🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 21:09:11 GMT, DataRat <datarat@home.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Can you enforce the FST in your state?
> Here in Colorado, it's voluntary and they
>don't have to do them."
>
>
>Same in Arizona.
>
>
>
>"You either have to have PC to arrest when
>you stop or chance losing the collar if they
>refuse the roadsides."
>
>
>Not in Arizona.   We can use any evidence of
>impairment.   The Police Rodent rarely has
>anyone refuse a voluntary FST.   But -if they
>do- he has another strategy,
>
>"Alright, sir, you have the right to refuse a
>Field Sobriety Test.   But it also seems your
>passenger-side headlight is out of alignment.
>Come up to the front of your vehicle and I'll
>show you what I'm talking about."
>
>Try to get the guy to bend over and look at
>his head lamp.   Anything he does in the
>way of stumbling, losing his balance, failing
>to understand Ofc. Rat's directions, etc.
>can be used as proof of impairment in court.
>You'll recognize all the basics of a FST -except
>it's not formally done.   Sort of a covert FST
>done by ruse.   Have never lost a case when
>this was DR's PC for an arrest and Intoxilizer
>test.

Yup, and even easier since the USSC has ruled that you can require
*everyone* to get out of the car for "officer safety" reasons.
Observed conduct is always admissible......but you do have to have pc
for the stop.

>
>
>
>"I don't know where you got your DUI training,
>but mine told me that the NHSTA chart I used for
>DUI enforcement said that driving more than
>15 mph below the posted limit was a '50%er',
>which means that according to statistics, 50%
>of the people doing so are DUI."
>
>
>Not going by charts.   And you missed his
>point, anyway.  He wasn't saying that 50% of
>people driving more than 15 mph below the
>posted speed aren't DUI.  He was saying that
>more than 50% of impaired drivers don't drive
>notably slow or notably fast.   Totally different
>concept.

Hm....okay....I guess.

>
>
>
>"But then it does take some extra training and
>experience.'
>
>
>Well, were all sure you are better trained and
>more experienced than the rest of us.

Well, when somebody says they have to have a .2 to detect a DUI, I
have to wonder.   Most of my DUI specialist friends are routinely
working the 0.05 to 0.08 range reliably based on observations of
driving behavior.

>
>
>
>"I can detect a 0.2 BAC within about 15 seconds.
>I can *still* do it, even though I haven't done DUI
>enforcement for more than 10 years."
>
>
>Your retirement obviously was a catastrophic loss
>for all of law enforcement.

Thanks, the DA though so too....Gave me a lovely letter of
recommendation should I decide to get back into it.

>
>
>
>"You need to get some specialized DUI training..."
>
>
>It probably wouldn't help, not all of us are God's-gift-
>to-law-enforcement, such as yourself.

True, but you can always aspire to my Olympian heights....everybody
needs a goal to strive for....

>
>Sheesh !   The Police Rodent sure is glad he
>never had to work with this arrogant jerk.

Geeze....touchy little rat, aren't you?

You ought to get a handle on that temper before you bite someone and
give them rabies.

Regards,

Scott Weiser

******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/

Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser

Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial 
e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
sole jurisdiction.