Posted on 10/29/2015 4:52:07 AM PDT by simpson96
After being pulled over for driving at night without her headlights on, a âfidgetyâ Florida woman exhibited several signs of intoxication, according to a recent police report.
The motorist failed a series of field sobriety tests. Since her blood alcohol content registered a .000, police suspected--correctly as it turned out--that the driver was impaired due to the ingestion of some kind of illegal narcotics.
But what likely convinced officers that the woman was driving under the influence was what happened when she was asked for her driverâs license. The subject, cops noted, "attempted to hand the officer a baseball card."
(Excerpt) Read more at thesmokinggun.com ...
Her blood alcohol content registered zero.
But she still got a DUI. What a wonderful world we live in.
A cop thinks you’re drunk, they have a test for it, you test negative, you still get arrested and go to jail.
Never, ever, ever submit to a sobriety test. Ask for a lawyer, because you’re going to jail even if you say your cba’s perfectly and walk like a professional tight rope walker.
That is weird, what if she was having some sort of epileptic or other type of medical episode? Stroke maybe? Also, I’d like to hear this story from another source. TSG seemed to only be focused on the baseball card.
I don’t think they will dispatch a lawyer to the traffic stop. Wouldn’t your advice ensure a trip to the station house? And a tow plus impound fees?
Hell no they won’t. Which is a violation of your rights.
Cops can do whatever they want. To whoever they want. Then get away with it. Period.
Ever try to fight a traffic ticket? You’ll never win. The cop is worth one hundred eye witnesses on your side. You’ll still pay.
If she was impaired enough to hand over a baseball card, she shouldn’t have been driving no matter what was influencing her.
No, occifer I’m not as think as you drunk I am!
CC
Under the influence of drugs is still DUI.
Blowing under 0.08 (headed down to 0.05 courtesy of the CDC with plans to bump it down to 0.03, while Sweden’s ‘oh so smart’ measure is 0.01) does not “clear” you of charges in this country, it’s just that blowing OVER 0.08 will get you charged with ‘evidence’ of ‘impairment’ (even though that is not where the accidents caused by alcohol are occurring and is far below anything the founder MADD was after, she later saw it as a neoprohibitionist movement).
Go do some carnival stunts by the roadside...
no matter what they say, you're guilty until proven innocent in this day and age. The incentive to make money for the court systems is more important than whether the person is guilty or innocent so you are screwed from square one. That's the reason these court systems hire these professional municipal court attorneys who reel off all their "proof" of the Defendent's guilt like robots; they do it every single day and visit multiple court systems 300 + days a year.
Driving under the influence means drugs OR alcohol.
Even prescription drugs if they can impair you.
There are any number of controlled substances that will impair your ability to drive a vehicle. Until recently the presumptive tests (like the breathalyzer) have only been able to detect alcohol. To figure out what is impairing her a blood test was required. Now, she can decline the blood test but as a result her drivers license is immediately suspended. In the near future there will be presumptive tests for cannabis and opiates as well as alcohol. She was arrested because her ability to drive a car was impaired, not because she was drunk. Impaired is impaired, I don’t care what she took she shouldn’t have been driving.
CC
Back in my 20s (1970s) I was pulled over by a cop after a night at a bar. I was definitely intoxicated, but I passed all the field tests, so the cop let me go. Things were different in the pre-MADD world.
That is a chilling statement.
How many adults, who have been diagnosed with ADD or depression are driving on a daily dose of MAOI medication?
Exactly.
But I can guarantee this lady wasn’t on anything prescribed.
Overall, I’d argue that a “prescription should not exempt soemoen from the law.
...but, it certainly does!
Similarly, I have never seen someone who genuinely had ADD act in the manner of this lady while on their meds.
“MADD”
Bigger, more powerful and influential than ever. It’s not about safety as much as it is about creating felons who pay through the nose in fines, lawyer fees, court costs and insurance premiums. If it was about safety, MADD would have a new focus on and task forces against texting and driving.
By any objective standards she was severely impaired...
In that condition I don’t (nor should anyone else) want her operating heavy equipment around our kids and grandchildren out on the road....
The cops couldn’t legally, morally or ethically allow her to continue to operate the vehicle....
Arrest her sorry arse and let the medical and legal folks sort it out......
Good call by the cops!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.