“ Federal prosecutors, however, dismissed the DWI and reckless driving charges, noting that Springsteen’s blood alcohol content was a measly 0.02 — far below the state’s legal limit while driving of 0.08.”
Then why was he charged at all?!
Either this is a huge injustice or the federal prosecutors have falsified evidence for a political ally.
Blowing under 0.08 doesn’t clear a driver.
Blowing OVER 0.08 makes it easier to convict on other charges.
Technically, you can be charged with “impaired driving” in most states even if your blood-alcohol content is below the legal limit. It’s common for this sort of thing to be reduced in a plea deal.
Wonder what happened to the Park Ranger that brought him in.
If he blew .02, then there’s no way the Park Ranger is locking him up.
As they say, especially with Democrats.....Sumthin’ ain’t kosher in Denmark
In most cases, an individual is stopped on suspicion of a DWI and given Standard Field Sobriety Tests. On occasion, these tests are omitted, usually if doing them at the scene would be a safety issue (think heavy traffic, a severely impaired driver, or an unruly crowd or crowded area).
If the officer believes he has probable cause for an arrest (not a conviction but an arrest) the individual is arrested and asked to provide a blood or breath sample. Very often (because juries much prefer blood tests) the individual is asked for a blood sample. If the individual agrees, he is transported to a local hospital for a blood draw. If he does not, a warrant is prepared and sent to a local magistrate on duty and a warrant for the blood is obtain and the individual is taken to the hospital for a blood draw.
Once the blood draw is complete, the blood is sent to the local state lab for testing, which can, depending on backlog, take weeks or months. In the meantime, the individual is booked into jail, magistrated, given a bond amount, posts bond and waits for a court setting. If the person is well known, the fact of the arrest are plastered everywhere even though he hasn’t been convicted of anything yet.
Once the blood results come back, a prosecutor takes a look at offense reports, any video the officer has/provides, and the lab results and makes a determination if he has sufficient evidence to prove to the jury the individual’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In some counties and states, the charges have already been prepared and the case is dismissed at this time. If charges were filed and the blood alcohol content is very high, the charges are amended at this time to reflect a greater offense charge due to the higher BAC. In other states, the charge would not be prepared until this time so if the state does not intend to proceed, they refuse charges.
This, under normal circumstances can take weeks or months.
This is neither an injustice or falsification of evidence but the way things actually work in the real world not a 30 - 60 minute crime drama on TV.
He was drinking in a closed area while on his motorcycle and refused to take an on spot test.
I vote for #2.
Yes, it isn’t illegal to have his blood level and be driving, or to drink and drive. It’s only illegal to be “impaired” (and/or at an illegal level of BAC).
Absolutely right. Something bs is going on here.
“Then why was he charged at all?!”
Probably because he was being an a-hole. Anyway, if the Left has no problem spying on Trump and then impeaching him twice, I have no problem with Springsteen being arrested, regardless of whether he did anything wrong.
I’m going with fake evidence ... took their cue from the FBI labs .... just order the result desired.