1. The “witness” was propositioning Shannon. He was miffed when she told him to take a hike. He then followed her around the town after she left the cafe, stalking her. When she went into the mall, he called the police on her. He then LIED to the police and used them like a fine tuned fiddle to exact revenge.

The police lied:

1. Two officers claimed they smelled a “moderate oder of alcohol.” Well, .02 isn’t going to give off much of a smell, if any at all. (by the way, .02 is not 1 drink, it’s equiv. to 1/2 a can of LITE beer)

2. Another officer climed she took more than 1 hydrocodone pill. She didn’t, the blood test proved it.

3. Another officer tested her for drugs, claiming he was qualified to do so. In fact, his certification ran out in 2001!!!

4. The Chandler PD Spokesman, David Ramer, continues to say “she was impaired.” Heck, he wasn’t even there and his officiers never witnessed her driving nor were they qualified to make a determination! He’s just trying to cover up the sloppy police department’s behavior. This is the same spokesperson that tried to tell the city that his officers were justified in shooting a 14 year old holding a pearing knife to death.

Sherrif Arpaio has criminals in his facility who are far worse than DUI offenders (whether actual or framed by the cops). His standard response to their complaints:
Don’t like my jail? Don’t come back.” That’s good advise that most of the scumbags tend to ignore.

As I said before my friend cut a red light a little close after having 2 beers after a meeting. A local cop saw him do it and got his license number. By the time they ran the plate and got to his house it was about 1-1/2 hours later. He answerd the knock at the door with a beer in his hand. They took him to the station and gave him a brethalyzer, where he blew .09 and then charged him with DUI. This was later reduced to just running the red light when 15 people myself included showed up at his hearing. They didn’t want the hassle of all of us testifying so they dropped the DUI and jacked up the fine on the red light charge.

Another side effect of this law is that some police checkpoints are holding people for up to 2 hours on the suspicion that their alcohol level might go up. I was stopped at a checkpoint and blew a .01. I then got to spend 2 hours sitting in the back of a police car, handcuffed of course, and was retested 6 times. I was released with a written warning after 2 hours and the third 0.0. When I got home at about 7 AM the local TV news had their DUI checkpoint box scores listed and I got to see myself sitting in the police car. Their total score was 1 DUI, 2 outstanding warrants (both non payment of child support) and 1 DUI warning (me).

Radley, when you get done in Mississippi you really need to take a look at the relationship between the NHSTA and MADD. It will blow your mind.

If I have a beer, drive home, and drink more beer…some one has seen me drive home, but no one knows for sure if I had a beer, and yet I can be arrested for having a beer.

In that instance everyone who ever drove to the store to grab a six pack would could be suspected of driving drunk. Or at risk of being assumed to have driven while drinking.

Surely this isn’t the case.

That’s the boilerplate that is demanded of police officers to prevent defense attorneys from throwing their cases out of court.

I must work for the exceptional Sheriff’s Office because our Deputies would rather lose a case than railroad someone into a false conviction. I have worked there for 17 years as a dispatcher and have yet to see the Duii arrest that I would consider questionable. On the other hand, I have seen Deputies call relative s for people that they consider questionable but that they are unable to secure sufficient evidence that they are, in fact, intoxicated.

Maricopa County, where the city of Chandler is located, is the domain of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the self described toughest sheriff in America. His post is an elected one and they keep punching his number each time the buffoon is up for re-election. The majority of the populace goes along with his numerous transgressions against the Constitution by doing so. It is not surprising that this occurred in the atmosphere the way it is. It doesn’t make it right by any stretch but just by that, you can see how everything gets stretched to the point where neighbors are spying on and reporting each other.

For the truth on Arpaio, go here:

http://www.arpaio.com/

Be prepared to be righteously angered.

This quote from the article would seem to support what you say abouyt the majorioty of accidents being caused by sober drivers. At least in the state of Arizona.

“ADOT statistics show that in 94.5 percent of all car accidents in Arizona in 2006 (the most recent year available), drivers involved had not a drop of alcohol in their systems. Six times as many accidents were caused by speed as by alcohol impairment.”

Now I expected the majority of accidents to be caused by sober drivers but almost 95%? With the epidemic of DUI arrests across the country I would have thought it to be FAR lower.

Seriously, if we have all these people truthfully wasted to the point where they are deemed not capable of operating a motor vehicle, wouldn’t that 94.5% stat be significantly higher?

Even the definition of accident is somewhat obscure. One car - “disabled” on the roadside may be charged as a tier two DUI (DUI has three in pa )

Tier I - “Incapable of Safe Driving / General Impairment DUI” and .08 to <.10 BAC
Tier II - Auto accident (including 1 car Accidents) and .10 to <.16
Tier III .16< , refusal of blood test, and drug based DUI.

Each tier increases the penalties. In addition, the # of prior offenses also increases your sentence.

E.g.
Person stopped. Has 2 prior offenses in the past ten years. (both low level duis Tier one) He refuses or has BAC above .16 and he now faces a mandatory 1 year in jail with a 5 year max - That is a state sentence.

Yes. The PA DUI statute works the way I described it. They don’t have to actually catch you driving. They need to prove that your BAC is above .08 within two hours of driving - a big difference from the old law. Secondly, when the legislature changed the DUI law ( about 3-4 yrs ago) they removed the right of jury trial for first offenses. How? b/c the possible sentence for first offense DUIs (assuming no homicide) is less than six months, so the rt of jury trial is eliminated. So now on a first offense you face a judge instead of a jury. The end result of these changes - ie the two hour rule (over the limit within 2 hrs of driving) and the jury trial issue - have really cut down on the # of DUI trials. Most cases I take, I either win on motions (bad vehilce stop) or they plea (or take ARD- think probation for 6mos to 1 yr with an expunged record if you complete it)

2. Mark
A note about roadside breath tests - they aren’t admissible (in PA) except to prove the presence of alcohol. I agree that the regular Breath tests need to go. I have a real problem about the arresting officer conducting the breath test at the station and then calling it “objective” evidence.