Ed Oliver interview - NFL put him in the drug program?

[Punching Bag]

6 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

I've seen videos of cops coming up to the car very aggressively with their gun already drawn because they saw the driver "reach for something and rustle around" when pulled over.  Of course the things they reached/rustled for was their documents because they were used to being targeted for stops for no good reason (they were on the cop radar for being publicly critical of the police) but the cop used the excuse of thinking they were reaching for a weapon or hiding drugs to call in backup and K9 and just escalating the whole deal.

 

Long story short if the police want you to have a bad time, there's nothing you can do about it.  Having your own dash mounted cameras can save you a lot of hassle not only with the police but in accident claims and whatnot.

 

I used to have a car with built in video recording. I was being paid to have these as part of traffic study and I had no control when they were turned on which was generally always except when car was turned off.  I did have a button to put notice on recording "look at this".

 

I was stopped once and officer stated something untrue and I stated so. He said I was being uncooperative and I said I was just correcting you.  He said you are wrong do I need to call another officer? I said camera will tell otherwise and he told me it was illegal to use such equipment and I told him I have papers showing I am allowed to by state of Virginia,, signed by the governor and if he will permit I will get them.  He said yes so I took them with no sudden movements from glove department. He looked at them and said he would let me off with a warning, a warning I know from experience is recorded in record, and I said on what.  The only thing you said I did wrong I have video proof of and for camera please officer OFFICER's NAME, the recording light is on and if this is brought up in court I will push for you to be prosecuted for false accusations.  He just left at that point.

32 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Sure, if the police officer expresses a probable cause I will do what I'm asked and if needed fight the probable cause in court later. I get that.

 

But this conversation started because some posters seem to think that what happened to Oliver is fine. He followed instructions, didn't make a scene, etc. And the result is he was detained on the side of the road and spent a night in jail and paid for attorney fees to fight his case. This is the "happy" ending of complying. My point is that nothing about this situation is okay. They may have had probable cause to pull him over but everything beyond that was a breach of his rights. I mean some posters are saying because he stumbled while walking that was probable cause to arrest him. I for one think that's insane.

 

And again, not everyone has the privileges that Ed Oliver does. Is it that crazy to think the cops would have falsely charged someone else with an open alcohol container if the individual wasn't a professional athlete with a good lawyer on retainer? They apparently lied about it just to arrest him. How much further could that have gone? It is not as simple as "comply and you'll walk away happy." Not even close. Rather than putting the burden of navigating complicated legal encounters on the arrestee, I would rather there be systems and laws in place to make sure this kind of thing never happens at all. The laws that are already there aren't working.

 

Cops do lie but it is not always intentional with them repeatedly being told to look for something they do and find something that fits pattern.  The mind plays tricks on itself with memory and what you have repeatedly have been told mixed up.  

 

Personally If I was in Oliver's place and I was absolutely sure of facts I'd be suing in court after having laywer look for precedents and exact wording of laws and previous rulings. 

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Well, I am a lawyer, but sure, you probably know better. 

I guess I do. I do really like courtroom thrillers. Maybe I should take the bar...
 

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

I don’t know what that means.

It means that even esteemed professions, like doctors and lawyers, have people out there that graduated bottom of their class or are otherwise terrible. In software, they're all over. Someone out there, objectively, has the worst doctor in the world, and it could be any of us. A professional's credentials lend them credibility, but your credibility isn't required here. You aren't arguing a nuanced opinion that you've come to through years of experience. You're making very straightforward statements that don't hold up to scrutiny and can be disproven without any legal expertise. 
 

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

There is a difference with agreeing with a request and complying with an instruction. Yes, if they ask if they may see your trunk, you should say no. Thats not what Im talking about though. Im saying if they say you HAVE to open your trunk, you need to comply. I hope you see the distinction.

Not if the order is unlawful: 
https://www.nolandefenseattorneys.com/blog/2020/03/demands-from-police-are-sometimes-not-lawful/

And if you comply with an unlawful demand, you could still be screwed:
https://www.dharlawllp.com/blog/2016/july/supreme-court-ruling-has-the-potential-to-take-b/

Edited August 11, 2020 by BullBuchanan

[Aaronthebaron]

43 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

I understand where you are coming from, and its definitely an imperfect system. We should be investing wayyyy more in our public defender system. 
 

That said, Oliver’s arrest was justified. He failed the field sobriety test, which assess both alcohol and substance abuse impairment. A breathalyzer obviously doesn’t test for drugs.

Your presumption is that the field sobriety test is infallible. It CAN be subject to an officers predisposed opinion. Concrete evidence, e.g., breathalyzer, is a much better analysis. 
 

in this case, the officer made a judgement that he could have been under the influence of substances other than alcohol, Oliver was booked, blood work was done, and Oliver passed. Ergo, the officers assumption was wrong. So what led to the officer assuming Oliver was impaired. That’s the question.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I guess I do. I do really like courtroom thrillers. Maybe I should take the bar...
 

It means that even esteemed professions, like doctors and lawyers, have people out there that graduated bottom of their class or are otherwise terrible. In software, they're all over. Someone out there, objectively, has the worst doctor in the world, and it could be any of us. A professional's credentials lend them credibility, but your credibility isn't required here. You aren't arguing a nuanced opinion that you've come to through years of experience. You're making very straightforward statements that don't hold up to scrutiny and can be disproven without any legal expertise. 
 

Not if the order is unlawful: 
https://www.nolandefenseattorneys.com/blog/2020/03/demands-from-police-are-sometimes-not-lawful/

And if you comply with an unlawful demand, you could still be screwed:
https://www.dharlawllp.com/blog/2016/july/supreme-court-ruling-has-the-potential-to-take-b/

Where does ***** laude put me?

 

Those articles are a pretty good illustration of what happens when dumb people dont understand what they are reading. As to the first article, that was the exact situation Im talking about - he refused a request, and when police pushed it into a demand (which he then complied with), the courts later determined the demand was unlawful, thus proving my point: if the demand is unlawful, it will be thrown out by the courts. 

1 minute ago, Aaronthebaron said:

Your presumption is that the field sobriety test is infallible. It CAN be subject to an officers predisposed opinion. Concrete evidence, e.g., breathalyzer, is a much better analysis. 
 

in this case, the officer made a judgement that he could have been under the influence of substances other than alcohol, Oliver was booked, blood work was done, and Oliver passed. Ergo, the officers assumption was wrong. So what led to the officer assuming Oliver was impaired. That’s the question.

The failed sobriety test....what is your point? The blood test didnt come until after the arrest. Sure, the system isnt perfect, but how else do you confirm someone is under the influence of drugs? 

[HappyDays]

47 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

That said, Oliver’s arrest was justified. He failed the field sobriety test, which assess both alcohol and substance abuse impairment. A breathalyzer obviously doesn’t test for drugs.

 

Did he? I watched the field sobriety video and he did fine. At one point while walking he sort of stumbled a little. He was probably tired and very nervous. I wonder what percentage of sober people would "fail" a field sobriety test in that way in the middle of the night. What percentage would you be okay with, for a test that puts you in jail for the night and forces you to be subjected to a blood test against your will?

 

My understanding is that they used the "open alcohol container" as a probable cause to arrest him. He also claimed that 5 police cars showed up before the sobriety test happened. Is that normal? Do they usually have that many responding officers arrive for a driving violation that no police officer actually witnessed? Do most people get taken to jail after blowing 0.0 and stumbling a little?

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

Did he? I watched the field sobriety video and he did fine. At one point while walking he sort of stumbled a little. He was probably tired and very nervous. I wonder what percentage of sober people would "fail" a field sobriety test in that way in the middle of the night. What percentage would you be okay with, for a test that puts you in jail for the night and forces you to be subjected to a blood test against your will?

 

My understanding is that they used the "open alcohol container" as a probable cause to arrest him. He also claimed that 5 police cars showed up before the sobriety test happened. Is that normal? Do they usually have that many responding officers arrive for a driving violation that no police officer actually witnessed? Do most people get taken to jail after blowing 0.0 and stumbling a little?

Im not sure, but I can say that a police officer in this thread said he noticed two issues with his test, just based on the video, which is obviously not the best vantage point. Also, I think the container was just the probable cause to do the field sobriety test, but I dont know for sure.

 

Is this all normal, is this all fair? I dont know. Thats a higher level question. If there is a better alternative, Im all ears. I just dont think there is.

 

 

[HappyDays]

9 minutes ago, Aaronthebaron said:

So what led to the officer assuming Oliver was impaired. That’s the question.

 

Exactly. Because I can't believe that this alone...

 

 

...is enough to arrest a man who blew 0.0. Obviously if he's acting erratically or slurring or whatever you can bring him in for blood testing, but that's not what happened. Why is he surrounded by police officers as he calmly let's them put handcuffs on? It is weird how normalized this stuff is. A man driving home with zero alcohol in his system ended up being detained and surrounded by police officers, then booked in jail for the night, because a police officer subjectively decided he was on drugs. I don't know why anyone defends the system that allowed this to happen.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Exactly. Because I can't believe that this alone...

 

 

...is enough to arrest a man who blew 0.0. Obviously if he's acting erratically or slurring or whatever you can bring him in for blood testing, but that's not what happened. Why is he surrounded by police officers as he calmly let's them put handcuffs on? It is weird how normalized this stuff is. A man driving home with zero alcohol in his system ended up being detained and surrounded by police officers, then booked in jail for the night, because a police officer subjectively decided he was on drugs. I don't know why anyone defends the system that allowed this to happen.

The problem is that there is no objective field test for drugs. You functionally make people free to drive on drugs, without consequence.

Edited August 11, 2020 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[HappyDays]

5 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Also, I think the container was just the probable cause to do the field sobriety test, but I dont know for sure.

 

If this is true that's an even larger problem considering the open container was not real. If the police can make up a reason to run a sobriety test, then book someone for the night because they don't quite pass the officer's interpretation of the test, that to me is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

 

7 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

If there is a better alternative, Im all ears. I just dont think there is.

 

The alternative is already in place, and fundamental to our legal system. The whole basis behind the 4th amendment is that police abuse is not worth catching every single criminal. If the police could randomly search houses and vehicles without cause, surely more criminals would be caught. But the consequences to society would be too great, so we accept that some criminals will get away in exchange for our civil liberties. We aren't supposed to be okay with people being thrown in jail for a night because of a flimsy "cause."

 

I'm not saying that a 0.0 breathalyzer test means you can't be arrested but there has to be more to it than a fabricated open container and a little stumble. The cops in this case didn't even see Oliver do anything wrong.

 

My larger point is that most of the time it isn't a professional athlete in these situations. Usually it is someone that doesn't know their rights and doesn't have an attorney. And it's weird that we expect everyone to just go along with this crazy system where doing literally nothing wrong and complying in full can still earn you a night in jail.

[JohnNord]

Something doesn’t add up... either Ed was racially profiled (which he kind of denied) or there’s more to the story that he isn’t sharing.

 

Either way, it doesn’t matter.  It sounds like he’s moved on.  He actually seems like a really cool guy that would be fun to be around 

[Bangarang]

22 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Im not sure, but I can say that a police officer in this thread said he noticed two issues with his test, just based on the video, which is obviously not the best vantage point. Also, I think the container was just the probable cause to do the field sobriety test, but I dont know for sure.

 

Is this all normal, is this all fair? I dont know. Thats a higher level question. If there is a better alternative, Im all ears. I just dont think there is.

 

 

The clues seen from only the Walk and Turn test aren’t the end all be all and I wouldn’t even say he did horribly on the test. 
 

There’s obviously a lot more that goes into a DWI investigation so I wouldn’t try and watch the video and come to any kind of conclusion. 

6 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

If this is true that's an even larger problem considering the open container was not real. If the police can make up a reason to run a sobriety test, then book someone for the night because they don't quite pass the officer's interpretation of the test, that to me is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

 

 

The alternative is already in place, and fundamental to our legal system. The whole basis behind the 4th amendment is that police abuse is not worth catching every single criminal. If the police could randomly search houses and vehicles without cause, surely more criminals would be caught. But the consequences to society would be too great, so we accept that some criminals will get away in exchange for our civil liberties. We aren't supposed to be okay with people being thrown in jail for a night because of a flimsy "cause."

 

I'm not saying that a 0.0 breathalyzer test means you can't be arrested but there has to be more to it than a fabricated open container and a little stumble. The cops in this case didn't even see Oliver do anything wrong.

 

My larger point is that most of the time it isn't a professional athlete in these situations. Usually it is someone that doesn't know their rights and doesn't have an attorney. And it's weird that we expect everyone to just go along with this crazy system where doing literally nothing wrong and complying in full can still earn you a night in jail.

What do you mean the open container wasn’t real?

[TigerJ]

Of course, none of us were there.  The point has been made that Oliver may have exhibited behavior that indicated he might have been under the influence of drugs.  Obviously that's what the officer maintained.  Maybe Oliver's  behavior justified the officer's reaction.  Maybe it didn't.  Maybe the officer's behavior was due to his own bias/racism.   Because we're on the outside looking in, we can only express opinions.  They aren't worth much.  I can see why Oliver is disgusted by the whole thing, and I personally think that the police department owes him an apology since all the testing revealed no drugs or alcohol.  I also hope the league excuses him from whatever program they required of him.   I hope he can put this behind him and have a great season.  

[HappyDays]

21 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

The problem is that there is no objective test for drugs. You functionally make people free to drive on drugs, without consequence.

 

See my response above. Our legal protections already allow criminals to occasionally get away with things. The trade off is we get to live as free citizens. This is like saying there is no objective test for carrying a dead body in your trunk, and therefore the police should be able to search your trunk for a dead body whenever they want to. If the police want to detain someone for the night and draw their blood, I expect a better probable cause than failing a subjective test in the most minor way. Especially if the probable cause that preceded the sobriety test was complete BS.

 

Again, I just think it's weird that a bunch of people here think what happened to Oliver is an example of the system working the way it's intended. That it should be used as an example of what happens if you do exactly as you're told. I feel the opposite - it's an indictment of the system, and shows that even doing exactly what you're told might still lead to an infringement on your liberties.

Edited August 11, 2020 by HappyDays

[HappyDays]

4 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

What do you mean the open container wasn’t real?

 

Considering that charge was dropped, I'm going to buy Oliver and his attorney's story that there was no open container between his legs. There may have been an empty beer can sitting in his car door which as far as I know is not illegal - if it was I assume they would have at least charged/fined him for that.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

12 hours ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I'm guessing Oliver and Floyds arrest records are the same then. Cops, US Marshals, Military all try to use appropriate force for the situation they are going into or encounter. Unless Oliver has a very bad police record I don't think you can even compare them. Its weird that Oliver said if he didn't say yes sir and no sir or act respectful that things could've gone bad for him. Every time I get pulled over I keep my hands on the wheel until the cop gets to the window then listen to instructions and be respectful as possible. Its my understanding that not listing, being disrespectful, damaging or spiting on the inside of the police car will get you handcuffed and on your face. Feels kinds weird that Oliver is comparing himself to Floyd.

 

Black and white. Black family including a 6 year old driving their car but is mistaken for a supposedly stolen car with no weapons on them is handcuffed and laying on the ground.  You think a white family is forced to the ground and handcuffed while the cops figure out what s going on?

[Punching Bag]

9 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Black and white. Black family including a 6 year old driving their car but is mistaken for a supposedly stolen car with no weapons on them is handcuffed and laying on the ground.  You think a white family is forced to the ground and handcuffed while the cops figure out what s going on?

 

It has happened to a family member of mine.  It was an identical car including broken taillight. Cop was actually black.

In his case the officer cited when the car with description was stolen; my relative said he was at work and his car was in locked garage.

Gave officer phone number and when 2nd officer showed up he called number and asked who he was talking to and was told.

Told person to get to publicly listed number for company and he would call that. 

My relative's coworker and his boss both told officer he was working at time and both described his car without prompting.

Officer uncuffed my relative (who has conviction in past) and told him to go home and wait for a call.

He told me he believed he was followed.

Next day he was told by officer who came to house that it was a mistake and the cars did look nearly identical.

He apologized for it and my relative said it was an honest mistake. When he saw the picture of the car my relative thought it was his.

 

Mistakes happen but when people hide mistakes to prevent them from being punished, reprimanded, etc is when the mistake becomes more important.

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

 

Nice, thanks. Ed really was good.

[BullBuchanan]

2 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

Those articles are a pretty good illustration of what happens when dumb people dont understand what they are reading. As to the first article, that was the exact situation Im talking about - he refused a request, and when police pushed it into a demand (which he then complied with), the courts later determined the demand was unlawful, thus proving my point: if the demand is unlawful, it will be thrown out by the courts. 

Interesting that you conveniently ignored the part where in order to get "thrown out" it had to go up to the 9th Circuit. Not everyone has the money, time and expertise on hand to continue fighting a case up that high in order to prove that police acted unlawfully. A lot of terrible things can happen to a person before they get a chance to clear their name. Also convenient that you ignored the second case where the defendant wasn't so lucky. If he refuses to show his ID, now it's on the cop to make the next move, and if he unlawfully arrests or searches him at that point, I'm guessing the case goes a different way.

It's incomprehensible to me that you would advise a client to knowingly subject themselves to a system where they would have to fight all the way uphill to defend themselves.

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, TigerJ said:

Of course, none of us were there.  The point has been made that Oliver may have exhibited behavior that indicated he might have been under the influence of drugs.  Obviously that's what the officer maintained.  Maybe Oliver's  behavior justified the officer's reaction.  Maybe it didn't.  Maybe the officer's behavior was due to his own bias/racism.   Because we're on the outside looking in, we can only express opinions.  They aren't worth much.  I can see why Oliver is disgusted by the whole thing, and I personally think that the police department owes him an apology since all the testing revealed no drugs or alcohol.  I also hope the league excuses him from whatever program they required of him.   I hope he can put this behind him and have a great season.  

Well put.  My guess is the officer thought he was on some type of illegal drug and arrested him to get a blood draw.  What confuses me is why it took them 67 days to clear all charges.

[GreggTX]

I figured this was going to be way overblown, but he blows 0.0 and they still take him to jail? Now that he is handling this with class I'm an even bigger fan. I was a little concerned about his slow start last year, but he finished well enough. I'll be rooting for him to have a probowl year and I hope that if he's ever pulled over again that he'll be treated with the respect he deserves. Well played Ed.

Edited August 11, 2020 by GreggTX