i gues i would've just handled it like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0&feature=related
i gues i would've just handled it like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0&feature=related
I meant that they had ID'd him, as being the driver of the car. Not necessarily as Joey Porter but they knew that person was driving. Same with the car. If Porter did take off they wouldn't have any trouble ID either.Your right with the limited details but based on what we know or think we know is what I'm asking.
He already ordered him to give him his ID and he refused and then tried to roll up the window. What makes you think he would listen to an order to get out of the car? By saying no to the ID request and rolling up his window he is already showing to be troublesome.
You can say: "I doubt that Porter was going to drive off seeing as the police already had identified him and his car. I don't think he could be that stupid." All you want. But that doesn't make it so. People make stupid decisions all the time when they under stress and especially drunk. Joey has already shown he isn't quite the best decision maker when under the influence of alcohol. Also where did you read that the officer already identified Porter? From the details the officer was asking for ID which was refused?
I meant that they had ID'd him, as being the driver of the car. Not necessarily as Joey Porter but they knew that person was driving. Same with the car. If Porter did take off they wouldn't have any trouble ID either.
A general question. Can you refuse to take the HGN test? If that's the most telling, why would you submit to it?
Yes you can refuse. That is the one test where you have to have driver cooperation. because you need to check their eyes.
But even if you refuse the FST's and HGN and the breath test the officers can and will forcefully draw your blood. They will find out one way or another what your BAC was.
Also another thing I don't think people know is that you can be convicted of DUI even if your blood work comes back at say 0.7 below the legal limit. Seen it done on a few occasions.
I know of one small town around here where they keep the judge on call so that they can have a legal order for a search warrant to be able to take your blood just in case someone would argue that is was an illegal search and took blood against their will.Yes you can refuse. That is the one test where you have to have driver cooperation. because you need to check their eyes.
But even if you refuse the FST's and HGN and the breath test the officers can and will forcefully draw your blood. They will find out one way or another what your BAC was.
Also another thing I don't think people know is that you can be convicted of DUI even if your blood work comes back at say 0.7 below the legal limit. Seen it done on a few occasions.
I know of one small town around here where they keep the judge on call so that they can have a legal order for a search warrant to be able to take your blood just in case someone would argue that is was an illegal search and took blood against their will.
I had a white friend of mine a few years ago who had his keys out about to get in his car. Prior to entry, he was stopped by a police officer and was asked to take a breathalyzer. He blew above the limit and was cited for DUI.
So yes, it happens.
That's weird. There is the implied consent law. No search warrant required.
http://www.impliedconsent.org/impliedconsentlaws.html
Now that i think about, that was a couple years ago. Is that a relatively new law?
This is true, but can easily be fought. Everyone I know who got one 0.7 or below got it tossed in court when they hired a defense attorney.
Now that i think about, that was a couple years ago. Is that a relatively new law?
we have some goofy towns in Ohio. Do a search on New Rome police department and see what that turns up . That was right where i grew up and it was notorious for DUI/speedtrap. It got so bad they disbanded the PD and annexed the town into Columbus. I think it was a town of about 60 people but had an inordinate number of officers, maybe more than 10.Ohio DOES HAVE implied consent law. So a warrant isnt necessary BTW.
Section 5a
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.191
Have you read the police report? Were you there? You have no idea what happened.
For all we know what he did was much worse than what was reported.
One would think after the horrific damage that our media-darling super-celebrity Commander-in-Cheif has done to this country, Americans would be slightly less inclined to take the media's propaganda for scripture.
They absolutely can not force you against your will to take a breath test absent a judicial order.
However, most Implied Consent Acts dictate that you face an increased penalty such as "Aggravated DUI" which usually mandates jail time. And the officer has to inform the suspect of exactly that.
In New Mexico there is case law which allows argument from the State in refusal cases as follows:
"Refusal to take the test demonstrates consciousness of guilt"
You are right, they can't force you, but nearly every state has a penalty imposed on driver's who refuse to take the breathalyzer. Last time I had checked, I think it was 49/50 states had penalties for refusing to take a breath test.
In AZ, you have to take a breathalyzer; otherwise, they force you to give blood and can take your license away for 12 months. I actually remember something from when I was 16
By that logic, you can't have any faith in anything ever reported unless you're actually on location. Just a ridiculous argument. Clearly not everything reported is 100% accurate, but the vast majority of it is. I'll choose to have faith in the fact that 95%+ of what is reported is accurate, and not base my entire argument on outliers. It's a police report, not an Op-Ed.
I'll go with the assumption that there is a much greater chance that the police report was accurate, unless again there is some great conspiracy to frame Joey Porter, or the ever present DWB card.
This seems more appropriate for P and R...
EDIT: Although after reading Frank Rich's article on NYTIMES today, claiming that the backlash against the health care bill is a racist attack against Obama, and has nothing to do with the actual bill itself, continues to erode the credibility of NYTIMES.
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I believe this sentiment absolutely has some grounding in reality.
I don't live in az, but I suspect you are misinterpreting the law.
Seriously, how can you force someone to allow a needle to be stuck in their arm? You can't. Maybe in some third world country or 17th century America, but not today. Not in this country.
I don't live in az, but I suspect you are misinterpreting the law.
Seriously, how can you force someone to allow a needle to be stuck in their arm? You can't. Maybe in some third world country or 17th century America, but not today. Not in this country.
I don't live in az, but I suspect you are misinterpreting the law.
Seriously, how can you force someone to allow a needle to be stuck in their arm? You can't. Maybe in some third world country or 17th century America, but not today. Not in this country.