merlin Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Browns RB Droughns acquitted in drunken driving case Sports figures really have it ROUGH!! According to Droughns' wife: "Kellie Droughns said the acquittal was a relief. "It's been hard on us, hard on Reuben," she said. "We're taking a limo everywhere, even to the grocery store." " GO BILLS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Being a Trooper (in Florida) that specializes in DUI, these things discourage me. I get tired of hearing about high profile people getting popped for the DUI, make excuses for their improper behavior, and then get completely off of it. The system is in such a sad state. Had this been Joe Blow who couldn't afford a high priced attorney, he would have pled to it. ARGH... Ok, got that off of my chest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.EvansHands Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Being a Trooper (in Florida) that specializes in DUI, these things discourage me. I get tired of hearing about high profile people getting popped for the DUI, make excuses for their improper behavior, and then get completely off of it. The system is in such a sad state. Had this been Joe Blow who couldn't afford a high priced attorney, he would have pled to it. ARGH... Ok, got that off of my chest... 688288[/snapback] DUI laws are a sham. You can get one for stupid sh-- nowadays, ie. Washing your car, having the keys in so you can play music, and drinking a beer. If a cop rolls by- he can bust you for DUI, because you were "incontrol of the vehicle". IMO its MADD lobbyists (sp?) taking things to an extreme level. Some states are even lowering BAC to .05 (to be considered automatically too drunk to drive) which is ridiculous. You can drive tired, and cause more havok, but how can we test people for DWT (driving while tired). OK ok, glad I got that off my chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 DUI laws are a sham. You can get one for stupid sh-- nowadays, ie. Washing your car, having the keys in so you can play music, and drinking a beer. If a cop rolls by- he can bust you for DUI, because you were "incontrol of the vehicle". IMO its MADD lobbyists (sp?) taking things to an extreme level. Some states are even lowering BAC to .05 (to be considered automatically too drunk to drive) which is ridiculous. You can drive tired, and cause more havok, but how can we test people for DWT (driving while tired). OK ok, glad I got that off my chest. 688299[/snapback] Oh boy.... Not to hijack this thread, but... First of all, you CANNOT get a DUI in the manner that you described above. An element of "actual physical control" is actually being in the car. Second of all, you probably have not seen the carnage that goes along with impaired drivers. There is a reason that it is against the law. It kills people, and for some unfortunate reason, it usually isn't the drunk driver. Third of all, some states are lowering the levels? If they are, it is because it has been scientifically proven that impairment occurs (by the American Medical Association) at levels of .05. I haven't heard that any states have lowered the levels, though. You state that DUI laws are a sham? Indeed they are. They allow way too many people to get away with murder, literally. Next time I am on the scene where a small child here on vacation at Disney World was killed by a drunk driver, I will give you a call. Maybe you can swing by and explain to their family why DUI laws are a sham.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 OK, as the board expert on all things Browns and Cleveland, here are the factors: 1) This matter went to a jury trial. The jury only took 35 minutes to come back with an acquittal. 2) I know Droughns' attorney personally...he knows the DUI laws inside and out and is very capable. I thought he did a really good job. 3) If Droughns would have been found guilty, the judge in Medina would have put the screws to him. 4) The matter happened in Brunswick, Ohio; which is a fairly well-to-do southern suburb of Cleveland. The Medina municipal jury probably consisted mostly of upper-middle-class persons. 5) I've done plenty of DUI cases over the years. They are difficult to win. If Droughns had blown, say a .12 rather than .08 (right at the limit), he would have pled guilty. He was right at the borderline, but his attorney presented a good case and prevailed. Simple as that. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Still sucks! Down here in FL we are having such a problem with the breath tests getting into court. People blowing over .20 and getting off because the jury doesn't hear that evidence. Not to mention, if the breath does get in to evidence, and the jury hears that he blew a .08, the level at which someone is presumed impaired, it should automatically be a guilty verdict. I suppose that he could argue that the alcohol level was lower at the time of the stop / arrest, and since went up as it metabolized in his body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 What's your opinion on this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5101101968.html Be careful about being absolute in opinion and hard in mind. Lest jackboots repeat. 688333[/snapback] I am absolute in my opinion. The facts of the Droughn's case is that he was at the blood alcohol level for presumed impairment. That is absolutely improper / illegal / unsafe. I am also absolute in my opinion that there are some bad officers and questionable statutes out there, and I was basing my opinion on him getting off on an apparently "good arrest" solely upon the BAC reading on the Intoxilyzer (the facts that were presented). It was merely a rant. I just got back from a court hearing where a defense attorney tried to get his client off on a technicality, this being his 4th DUI arrest. He failed, but I was still frustrated at the system. Nothing more, nothing less. However... The facts of this case that you referred to are completely different. Apparently, illegal, yes. However, impairment at a .03? Doubtful. As said in the article, that is nearly impossible - unless she was also under the influence of drugs. The law in DC does not follow with the laws in the rest of the country for DUI, to my knowledge. "If a person 21 years of age or older has a blood alcohol concentration of .02 percent [to] .04 percent and extremely bad driving, this person can be placed under arrest for Driving Under the Influence of an alcoholic beverage." I do not believe that driving without your headlights on constitutes "extremely bad driving", and therefore does not meet the requirements for this woman to be arrested. Therefore, my opinion, based upon the facts in the article (fairly one sided point of view) is that it is a garbage statute. I do not agree with it, at all. How does she get arrested, yet a politician that had the obvious appearances of impairment gets let go? A poor system, as stated before, that starts with bad officers, goes to poor prosecutors, poor legislation (loopholes), and liberal judges. Oh, and what the heck is a jackboot? Go Bills? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Cincinnati PD doesn't have the best reputation, I will give you that. I do consider myself a fair and reasonable officer when it comes to arriving at probable cause. As I said before, I absolutely disagree with the decisions that impaired drivers make. I also will say that I have let numerous ones go (calling a ride for them), after deciding that probable cause did not exist, but a PBT (portable breath test - not admissible in court in FL) indicated they were over the .08 limit. Maybe I expect my fellow officers to have the same level of integrity, education, training to do the same. And therefore, that DUI arrests in large part, are valid and the the probable cause decision was arrived at properly. I don't mean to toot my horn, but am only trying to explain my point of view. I do appreciate the venting that you allowed me to do, Stuck, and now I do believe that I can go to bed and sleep peacefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureBillsGM Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Not to add fuel to the fire but I would like your honest opinion on this. Do not get me wrong. I am in no way promoting drunk driving. I was a huge partier in college, often doing the 30 pack challenge to see how quickly we could drink a 30 pack. If I go out to a bar now and have 3 drinks, I won't even be feeling a buzz, yet i am presumed impaired just because I am legally over the limit. If a person without a tolerance was at the same level, they may be slurring speach or wobbling around. I talk fine, walk fine, drive fine and have very little effect on reaction time with 3 drinks in me. What are your thoughts on applying the same legal imits to all people regardless of how they actually handle themselves. Maybe this comes back to your point on better judgement as I might blow the .08 but pass every field sobriety test with flying colors. Unfortunately (in my case, no overall), in this state if you blow the .08 you are going to jail for the night. I in no way condone DUI and do not drive if I am too impaired to do so, but being a big drinker, meeting friends out at the bar and having 3 drinks is not out of the question and definately not going to "get me drunk". Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureBillsGM Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Sorry for sounding drunk in the post, I really need to proof read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.EvansHands Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 WHOABILLS- Well, I am one of the jaded citizens that was previously mentioned above. I blew a .07, and because I knew I was under the limit and asked to go, the cop got an attitude and ran me up anyway. I had to spend 4000 dollars in defense, a night in jail in county orange and then the prosecution dropped it to reckless driving (after seeing the field test which I passed (on tape) solidly despite the marks from the officer (that I failed 4 of 5 tests), which I pled to in order to avoid further hurt in the pocket book. I know there are bad things that happen when people drink and drive, KNOW YOUR LIMITs. No one wants to kill SuzyQ on her way to Disney, but no one wants innocent hard working citizens to get jacked by irresponsible lawmen, especially when they give the good ones a bad name. My heart is absolutly hardened against the majority of our men in blue because of !@#$s like the guy I encountered. I just fear the direction the country is taking on some freedoms in the name of safety, but then again maybe I am more liberal then some. I just would like to be able to enjoy two glasses of wine before I am considered a possible murderer in my car. You can also be considered in control of the car if you attempt to sleep it off in your car outside of a bar or whatever, at least in California (but I know from my gay azz DUI course that it is here in Florida too). See this link: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/04/18 And you can also be charged with a DUI riding a scooter, bike or lawn mower. I know, someone MIGHT ride out into traffic, but I think it has alot more to do with sticking money into state and county coffers then it does with actually having to protect citizens. Sort of like the speed traps up in STARK and WALDO florida between Jacksonville and Gainesville. ALSO YOU CAN GET A DUI WHILE CLEANING YOUR CAR. If the keys are in the ignition (listening to music), and you are touching your car (cleaning it with a rag), AND you are drunk (even in your driveway), you are in physical control of it. That is a florida supreme court statute 316.003(75),FLA.,STAT. Definitions. Give as applicable. § 316.003(75), Fla.Stat. "Vehicle" is any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. "Actual physical control of a vehicle" means the defendant must be physically IN or ON the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, REGARDLESS of whether [he] [she] is ACTUALLY OPERATING the vehicle at the time. You can look that up in a common law book, or if you are not that inclined or don't care, go to this website: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:5clbMY...us&ct=clnk&cd=2 CUT and PASTE it if it doesn't show up right. I am new here. Look, I don't want to come off bad or that I am FOR drunk driving. I just think that when you have organizations like MADD gripping in politicians ears, it is dangerous to personal FREEDOM. If you are drunk DON'T drive. But I think in this country, we have a tendency to ride the popular wave instead of realizing that maybe our kids would like to enjoy a beer with dinner and then be able to drive home with out getting arrested. By the way WHOA- what part of Florida are you from? I live in Tampa now but went to school at UF. GO BILLS! ALWAYS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 WHOABILLS- Well, I am one of the jaded citizens that was previously mentioned above. I blew a .07, and because I knew I was under the limit and asked to go, the cop got an attitude and ran me up anyway. I had to spend 4000 dollars in defense, a night in jail in county orange and then the prosecution dropped it to reckless driving (after seeing the field test which I passed (on tape) solidly despite the marks from the officer (that I failed 4 of 5 tests), which I pled to in order to avoid further hurt in the pocket book. I know there are bad things that happen when people drink and drive, KNOW YOUR LIMITs. No one wants to kill SuzyQ on her way to Disney, but no one wants innocent hard working citizens to get jacked by irresponsible lawmen, especially when they give the good ones a bad name. My heart is absolutly hardened against the majority of our men in blue because of !@#$s like the guy I encountered. I just fear the direction the country is taking on some freedoms in the name of safety, but then again maybe I am more liberal then some. I just would like to be able to enjoy two glasses of wine before I am considered a possible murderer in my car. You can also be considered in control of the car if you attempt to sleep it off in your car outside of a bar or whatever, at least in California (but I know from my gay azz DUI course that it is here in Florida too). See this link: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/04/18 And you can also be charged with a DUI riding a scooter, bike or lawn mower. I know, someone MIGHT ride out into traffic, but I think it has alot more to do with sticking money into state and county coffers then it does with actually having to protect citizens. Sort of like the speed traps up in STARK and WALDO florida between Jacksonville and Gainesville. ALSO YOU CAN GET A DUI WHILE CLEANING YOUR CAR. If the keys are in the ignition (listening to music), and you are touching your car (cleaning it with a rag), AND you are drunk (even in your driveway), you are in physical control of it. That is a florida supreme court statute 316.003(75),FLA.,STAT. Definitions. Give as applicable. § 316.003(75), Fla.Stat. "Vehicle" is any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. "Actual physical control of a vehicle" means the defendant must be physically IN or ON the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, REGARDLESS of whether [he] [she] is ACTUALLY OPERATING the vehicle at the time. You can look that up in a common law book, or if you are not that inclined or don't care, go to this website: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:5clbMY...us&ct=clnk&cd=2 CUT and PASTE it if it doesn't show up right. I am new here. Look, I don't want to come off bad or that I am FOR drunk driving. I just think that when you have organizations like MADD gripping in politicians ears, it is dangerous to personal FREEDOM. If you are drunk DON'T drive. But I think in this country, we have a tendency to ride the popular wave instead of realizing that maybe our kids would like to enjoy a beer with dinner and then be able to drive home with out getting arrested. By the way WHOA- what part of Florida are you from? I live in Tampa now but went to school at UF. GO BILLS! ALWAYS! 688919[/snapback] Australia, uniform limit is .05. Sweden is much less, something along the lines of .02. Welcome to Victoria, the home of the speed trap. A professional footballer was caught recently (Collingwood Magpies FC) on a scooter out front of his home, blew .08 and lost licence and club fined him $20,000- the guys playing salary was probably about $200k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 L.Evans - Respectfully, I disagree with you on the washing your car drunk with the keys in the ignition and "touching" the car. Actual physical control requires one to be in an immediate position to operate the vehicle. This, at the very least, would require them to be inside the vehicle where the driver would sit. In addition, it would require that the keys to the vehicle, at the very least, be in their immediate possession (or within immediate reach), and obviously they would have to be impaired. Those are the three elements of a DUI with actual physical control. Honestly, I did not go to your link because I am leery with going to links that I don't know about, so the case law that is supposedly referenced in there is unknown to me. But, I see absolutely no way in which someone can be charged with a DUI while washing their car, drunk. The State Attorney would drop that charge in a heartbeat. As far as sleeping in the car, yes. That can be actual physical control if the above elements are met. I have made several actual physical control cases, with a couple being someone passed out behind the wheel. Sometimes they do this in the middle of the road, while sitting at a stop light. Sometimes, they pull off and into a parking lot and leave the keys in the ignition. I've also had a APC case where the suspect actually flagged me down as I was driving by yelling at me "HEY!". Turns out, he really didn't want to flag me down, he just wanted to yell at a cop passing by. He was impaired, sitting in his car, with the keys in his hand. He went to jail. Yes, you can be charged with DUI on a scooter, lawn mower, mini bike (all motor vehicles), as well as a non-motorized bicycle. I can tell you that I have never, and never plan to make any of these cases, cuz if you are willing to ride a bicycle drunk, the only one that you will hurt is yourself. That is on you! As far as MADD goes, MADD is merely a victim's rights group. They attempt to intervene on behalf of those that become victims of impaired drivers. They do lobby for certain laws to be passed, and usually do so successfully. For example, new legislation that has recently been passed in Florida making it a misdemeanor to refuse to submit to a test of your breath,blood or urine after being arrested for DUI. Whereas, before it was a misdemeanor for a second / subsequent refusal. I do not believe that this is infringing on your personal rights as a human being. I know this is cliche, but driving is not your right. Driving is a privilege that is offered to you. By taking that privilege, you automatically give your consent to these tests. You also put yourself in a position to be arrested (or worse) when you drink and then drive. DUI suspects are usually only concerned with their rights, and how were their rights violated. MADD is concerned with the victim's rights, and how their rights were violated when someone else put their safety and life at risk. Both sides are understandable, however I tend to side with one more than the other... L.Evans / FutureBillsGM - Knowing your limit is always a good thing. A common observation, at least from my point of view, is that there is frequently a difference between someone's perceived limit and the illegal per se limit allowed for by law. I never drink, so at a .08 I would be 100% trashed. Heck, at a .04 I probably shouldn't drive. I can't tell you how many times I have arrested someone after they showed me obvious signs of impairment, and they swore that they were fine. Many times, they were significantly over the .08 limit (.13, .15, .17). When our judgements start to become impaired, we lose our ability to judge our impairment! Check out this site: http://www.intox.com/wheel/drinkwheel.asp 3 beers will not impair a normal, adult male. 3 long island ice teas? Yeah, that probably would. But, unless you are drinking on an empty stomach and weigh 100 lbs, 3 budweisers will not put you over a .08. This is a common misconception that goes around. A normal adult male would probably need somewhere around 5-8 beers, depending on body weight / type, time span that the alcohol was consumed, and how much they have had to eat (anything). Eating ANYTHING, before or during drinking, will keep the alcohol from just dumping into your system. This will keep the BAC from rising to high levels quickly, and allows your liver time to keep up with the metabolism / elimination process. As far as where I work, it sounds like you were arrested in Orange County? That's where I work. Hope that this helps. Always remember, a cab fare is SO much cheaper than a DUI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.EvansHands Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 WHOABILLS -- Hillsborough county. There is a great Bills Backr group here , 200 Bills fans go to a bar near me called O'Briens. It is really a great time when we are winning. If we are losing, it quickly gets ULTRA depressing. I suppose that the IN or ON the vehicle idea can be up to an officer to discern, and yes it probably WOULD get tossed out. However, once the arrest is made, and the charge filed, it is still going to hit the arrestee hard in the pocket book. No way around the way things are set up. The only way it gets tossed ou, remember is if ou fight the charge. If you plea , like some of our less fortunate fellow Americans who can not afford a 2500 dollar DUI attorney, then there is no way a State Attornet drops it. They only drop it if you choose to take it to trial and create more work for the already overworked prosecuter. I don't so much as hate MADD as an organization, I just hate when people just organize enough, due to legitmate hardships (that is why politicians can empathize with their situation) and create an over reaction. The politicians will knee jerk react because certainly no oneis lobbying FOR drunk driving, even alcohol companies like budweiser, who used to lobby for less stringent qualifications for a DUI, wont touch that matter with a ten foot pole. Remember the Captain urges you to drink responsibly. So the culmination of organizations such as MADD, and no one wanting to seem like a bad guy- creates this crazyyyy society where .03 is an arrestible offense. Perhaps some non drinkers would be drunk after a beer or 2 and not able to drive, but I hardly would say that the minority of NON drinkers who decide to drink one day, then drive (on a minimal amount of alcohol) make a justifable case to arrest or detain EVERYONE who makes a driving mistake and breaths above .03 Though the DC thing is extreme, it can and does happen, and in states like vermont etc, .05 is the limit and it can keep going down to where eventually there is a zero tolerance for a drink at dinner and driving home from the resturant. I don't particularly want to see that happen. Maybe some cops, troopers like yourself, make an intelligent decision, i.e. letting someone just call a ride or whatever (depending on the situation), but the cops coming striahg out of the academy are getting it hammered into their heads over and over that they are not there to interpret the law but to enforce it. And if the laws are made to be unrealistically abidable (people will always drink at resturants and a zero tolerence is unrealistically abidable especially in DC) and the officer has no real room for making a judgement call, then well we can all see where that leads. Wow...my how this thread has just taken a life of its own- :-P Lets run for office WHOA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Maybe some cops, troopers like yourself, make an intelligent decision, i.e. letting someone just call a ride or whatever (depending on the situation), but the cops coming striahg out of the academy are getting it hammered into their heads over and over that they are not there to interpret the law but to enforce it. 689203[/snapback] Just so that everyone understands, I do not just let someone call a ride. I make a determination that I do not have probable cause to believe that this person is impaired, and if the PBT shows that they are over the .08 limit, then a ride is called. Obviously, I can't let them just drive off. This is where "tolerance" may play a role. Any good DUI officer or DUI lawyer will tell you that you need probable cause to arrest, and this is the first really tough hurdle that needs to be jumped in court. Some bad officers cannot get over this hurdle, and the case is dumped at a motion to suppress. This is largely a subjective opinion of the officer, but it depends (generally) on a certain group of observable symptoms of impairment. Some of these symptoms are general, and some of them are a starndardized set that can be noted on the field sobriety exercises. And, since you don't know what I am looking for on the FSTs, frequently you think that you ace the test. This causes you to become shocked when the cuffs get slapped on you. Anyway, tolerance will definitely play a role in 2 out of the 3 standardized exercises. The first one, called the HGN (eye test), will not be effected by your tolerance. It is scientifically proven that alcohol, and certain other types of drugs, will cause your eyes to jerk involuntarily. The sooner they jerk, as they move to the side to follow the pen, the more impaired that you are (generally). So, this will oftentimes give away a tolerant drinker who may not feel impaired but is over the .08 limit. We still need to see other signs during the other tests (walking the line, standing on one leg) to get that probable cause, however. Sometimes, the tolerant drinker will not show these signs, and the person has to be let go. And, yes, it is hammered into our heads at the academy that our job is law ENFORCEMENT. The interpreting part comes in after you start to develop a sort of specialty. Some cops like drugs, some cops like writing speeding tickets, some cops like DUIs. When you find your niche, you learn and train. You see how you get beat in court, and you change your tactics. As far as your personal case, L.Evans - Unfortunately, being arrested and blowing a .07, impairment can be proven. Even though you are not over the .08 limit (at least you didn't lose your license), impairment has been shown to exist at .05. I do agree that the fees that you pay to get out of this charge cause great strain on you. Unfortunately, this is part of the point. All the officer has to do, is show that he had PC to arrest you. If he does, then it doesn't really matter what you blow. You could blow .000, and if he had PC, then he is covered against any civil liability. I don't know the specifics of your case, other than what you have said, and I really don't think that this is the place to air your criminal record, so I don't want to comment on it any further. But, I am sure that you have learned, that it is better to be safe than sorry. Drinking 1, 2, or even 3 drinks with dinner will not put you anywhere close to the legal limit. So, feel comfortable knowing this. 99% of the people that I have arrested are not leaving dinner. They are leaving the club / bar at 2am, where they have been drinking and drinking and partying over a period of time. They hop into the car and drive off. These, frequently, are the ones that get popped. Now, if you decide to start slamming them down with your chicken parmigiana... Forget office, L.Evans, I am gonna start charging you guys attorney's fees for this information! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.EvansHands Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Well I really don;t have a criminal record, except for a Reckless Driving, because they could not prove impairment ENOUGH with a .07 and also with the solid evidence of my field sobriety excercise. So I dont mind airing things as long as people can gain some knowledge from what happened to me. My whole point again, is that IMO the laws are not realistic and over time are continuing to be less and less realistic as politicians ride the current popular trend in the never ending quest to secure more votes. But what happens when you can;t have a drink with dinner and drive home for fear of someone hitting you or forgetting a blinker and then all of a sudden you are tagged with DUI. Sure, arrest the club goers, they probably deserve it at 2 am drunk off their butts. Get em good. More power to you officer. I think thats a great idea. Just dont pull me over leaving Applebees at 8pm for a blinker and then decide to have me blow, me be under the legal limit, and then slap me with a DUI just because your pride or personal agenda tells you too. Yes for every 1 crap cop there is a good one or two I understand that, and I am sure they are well intentioned. But I dont want to have to roll the dice on a 50-50 gamble of what type of cop I'll get on any given day just because we tightened the law enough to give them probably cause for just about any situation the cop wants to come up with. You and I both know that probable causeis NOT hard o come up with and also is easy to modify to your needs, whether you personally do that or not. Im willing to assume you don't. But you also have to be willing to assume some do, and thatis where I think the law fails. A blinker, r beer on the breath as you leave a resturant, should not consititute probable cause but it does because the officer will report it like this: Erratic driving, the odor of alcohol eminating from the vehicle. ok this is my last post on the subject because we could do this all day everyday and get no where Go bILLs in '06 and give J.P a CHANCE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary owen Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 maybe "high character" is important??? http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2457335 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary owen Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 I guess he threw her out of the house and she landed inside that horrible limo… In his defense, she did say she wanted a divorce….Rueben was just accommodating her wishes and giving her a head start... http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AhA7...ov=ap&type=lgns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts