|
Post by ovation on Aug 19, 2009 21:15:49 GMT -6
Freebird, That was my point...
|
|
|
Post by geezer on Aug 20, 2009 3:57:52 GMT -6
He later took two sobrierty tests at the Guilford County Jail. Capt Frontz came across as a good guy who made a really bad decision. I would guess that many of the people that get caught DUI are "good guys that made a really bad decision". That doesn't make it right. Also, anyone not involved in law enforcement would not be familiar with a Alcosensor test. This guy was law enforcement and claimed he wasn't familiar with the test. Would you be this understanding of the regular "good guy" you encounter? You come across as defending one of your own. This guy messed up and got caught. Treat him like anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Aug 20, 2009 5:20:51 GMT -6
Depending how long after one is pulled over it can change the test results dramatically to take the test at the station. Example. If you just had two drinks and you were pulled over and took the test then it would register twice as high as if you took the test 1 hr later at the station. The body will remove on average one drink per hour. This is one reason our policy and procedure, and that of many other very progressive agencies in PA several years ago, was to administer TWO tests approx 1/2 - 3/4 hours apart for anyone who registered just at or over the so-called "legal limit" on the initial breathalyzer test. Same for chemical testing by blood or urine - though they were not as common unless by necessity and/or circumstance. The laws and precedents supported and reinforced this, and I often was involved in this process as a breathalyzer operator/technician and being on/leading specialized DUI enforcement details - plus as a police administrator (Patrol Supervisor, Staff Review Officer, and Chief of Police). The reason for 2 tests in those situations: at the time, the automatic presumption was that a test of .10 or above was prima facie evidence of DUI - or a test result of between .06-.09 was a sufficient contributing factor when combined with evidence of other impairing factors and/or actions. What was happening was that defense attorneys were contesting test results that were in these minimum ranges - claiming that the person was actually LOWER at the time of the initial contact with officers, investigation, field sobriety testing, transport, and chemical test procedure preparation - and that the person's body had absorbed more alcohol during that time. Basically, they claimed the person had likely NOT reached the "legal limit" at the time of the driving violation - but had converted to it by biological process during the time period between then and the chemical test. This argument actually had some merit and occasional success at times regarding establishing "reasonable doubt" to defeat charges - placing more reliance, weight, and focus on the officer's field sobriety testing and scrutiny of all officer and agency procedures before the test (instead of the test itself). Basically, it shifted the evidence from a documented, standardized, and acceptable scientific test showing prima facie evidence into a determination of guilty or not guilty based on officer opinions, subjective opinions, and variable factors. Thus, the establishment and legal-determined policy of a second test in order to further investigate and determine the probable state of the person's intoxication at the time of arrest. If the person tested at the bare minimum on the initial test but HIGHER on the second test - it supported a claim that the person may have been UNDER the "legal limit" at the time of driving, contact, and arrest. This was an indication that the body was perfusing the alcohol INTO the person's system PRIOR to the test. The officer then could assess other factors - and either continue with the arrest processing, or consider a declaration of a "de minimus" (so minor as to be insignificant)infraction and/or "void ab initio" (invalid retroactively) to cancel further DUI processing and impose the appropriate legal action(s) at that point. However, if the person registered LOWER on the second test - this was an indication that the person was actually MORE intoxicated at the time of the driving violation, arrest, field testing, processing, etc. Thus above defense claim is easily disputed and usually not even presented. One note to mention is that the alcohol's absorption and perfusion process is generally faster than the time the body takes to "rid" itself of the alcohol's effects. The time length involved in all the actions taken to prepare for the actual chemical testing for alcohol content usually best ensures the most accurate possible measurement of actual intoxication at the time of violation. In addition, this delay also ensures that the person did not have any residual alcohol in the tissues in the mouth, etc - and that only the alviolar air (from the lungs) is tested in a properly-conducted breathalyzer/intoxilyzer/etc breath test. In fact, standard procedure is for the chemical-testing officer to closely and constantly observe and monitor the suspect for a period (usually 20 minutes) prior to testing to ensure NOTHING is taken by mouth in that period. Usually, just the setup of the breath-testing instrument and documentation preparation process takes up most or all of this monitoring period. Bottom line: if someone claims that he/she was not intoxicated at the time of violation but that a biological process subsequently altered that condition - an agency with effective and proper procedures will be able to either counter and defeat such a claim, or be able to determine that claim as probably valid and charge (or not charge) the person accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 20, 2009 5:44:11 GMT -6
Range Thanks for the education on the testing procedure involving 2 tests and its purpose. Makes a lot of sence
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Aug 20, 2009 5:56:06 GMT -6
I ride a Harley and come to every Fall Rally. I will be there in September. I am also a law enforcement officer in Guilford County. The deputy that arrested Capt. Frontz works for me. There seem to be some misconceptions about this incident. Capt. Frontz passed a marked Sheriff's Office car at a high rate of speed on an interstate highway and was pulled over for that reason. During the stop it was discovered that he was drinking. Frontz was fully cooperative with the officer but he did refuse a roadside Alcosensor test because he was not familiar with the device. He later took two sobriety tests at the Guilford County Jail. Capt Frontz came across as a good guy who made a really bad decision. As long as we hire human beings to be police officers they will make mistakes. He will probably have to pay a heavy price for this mistake. While myself and many other officers in Guilford County and Greensboro ride bikes and are unhappy about some political decisions made in Myrtle Beach most of us believe that the MBPD has been put in the middle on these issues and while many of their officers might not agree with some of these laws they have to do as they are told. We do not hold these political decisions against the MBPD. My departments dealings with the MBPD in this DWI case have been very professional. About four weeks ago we worked a criminal case with detectives from MBPD and they were very professional in that case. You have to separate political decisions from the MBPD; they are two different things. Thanks for listening and I will see you the last week of September. Thank you for this information. Please note that I stated the comments and statements I've heard from personnel of other agencies was geared toward simply NOT providing any professional courtesy or "breaks" to ANY Myrtle Beach official they encounter in their jurisdiction - and specifically, no malice or intent to target or subject them to anything they would not otherwise do to any other offender they encounter. I realize you didn't claim or imply that - I just wanted to clarify that for anyone who reads all posts and didn't catch that point. That said, I do fault Myrtle Beach Police generally for one thing - NOT speaking out and publicly expressing THEIR opposition and concerns with being required and tasked to enforce laws that were CLEARLY developed and established with such a controversial and discriminatory agenda that has already proved that the City of Myrtle Beach acted improperly and illegally in some of their actions - and the pending legal determinations are looking very unfavorable for the City of Myrtle Beach as well. This is the fault of their so-called leadership - and it starts with current Chief of Police Gall. Instead of publicly voicing his concerns in ANY way at all, he has been a puppet of the City of Myrtle Beach officials and followed their directives from the time they created and dictated to him poor and problematic techniques (for example: creating an unnecessary one-way traffic pattern during Harley Rallies to appease the NAACP and NOT contest their invalid claims, resulting in many MBPD and outside-agency staff being assigned to a "ghost town" area instead of being deployed where actually justified and needed) - and now NOT publicly expressing VALID concerns that unnecessary new ordinances merely created law VIOLATORS out of previously and clearly (by overriding state law) law-abiding citizens instead of a focused effort of their staff and resources on RAPIDLY ESCALATING SERIOUS CRIME in the City of Myrtle Beach. By their silence and failure to at least publicly state concerns about the actions by City of Myrtle Beach government officials, the Myrtle Beach Police Department as a whole has in effect associated themselves WITH those actions - and NOT done anything to deserve a consideration any different than those so-called city officials who developed, created, and caused the current state of controversial behavior that has tremendously negatively impacted the City of Myrtle Beach financially, with associated criminal effects, on their integrity, and by reputation.
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Aug 20, 2009 6:22:33 GMT -6
... Frontz was fully cooperative with the officer but he did refuse a roadside Alcosensor test becuse he was not familiar with the device... I fully agree with the comments made by others about this point. This will likely further NOT be in Fronz's favor during any subsequent lagal actions and proceedings. Without a chemical test, and if this goes into court, this will be a REAL problem for his defense - and, if I were advising/preparing the prosecution in this case, I would place a lot of focus on this (while expecting and effectively preparing against pre-trial motions to suppress it by the defense). As I mentioned about in a previous post, the prosecution must now proceed WITHOUT a prima facie-evidence test result that determined Fronz's actual blood alcohol concentration - and will have to rely more solidly on the testimony of the arresting/assisting officer(s) and their own policies and procedures and how they were complied with. However, Fronz's claim to the effect that he was "not familiar with the device" can be used against him no matter what. As a trained and veteran police officer, he should be expected to comply with lawful orders - especially when accompanied by explanation of the device and effects of refusal. If he disputes the device and explanation(s), unless they immediately jeopardize his physical safety at the time, he should submit to the process and contest it AFTERWARD through legal and/or administrative redress. By refusing it in such a manner, his resulting and obvious contention would be that he didn't "understand"/"conceive"/etc the device and the consequences of refusal - opens himself to effectively demonstrating that his JUDGMENT was altered at the time, and in turn supporting the presumption that he was indeed intoxicated at the time. In all likelihood, your agency and county DA/Solicitor's office has such perception and usual practice to capitalize on this point and others. And - Fronz should have the best possible attorney he can obtain. He'll likely need it.
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 20, 2009 6:58:36 GMT -6
Range Thank you for all yours posts. I did catch your meaning and my post was exactly what you said. The officers I spoke with had no malice toward the MBPD however they said exactly what you alluded to. They would be treated as they were treated. As a follow up to this debate I listened to the MBPD during HD Bike Week and from the comments I heard it was a very aggressive PD that in my opinion was targeting any MC they could find. Some of what I heard was disturbing to this citizen.
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Aug 20, 2009 10:21:05 GMT -6
Range Thank you for all yours posts. I did catch your meaning and my post was exactly what you said. The officers I spoke with had no malice toward the MBPD however they said exactly what you alluded to. They would be treated as they were treated. As a follow up to this debate I listened to the MBPD during HD Bike Week and from the comments I heard it was a very aggressive PD that in my opinion was targeting any MC they could find. Some of what I heard was disturbing to this citizen. Exactly. One point I accidentally omitted in the previous posts (or books ): Most of the officers/agencies I referred to are - for the most part - at the least "covering their butts" if ANY "favors", "breaks" or "professional courtesy" is extended to ANYONE who can be perceived as a City of Myrtle Beach official or public figure whom they encounter as a potential law violator in their jurisdiction. There is no doubt whatsoever that the City of Myrtle Beach is the focus of, and under scrutiny by, various entities: the media, the courts, higher-level investigators, etc. Those other officers/agencies don't want to be discovered to have been associated with any such actions OTHER than those that are impartial , fair, proper, and professional should the public and/or investigators become aware of an event and/or encounter with a City of Myrtle Beach official. And it's VITAL to emphasize that this precautionary attitude and stance by other officers/agencies is the result of controversial and inclusively illegal actions taken the main elected and appointed officials of the City of Myrtle Beach - which in turn made these OTHER officers /agencies vulnerable to scrutiny. THE CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH caused this proactive situation by other jurisdictions - and it proves once again that these current City of Myrtle Beach officials are incompetent to properly perform their overall duties - and MUST be voted/ otherwise removed from their current offices.
|
|
|
Post by DG1 Phillip on Aug 20, 2009 16:17:52 GMT -6
Hey Range I know awhile back you said you were thinking about running for office. Have you decided? Inquiring minds want to know.. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by train on Aug 20, 2009 16:36:57 GMT -6
Range for MB City Council .....
|
|
|
Post by beachbikers1 on Aug 20, 2009 17:16:52 GMT -6
Boy Range, how you change your story! Your first post was: **************************************************** I commented about this early this year on the Sun News forums. What I basically stated: I stay in touch with many officers from various municipal (mostly Midlands region) and state agencies. They tell me that a general attitude of many law enforcement officers and other officials is that they have no love for Myrtle Beach officials of any kind - citing the drastic, overzealous, and reckless actions they took over the bike weeks issue that affected general tourism. These other officers and officials are concerned that any visit they and/or their families make to Myrtle Beach could result in some innocent violation of an ordinance that is otherwise acceptable in this state and that THEY may be cited or at least hassled over it. A significant number of them are either bikers or at least had no concerns about bikers - they realize that the MAIN problems being complained about at Myrtle Beach in May did NOT involve bikers anyway, and that the City of Myrtle Beach merely CREATED offenders out of otherwise legal-acting visitors rather than confront the actual problems. In addition: in these times of tight budgets and a reliance in the Carolinas on tourism revenue, the unnecessarily drastic actions by the City of Myrtle Beach would reduce their OWN share and distribution of these tourism dollars (as it turns out, they were CORRECT). In other words: the City of Myrtle Beach took money away from THEIR funding, jeopardized their OWN jobs far away from the City of Myrtle Beach, and created concerns that a visit to the City of Myrtle Beach could jeopardize their own arrest or threat of same for doing things that are legal anywhere else in the state. Thus, the attitude of many municipal and state officials outside this area is that there should be absolutely NO "professional courtesy" or extension of ANYTHING that provides them with courtesy of ANY kind when in their jurisdictions or contact. It is NOT "malice; rather, it is the assurance that they will receive NO "breaks" or "favors" in those jurisdictions. As I said, I posted to this effect early this year. I don't know if this particular DWI arrest is the result of that train of thought by outside agencies, but the City of Myrtle Beach created this animosity - and may be seeing the results of it now. **************************************************** Now your changing your whole story!
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 20, 2009 19:59:05 GMT -6
Beach You lost me on this one. What is different
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Aug 20, 2009 22:43:33 GMT -6
Beach You lost me on this one. What is different Same here...
|
|
|
Post by howardstern on Aug 21, 2009 11:25:08 GMT -6
Range.... You've made all the valid points. I too, at the start of this mess, wondered why Chief Gall curled up into the fetal position and cowered to the current Administration? I would expect his loyalty would be first to the Citizens and then to his men. Not a Council of boobs and a self-absorbed Mayor. Change is forthcoming...
|
|
|
Post by usmc69 on Aug 21, 2009 20:12:07 GMT -6
For obvious reasons I can not go into the case too much, but let me clear up a few things. One is that there is no professional courtesy in my department for DWI. Minor traffic charges maybe, but not DWI.
The Alcosensor is a breath test machine carried in most of our cars. It is not calibrated and can only be used for probable cause to arrest. The results can not be used in court. This test can be refused by anyone with no consequences.
Capt Frontz did take other roadside tests and the arrest was based on these tests.
Capt. Frontz did take two chemical tests at the Guilford County Jail. These tests can be refused, but the defendent will immediately lose his drivers license and still be charged with DWI.
The magistrate used the results of the chemical tests for the probable cause to issue the DWI warrant.
This is the Readers Digest version. In realty this is a long involved process with a lot of paperwork. Normally it takes a 3 to 4 hours. You must remember that most of the North Carolina General Assembly are lawyers and they make this process difficult with lots of loopholes.
Again see you in the fall.
|
|