|
Post by freebird on Aug 21, 2009 20:57:25 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. usmc69 Is the Alcosensor the standard that police use for field sobriety tests ? Can you advise me if the field sobriety test itself can be refused or just the alcosensor test. I was not aware of that information . Do you know if that is the case in SC as well? It seems to me that you run a tight ship where common sense and leadership starts at the top. Thank you for your service and thank you for the responses. If you and your staff are free on September 11th through the 13th there is an event that we are doing called Freedom Fest. It is an event to remember the 9/11 victims and to honor our first responders of this great nation. There is a link on the home page. Hopefully you guys can make it. Be well and be safe
|
|
|
Post by Chuck52 on Aug 21, 2009 21:15:09 GMT -6
usmc 69 and Range, I live in NC, you both have some good points of interest to this issue, however my take is this. I lost a good friend to a drunk driver several years ago and I have no sympathy for any drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car or throws a leg over a bike, if your caught, suffer the consequences and yes a law enforcement officer who steps out of line as he did must pay the price, no exceptions. Sorry to say, his career is over! I know this may sound harsh, but you didn't have to tell my friends wife he was killed while we were out riding, I DID! RANGE for council, BIRD for Mayor ;D
|
|
|
Post by usmc69 on Aug 22, 2009 15:17:56 GMT -6
Freebird
All of the roadside tests given by an officer can be refused. In that case the officer has to base his probable cause on his observations. All of our patrol cars have cameras and that can be used to document the driving and the persons appearence and speach patterns. I do not know about SC law.
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 22, 2009 15:42:08 GMT -6
chuck52 I am sorry for your loss
|
|
|
Post by freebird on Aug 22, 2009 15:44:34 GMT -6
Freebird All of the roadside tests given by an officer can be refused. In that case the officer has to base his probable cause on his observations. All of our patrol cars have cameras and that can be used to document the driving and the persons appearence and speach patterns. I do not know about SC law. Thanks for your reply.
|
|
|
Post by rangemaster on Aug 22, 2009 19:21:14 GMT -6
...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...The magistrate used the results of the chemical tests for the probable cause to issue the DWI warrant... One thing I failed to mention - and often do when responding about a newspaper or other media report - is that I am commenting on it based on the face value and reliance of the overall accuracy of the media report's content. The media reports regarding testing were vague and/or misleading - and provided questionable reporting about what exactly happened in this case regarding firld sobriety testing versus chemical testing after arrest, etc. Thank you for clearing that up in THIS case; we sure can't rely on our own media to get it right or often provide the right impression. Quite often, our local media does not understand - and obviously makes no or little effort to clarify - technical aspects of procedures, terms, etc in our crime-related matters. I have also encountered several instances where local law enforcement personnel themselves did NOT know current laws, their applications, or procedures - especially regarding firearms matters. Upon consulting with the reporter of record, he or she often states - and proves by note and/or recording - that what the reporting OFFICER said and/or did was NOT correct. I just relay it to the proper state or federal agency, and let THEM investigate.
|
|
|
Post by beachbikers1 on Aug 24, 2009 14:43:22 GMT -6
Beach You lost me on this one. What is different Same here... I apologize! I had a vaild point but it was too late!
|
|