Posted on 10/30/2011 9:23:58 PM PDT by MovementConservative
Seattle police said Friday they were uncertain whether a detective was on duty when he was arrested for drunken driving after a traffic accident Thursday in Mukilteo.
John Fox, a 23-year-veteran of the Seattle Police Department, was charged Friday with driving under the influence (DUI). He pleaded not guilty during a brief appearance in Everett District Court on Friday afternoon.
Fox, 46, of Everett, refused to take a breathalyzer test to measure his blood-alcohol level, making him subject to a one-year suspension of his driver's license. Mukilteo police punched his license Thursday to make it unusable.
Fox, who was convicted 17 years ago of DUI, was driving a GMC Yukon belonging to the city of Seattle at around 1:20 p.m. when he rear-ended another vehicle at Chennault Beach Road and Mukilteo Speedway. The vehicle struck by the Yukon hit another vehicle, which in turn struck a fourth vehicle, police said.
No serious injuries were reported.
--snip--
Fox will be transferred while the criminal case is pending, Seattle police said.
Mukilteo police, in a written report, said that at the accident scene Fox's speech was slow and slurred and his eyes were watery and bloodshot. He also walked with a stagger and later lost his balance several times while being escorted to a holding facility, the report said.
Fox refused to take a portable breath test or undergo field sobriety tests at the scene, according to the report.
A search of the Yukon turned up six empty 50-milliliter (1.7-ounce) bottles of peppermint schnapps and a "nearly empty" 375-milliliter bottle of vodka, the report said.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
My cousin, a retired State Police Captain always told me: Never, ever convict yourself at the side of the road. Never accede to any sobriety test of any kind...ESPECIALLY blowing on the tube.
Smart cousin.
Yes, but in many states refusal of a breathalyzer is an automatic loss of license for one year. If he failed the field sobriety test, he’s sunk.
He’ll be out betting puppies with a knight stick before we know it.
LE is just a polite ,make work, welfare system.
Aw, he’ll get a desk job for that year, with the taxpayers picking up his transportation. Will take him off the street for a year but it won’t hurt his pay any.
Maybe they know something.
Don’t know how it is in Washington State, but a DWI/DUI conviction in Missouri gets your peace officer certification yanked.
—Fox, 46, of Everett, refused to take a breathalyzer test to measure his blood-alcohol level, making him subject to a one-year suspension of his driver’s license.—
That’s news to me. I understand that police, politicians and attorneys are notorious for ALWAYS refusing a breathalyzer because they do not accurately measure blood alcohol. Rather, they measure breath alcohol, which can vary wildly from individual to individual. If you refuse, they then have the option of taking you to the station for an actual blood alcohol test. You know, where they use actual blood.
I am under the impression that you can not be required to take a field breathalyzer test, but must allow the blood alcohol test or lose your license. It the story inaccurate, or am I the one that is wrong here?
You are CORRECT, ALL Field Sobriety Tests in every STATE are VOLUNTARY, however you must submit “After Arrest” for suspicion of DUI to either Breathalyzer or Blood Test. Which HE REFUSED to do After being arrested. My main question is why isn’t he being charged with ATTEMPTED MURDER??? He knew it could lead to injury or death, He has a Prior, He was fully aware of these facts, most Regular Citizens would be charged with ATTEMPTED MURDER in a case like this.
I am a very binary thinker. I see this as two separate things. The first is, was he drunk? The second is, should he lose his licens for not taking a field sobriety test?
I get the feeling that the answer to the former is that he was three sheets to the wind. But the answer to the second is, I thought, that he can refuse, but if the officer chooses to take him in to the station for a blood test, he will lose his license for a time if he refuses. But I did not know that “at the station” test could also be breathalyzer. I confess that if he was as drunk as the article suggests, even within a wide margin of error he would have lit the thing up. But that’s not really relevant. What’s relevant is “can they do a breathalizer at the station insead of a blood test and he suffers the same consequences refusing the former as he would refusing the latter.
I hope the answer is no.
Regarding murder, there would need to be proof of some intent to kill those people specifically (iow it’s personal). Otherwise it’s manslaughter voluntary or otherwise.
Yes they can do a Breathalyzer at the Station or take him for a Blood Test, (Once he is Arrested), it is the Arrestees Choice as to which one, refusal of both is Automatic Suspension.. As for the Attempted Murder see The guy in Fullerton that killed a Baseball player while driving drunk earlier this year, GUILTY OF MURDER serving 25 years. So Attempted Murder is the appropriate charge fro EVERY PUBLIC SERVANT arrested for DUI.
—refusal of both is Automatic Suspension.. —
That is the core issue for me. If one rejects the breathalyzer but accepts the blood test, they’re off the hook, especially if the blood test shows less than .08 (or whatever it is in their state).
My laser focused question is, can one lose their license for refusing the breathalyzer only? I thought the clear answer was no.
NO, the article clearly states he refused all testing, he is toast and belongs in PRISON and should be found to be a Threat to himself and the Community and be prohibited from ever using or possessing any firearm or ammunition in perpetuity
—NO, the article clearly states he refused all testing—
Which means this line is very misleading:
“Fox, 46, of Everett, refused to take a breathalyzer test to measure his blood-alcohol level, making him subject to a one-year suspension of his driver’s license.”
My focus really has been on that one line. It is the reason this is a story. People get drunk and hit other people all the time. What makes this a story to me was th legal technicality of refusing a breathalyzer and its implications. And the line above contradicted what I thought I understood.
Regarding his innocence and guilt and what should become of him, that is a different subject to me, and one I am not all that interested in, not knowing anyone involved in the case.
we call it SLOPPY and LAZY JOURNALISM, the reporter most likely went to a Public School and feels damn good about themselves though.
That requires probable cause for intoxication. If you're that drunk not only do you have no business driving, they'll get you anyway.
The suggesting was for those who are borderline and otherwise not visibly impaired.
Try .08 - .12 BAC. A grown man is not likely to be visibly impaired at that level but is certainly subject to arrest and the misery that MADD will put upon you via the DUI Cabal.
—Try .08 - .12 BAC. A grown man is not likely to be visibly impaired at that level but is certainly subject to arrest and the misery that MADD will put upon you via the DUI Cabal.—
That’s where I was going with this. I really hate MADD and I am NOT a drinking driver. Heck, I live in a dry county.
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.