Jump to content


Photo

dwi arrest with no alcohol or drugs


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 snowey

snowey

    New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:58 PM

My state is Louisiana.My 19 year old son was arrested for DWI.  He does not do alcohol or drugs.He is a hard worker and worked all day.at 12 am  they pulled him over for driving on line. They asked what have you been drinking ,he said nothing ,they asked what drugs did you take he said nothing.


they searched the car NO DRUGS NO ALCOHOL ! the officer insisted he was on drugs they did a sobriety test and he failed because he was tired .they arrested him,he took breath test 0000,he passed. they made him do a urine test but said it takes SEVERAL WEEKS to get back so they lock him up.HE KNOWS HE DOES NOT HAVE DRUGS IN HIS SYSTEM BUT THEY ARREST HIM ANYWAY. we had to bail him out 12 hours later .we got our own urine test at a hospital(paid $129) and all drugs came back NEGATIVE. so we take it up to the police station and show them to their face NEGATIVE no drugs in his system. as of today 3 days later he still has a DWI and they still have his license so I guess we have to go through the state to get his license back.


Is this legal that they can make people wait weeks for a urine test ? and how can they lock them up while they are waiting for this test. what if people do not have the money to bail out (we borrowed it),they have to not only wait weeks for urine test but for a court date also.


HOW CAN THEY TREAT PEOPLE THIS WAY! a young person is a hard worker stays away from alcohol and drugs and this is the way they treat them!


 



#2 Tax_Counsel

Tax_Counsel

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,617 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:00 PM

snowey said...

HOW CAN THEY TREAT PEOPLE THIS WAY! a young person is a hard worker stays away from alcohol and drugs and this is the way they treat them!

They can do it because the circumstances apparently looked to the cop as though he was driving under the influence of something. If the cop had training on what signs to look for to determine possible influence of an illegal drug and he saw those signs in your son, that's enough for the probable cause to make an arrest for DUI. Contrary to your assertion, the cops apparently did NOT know your son had no drugs in his system. Had they known that, I'd expect they'd instead have cited him for careless/reckless driving for driving when he's too tired to drive safely. Probable cause is not a high standard; the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies at trial. Trial is when your son can contest the charges, if it makes it that far. He should get an attorney—if he can't afford one, he needs to see about getting a public defender.

One thing for your son to consider — driving while tired can be just as dangerous as driving with some alcohol in his system. For both his safety and that of other persons on the road, he'll want to learn not to drive when he's really tired.


#3 snowey

snowey

    New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:43 PM

thank you


but you didn't answer the question about the urine test.if I got one in 25 minutes to prove his innocence. why should a person have to be locked up and wait several weeks to prove they are not on drugs.


I would be ticked off if someone accused me like that  when I know that I do not drink or do drugs. we should be innocent until proven guilty. BTW this police department has had issues the FBI has been investigating and arrested the sheriff a month ago.


so an arrogant overzealous police officer can do what he wants is the answer I am getting .seems so wrong. It could happen to you!



#4 Tax_Counsel

Tax_Counsel

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,617 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:57 PM

snowey said...

but you didn't answer the question about the urine test.if I got one
in 25 minutes to prove his innocence. why should a person have to be
locked up and wait several weeks to prove they are not on drugs.


First, the cops and prosecutors are not required to accept as accurate the test your son had done. They don't know how the test was done, don't know it's reliable, don't know that the report you're handing them hasn't been doctored. They'll instead want to see the results of the test they had done under conditions known to them. Second, the reason it takes weeks is, quite simply, money. The voters evidently haven't pushed to spend the money for a testing lab for law enforcement that can promptly process every sample the moment it comes in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's expensive, and tax dollars pay for that.

"I would be ticked off if someone accused me like that  when I know
that I do not drink or do drugs."

I understand that, but the cops don't know what you do about what you've taken, and they aren't going to believe you just because you said you didn't drink or take drugs. Most of the people who are guilty say the same thing, too. "No, officer, I've not had anything to drink." Because of that, if they have reason to suspect that drugs may have been involved, they'll want the test to show one way or the other what the deal is.

"we should be innocent until proven
guilty."

The presumption of innocence applies only at the trial — the jury is instructed on that at the start of the trial. It doesn't apply before. Thus, the police are entitled to think suspects they arrest are guilty. Indeed, it would be odd for the cops to arrest people they thought innocent, wouldn't it? Again, the cops don't need to prove the case to a certainty before they make an arrest. They need only probable cause to believe the crime was committed by the suspect. The time for the state to prove it is at the trial.



"so an arrogant overzealous police officer can do what he wants is the
answer I am getting."

He cannot do just whatever he wants. He has rules to follow. But the rules are not what a lot of people seem to think they are. Moreover, you seem to be assuming the cops knew or should have known what your son knew about why your son was driving erratically. But the cop doesn't know. That's the whole point here. He doesn't know what your son took prior to getting the car. He doesn't know if your son is a drug user or a drinker. He doesn't know anything about your son's history. All he knows about your son is what he sees  and hears when he observes the erratic driving and makes the stop. And if your son is showing signs consistent with someone who has been drinking or using drugs, the cop is going to proceed as though that's what happened, at least until he has evidence to the contrary.




#5 Graduatemoi

Graduatemoi

    New Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 05 April 2012 - 12:19 AM

Before answering the case, I would like to indicate that I am not a legal professional. I am just a graduate student in Administration of Justice and Security. My answers may be limited to common philosophical sense.


Regarding the case of DWI, I think arresting the 19 year old man was justified only to protect the young man's life, and the public from a potential crash or accident. The young man needed more rest than locking him. Why should the state take long time as several weeks to get the results of urine when it should be only within two hours? I think it is illegal to arrest people like that who work hard. I think it is even illegal to wait for several weeks before getting results. Many who do not have money to bail themselves are have illegally being locked for nothing, and it is a waste of tax payers money by overcrowding the jail system in that state. The District Attorney should fix the problem of DWI and return the license of the man.  



#6 snowey

snowey

    New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:35 AM

thank you!


I have found other people that this has happened to.I know that the officer did not care that he was tired.he only wanted an arrest. I have just found out that officers get incentives for more DWI arrests.and in this city the sheriff was just arrested a month ago due to an FBI investigation(not related to this). there have been recent articles about all the overtime these officers get so this is happening all across the country and it is all about MONEY.




 

[This post has been moved to the appropriate discussion. - Moderator]


#7 RetCopPrlgl

RetCopPrlgl

    Silver Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:39 AM

Law enforcement officers don't make a "commission" on arrests.  They are paid salaries (hourly wages) and overtime, if necessary.

There are no quotas.  It's illegal.

I am not an attorney. My comments are made based on my training and experience as well as diligent research.  I am also not perfect, therefore, I will accept constructive criticism, if tendered with respect.



#8 snowey

snowey

    New Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:46 AM

sorry,I was trying to reply to my original post.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users