get you a 6 month suspension (3 months if the reading is between .08% BAC and .10% BAC). No insurance, 1 year suspension.
One other thing, it is not easy to get a conviction on reckless driving. In fact it is probably the hardest motor vehicle statute to get a conviction on. (I am assuming Illinois is similar to all the reckless driving statutes I am aware of) The difference between reckless driving and careless driving(a much more minor charge) is intent. Like the difference between (in broad terms) murder and manslaughter. In court not only would the original action have to be proven (running a red light, swerving back and forth across the road, plowing through a pack of nuns…) it would also have to be proven that it was done *intentionally * not just because of lack of attention. In my experience reckless driving is cited very rarely. It is usually reserved for things such as driving 30 mph over the speed limit, smoking your tires at a busy intersection and peeling out or getting in your car when you are drunk off your ass. Most times when I have seen a conviction is when the breathalyzer reading is thrown out for some reason and the prosectutor doesn’t want to go to trial with just the video of the driver falling down and pissing on himself.
A person who drives under the influence and doesn’t blow will get a reckless driving conviction, complete with suspension. That’s the law in Illinois. The cop told her she felt “she was on something”, but couldn’t prove it. Just like a person who doesn’t blow. The end result is the same. Look…I wasn’t there. I just know that she told me she blew clean and still got a 6 month suspension.
You are getting a few things confused. You say she blew clean. And you say she refused. The cop had to have proved something. There was a conviction. Thats it. It’s not like a refusal. There is something called implied consent. This is the way it is in New Jersey and after looking over the Illinois code they have the same thing, although they seem to be a lot more long winded about it. According to the law the priviledge of driving carries with it the implied consent to submit to chemical tests of your blood. In each state the mechanism of that test is a bit different. You are not allowed by law to refuse. If you refuse you do not get a reckless driving conviction. It is a completely different issue. A drunk driver would get a ticket for DUI and refusing to submit to the test. Of course the law doesn’t want a refusal to have any advantage for the driver. The penalty for refusal is exactly the same as DUI. It has nothing to do with reckless driving.
From what I read in the Illinois statute officers are allowed to give a breath test at the scene. You are allowed to refuse that. You may then be made to (I’m assuming that involves an arrest at this point) come down to where they test and submit breath, blood and or urine. Even if you blow clean and there is probable cause they may take you in for further testing. Alcohol is not the only thing that causes intoxication but it is the only thing that shows up on a breath test. (the portable machines are also inaccurate and are only used as part of probable cause and not as the scientific reading) If you refuse at that point you are done. There really isn’t any defense for a refusal. It’s an easy conviction. Any driver with a licence should know this. If your friend refused then she rightly got her suspension. If she really was clean and sober a refusal was stupid. A clean test would not have gotten a conviction. If she refused any further tests out of some protest then she was very misguided. If she felt there was no probable cause for the stop or detention the time to argue that is in front of a judge.
The implied consent law in Illinois seems to be much broader than the one in New Jersey. Here implied consent covers breath samples. Anything other than voluntary submissions of blood or urine must be done with a court order. This is GQ so I put in as much facts as I could. You do realize that there is something missing between *he couldn’t prove it * and she got a 6 month suspension. If you are going to make statements like “So yes, they can do whatever the hell they want and you have little recourse” then you need to back it up with the facts, especially in GQ.
In my experience those who make comments like this are usually criminals. See the problem with painting with a broad brush? Really statements like this are ridiculous. Certainly there are bad cops. Most don’t last too long. But why would anyone go around “nicking” people at random and then lie about it? Why would I want to make more work for myself. How many people in any profession do you know who purposely make their jobs more difficult? It doesn’t make sense. It is a lot easier to “nick” those that deserve it and be happy when every thing is going smooth. Why look for trouble? Why put your career on the line? Why risk your families well being? So you can write a traffic ticket? Please. There are plenty of people violating laws and motor vehicle statutes to keep me busy. There is no need to lie or make things up.
However, I find it amusing that you should brand anyone who questions your group’s ethics as ‘criminal’.
In my experience there are ‘bad’ cops, ‘thick’ cops’ and fairly smart guys who are keeping their heads down so that they can get full pension after 25 years.
You probably have sod all understanding of the UK and the UK police force, and it is possible that you don’t try to boost your conviction rate.
It would, perhaps, be sensible to assume that I have a better understanding of the UK than you.
To give you a tip, in the UK retired policemen are fairly Ok, those coming up to 25 years are totally intimidated - lying is normal (well they must be guilty of something) - watch out for old and new style inspectors.
I find it amusing that you don’t understand what paint with a broad brush means or how my second sentence qualifies the first one.
How do you have such a large amount of experience that you can judge every officer in your country? What caused you to have that much direct contact with a large cross section of officers? Up until age 30 I had many three direct contacts with the police. This is in the most densely populated state in the country. Hardly enough experience to make broad pronouncements. So how many times have you dealt with the police and seen them lying for some reason. Are you a lawyer, a cop , a criminal? Enlighten me. Your post is not your cite, this is GQ.
You know, so often the conversations end up this way…
Anyway, I was wondering about something entirely different. What if you get stopped because you’re driving badly and it’s out of sheer dumbness or whatever, BUT you’re taking a prescription drug that is normally Schedule II and illegal?
Now, understand, Adderall itself does not affect driving (for me, anyway.) And I’m not spending a lot of time worrying about this happening to me, because I’ve never been pulled over for anything but a speeding ticket. Actually, I don’t remember ever being asked to take a breathalyzer test. I don’t drink alcohol (whch was a good thing when I got prescribed Adderall, because it’s a bad idea to drink while taking it. Kids, don’t mix alcohol and amphetamines! But still, I do have to wonder. Could it complicate things in some weird way?
I was told, by a cop, that the prescription doesn’t make any difference, legally. Having the prescription will get you off for possession, that’s all. You might get sympathy from a judge if you’re not involved in an accident.
This question is another good arguement for impairment testing over consumption testing.
