Profiled, arrested and impounded w/o evidence?

[Blaze]

Guys:

Question for you. It's 100% likely that I do not have all the facts here. But assming what I write below is true, would someone chime in and tell me what is/was legal as well as what if any consequences can be expected for the arresting officer.

Okay, so the story as I heard it is so: My 18 year old cousin was driving home in my little sisters car last night around 1AM. They live in the bad part of town. Apparently the local PD is doing a crack down on drugs in the area.

He gets pulled over (initially for speeding). He's very soft spoken as a rule, skinny and otherwise dresses like the average hip-hop tagger. He's then asked to step out of the car and perform the standard DUI test which came back negative. He's then arrested for being under the influence of methamfetamines or something similar and held over night. The car is impounded. He gets taken to the local jail where they gather additional evidence (blood test) and is not released until this afternoon.

Now to the best of my knowledge, he is not a drug user. So I have to assume that the blood work (still being processed) will come back negative. So my question is:

WTF?
How can the PD incarserate him w/o evidence.
Assuming the bloodword is negative, what (if anything) can be retributed for time in jail, personal indignity, being wrongfully accused.
Who is responsible for the impound fees that my sister had to pay.

And anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed?

TIA,

Blaze
:tickedoff:

[silvery_eagle]

wow wtf.....are they going to refund the money?? would getting a lawyer help?

[[p]dOG.]

I don't see why they would take him in if they found no evidence? and if he passed his standard DUI test that is even less of a cause to take him in because he is obviously reacting "normal"

[Blaze]

Well, I spoke with a deputy who stated that he would have to have failed the field sobriety test in some way/shape/form. Aside from a Breathalyzer, they have a series of tests that they perform, all of which are on a DR report. Once the blood work comes back, this report should be available, so we'll see what it says.

Possible contributors of legal failure would be taking Tylenol or an antihistamine. This can cause your pupils to diolate improperly when tested amoung other things. So, now I'll play the waiting game. I really want to see that test. But at least now I know it wasn't entirely a subjective decision.

Blaze

[EvoPwr]

Also, if he got really nervous, he might have been stumbling over questions and not have been acting like he normally does, which are also signs of being under the influence. Everything should work out though when the blood tests come back.

[Terenus]

WOW, that is total BS. How did the cops link speeding to under the influence of methamfetamines. Did they search the car? If it was clean I really dont think they ever had the right to arrest him.

[ap-evo83]

i work in the emergency room, and they can usually detect people using methampetamines by testing his urine-thats the quickest way.
people who take dietary pills(esp the herbal ones) sometimes comeback positive for meth.
if he tests negative i am pretty sure that they'll let him go.

[Blaze]

i work in the emergency room, and they can usually detect people using methampetamines by testing his urine-thats the quickest way.
people who take dietary pills(esp the herbal ones) sometimes comeback positive for meth.
if he tests negative i am pretty sure that they'll let him go.


Well, he's already out, poor kid.
I'm very curious to see whether or not the field sobriety test justified this.
I should know Monday.

[nurb2]

Guilty.

[gnulooks]

Its simple, everything starts with probably cause. The stop was initiated because of unsafe speed. From there, the officer asks your cousing to step out of the car to conduct some FST's. Depending on the officer's training, he could either be doing a series of tests for alcohol or central nervous stimulants, such as Meth. If the officer has training as a drug recognition expert, he can easily place your cousing under arrest for being under the influence of Meth, based on objective symptoms of intoxication, which I wont go into detail because it will take too long to explain.

From there your other family members' vehicle is towed incident to your cousin's arrest. The tow can either be for one day or thirty day, depending on your cousin's license status. Any way you slice or dice this, she is stuck with the tow bill because, I'm assuming, she willingly lent your cousin drive her car. I would have your cousin pay the other family member for the tow bill.

As for the test results, if they come back negative, your cousin will not face prosecution. As for recourse, there will be none against the officer as long as he was acting in accordance with the law. Hopefully this helps you understand the process your cousin went through, or maybe I just confused everybody. Just a little food for thought.

[Blaze]

I think that much of the process has already been understood and explained above.
And no, if he's found not guilty, neither he nor my sister will be liable for the towing bill.

In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study on the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped 21 individuals performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink to drive." Unknown to the officers, the blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 subjects was .00 percent. The results: 46 percent of the time the officers gave their opinion that the subject was too inebriated to drive. In other words, the FSTs were hardly more accurate at predicting intoxication than flipping a coin. Cole & Nowaczyk, Field Sobriety Tests: Are They Designed for Failure?, 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills 99 (1994).

So how accurate are they?

[gnulooks]

Depends whether its for alcohol or for drugs. As for alcohol, a well trained cop will use three tests (refered to as SFTS's) which are standarized throughout the nation and are recognized by NHTSA, they are horizontal gaze nystagmus, the one leg stand, and the 9 step walk and turn test. However, there will always be that individual subject who has medical problems that would prevent him from using his legs on two of the three listed tests. This means that other test could be used such as the finger to nose or the rhomberg test. All these tests will help the officer determine impairmant. Also, a police officer uses his experience to look at objective symptoms of intoxication such as slurred speech, red eyes, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage that can be emitted from a well ripened drunk. I can go own for days on details, but this kind of summarizes what is done out in the field in most cases.

As for accuracy, I can use the nystagmus test to pretty much determine your blood alcohol content (BAC) within .02 to to .05 BAC, but that takes a lot of practice and experience. However, usually one test alone will sometimes not satisty the court to help determine intoxication or help form an opinion. Unless, the person is combative or just plain shitfaced...

[Blaze]

Well again, it's kind of pointless to debate the specifics of what was or wasn't tested.
I'll post the DR report when I pick it up Monday or Tuesday. On the DR report should be the specifics of the tests performed along with the results of the blood work done.

We'll see if my faith was misplaced or not.

[gnulooks]

So was whats the final outcome of the tests?

[Smogrunner]

Yeah, cause gnulooks is muy curioso.

[Blaze]

No outcome yet.

The records department at the local PD station refused to release the records prior to the arraignment without a soupina.
I can't imagine why not. I was told the records should be public knowledge (less any private info like lic, SS # or address).

As I've asked around, it seems that several people have been sited, arrested and lost their cars to the PD like this. I honestly think this is a crack down and he was just "in the wrong place at the wrong time". We'll see if I'm right.

Blaze

[909Evo]

Eh hem, well, yea that slipped my mind. It needs to go the araignment first, as that decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

[909Evo]

gnu, are you a pd or so?

[gnulooks]

I could be PD, SO, or a lawyer...

[Blaze]

I could be PD, SO, or a lawyer...


How cleverly illusive of you.

[909Evo]

Sneaky Sneaky...

However most lawyers can't use angle of onset in determining level of intoxication.... at least not most lawyers I know.

[Tarmac02]

Anything??? I'm interested. Quite a few on here know what I do for a living so no need to throw out jargon.

[Blaze]

Anything??? I'm interested. Quite a few on here know what I do for a living so no need to throw out jargon.


The courts date has come and gone and the result was.....
A postponement.

Due to the fact that the court system did not receive the lab results?
I'm no lawyer, and of course, I'mpartial to my cousin, but I really think the case should have been dismissed if they did not have evidence....

On a side note (without a conviction) the DMV sent him a letter stating his lic was about to be suspended. He now has to provide proof to the DMV (regardless of the outcome of the trial) that he's been cleared, otherwise they'll suspend his lic. That didn't sound right at all. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[909Evo]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?


That was just something we told you as a kid to make you feel warm and fuzzy.

[Evorob]

any new news on this subject?

[BMan]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?


That statement has a few words left off...
As I recall it was, "If you have enough money you are innocent until proven guilty."

[ernald711]

i'm interested too in the turnout of this...

[Blaze]

Final Update:

Seems the paperwork on the blood work mysteriously vanished.
So case dismissed.

How convenient. :tickedoff:

[fusionchicken]

WTF

[x[corwyn]]

Guys:

Question for you. It's 100% likely that I do not have all the facts here. But assming what I write below is true, would someone chime in and tell me what is/was legal as well as what if any consequences can be expected for the arresting officer.

Okay, so the story as I heard it is so: My 18 year old cousin was driving home in my little sisters car last night around 1AM. They live in the bad part of town. Apparently the local PD is doing a crack down on drugs in the area.

He gets pulled over (initially for speeding). He's very soft spoken as a rule, skinny and otherwise dresses like the average hip-hop tagger. He's then asked to step out of the car and perform the standard DUI test which came back negative. He's then arrested for being under the influence of methamfetamines or something similar and held over night. The car is impounded. He gets taken to the local jail where they gather additional evidence (blood test) and is not released until this afternoon.

Now to the best of my knowledge, he is not a drug user. So I have to assume that the blood work (still being processed) will come back negative. So my question is:

WTF?
How can the PD incarserate him w/o evidence.
Assuming the bloodword is negative, what (if anything) can be retributed for time in jail, personal indignity, being wrongfully accused.
Who is responsible for the impound fees that my sister had to pay.

And anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed?

TIA,

Blaze
:tickedoff:


So did you get reimbursed for impound fees? Was there an apology for holding him without evidence?

[IguessNot]

wow... i hate bs like that...

[EVO Neil]

Yes, any apology or financial reimbursement?

[Blaze]

]
So did you get reimbursed for impound fees? Was there an apology for holding him without evidence?


They arrested him on unfounded suspicion. It's the officers call and we all know how that works.
Apology? Are you kidding? What utopia are you from?
As for the reimbursement, they won't make it easy. It's not like they'll cut him a check at the court. He has to do quite a bit of follow-up red tape.

What he does have to do is fight to get his license back. Before he was even tried, the DMV suspended it due to the charges. You gotta love that.

Blaze

[x[corwyn]]

]
So did you get reimbursed for impound fees? Was there an apology for holding him without evidence?


They arrested him on unfounded suspicion. It's the officers call and we all know how that works.
Apology? Are you kidding? What utopia are you from?
As for the reimbursement, they won't make it easy. It's not like they'll cut him a check at the court. He has to do quite a bit of follow-up red tape.

What he does have to do is fight to get his license back. Before he was even tried, the DMV suspended it due to the charges. You gotta love that.

Blaze


I wish I knew more about this, but I would hope there is some sort of civil case you could build on them based off of all of this, and call into question this act that should have been illegal and if not, there probably should be a way to push this with the local lawmakers and our congressmen/senators. Whatever happened to innocent till proven guilty, indeed.

[Blaze]

I don't know what to tell you that I haven't already said.
I'm a third party in this, so all my information is just that....

I'm sure a civil case could be built on this. I'm sure eventually he'd win to.
That part of my family doesn't have the money it would take to win, nor are they as "prideful"/vindictive as some of us might be. So, I think he's just going to let by-gones be bi-gones.

But I tell you, if it were me, I'd have the cop in court, if nothing else, so that it was on his record for if someone else had a problem with him. I'd follow every avenue to be a pest, because I am a vindictive SOB with nothing better to spend my money on.

So yeah, I feel you. It's too bad my cousin doesn't.

Blaze

[kwanza]

"How can the PD incarcerate him w/o evidence."
-cops are allowed to use discretion, even if they are wrong

"Assuming the bloodword is negative, what (if anything) can be retributed for time in jail, personal indignity, being wrongfully accused."

-Check the penal code or motor vehicle code; or get an attorney. Usually cops, local, state, and federal goverment agencies are immune from suits, but you can look into pursuing a suit against him directly, but you will need a cause of action like unlawful persecution

"Who is responsible for the impound fees that my sister had to pay."
-Registered owner of vehicle

"And anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed?"
-determine what state, then review penal code and vehicle code for that state (a lot of research); or call a criminal defense attorney that handles traffic/drug offenses (may cost some $)

[LiquidLife]

There isn't any kind of financial reimbursement, nor do they care, hahaha.Â* The only way is to sue... that probably won't get anywhere.

Cop can write anything he wants on the report, *** them....Â* If a cop takes you away because he thinks you are on drugs, he's going to write on his report a bunch of bs stating that he had probable cause, pupils, coordination all that crap...Â*

This is a loose loose situation, the only thing good that is going to come out of this is the blood comes back negative, and the bs is finally over.
>:( :tickedoff: