3 off duty cops drive wrong way on highway, crash into tractor trailer, guess who got breathalizer?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Anyafaj

The New York Post reports that the officers did not smell of booze at the hospital but but investigators will likely request a warrant to administer a blood-alcohol test to see if he was intoxicated.

It sounds like because of Union, they have to get a warrant to either draw the blood or get the results of the blood.

It's a bit late now, innit? How sad that the BAL will be meaningless at this point. I suppose we will never know. Alas.

True, but I would guess, the legalities are because of Union Reps, they have to get a warrant, rather than just get the results just handed to them outright. I'm just guessing. Our police expert would know more than I.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: semperfortis

I await your follow up toxicology report that you intend to supply us with.

I'm sorry, was there a question there? Because it looks a snarky, petulant statement to me.

They said the truck driver wasn't impaired. Did I miss where they handed out copies of the test results to the press?

^ that's a rhetorical question, by the way.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

He was off duty at the time of the incident. Your curiosity about his level of impairment doesn't trump the privacy laws in place. You really have no valid legal reason to know, and using the "public has a right to know" argument is a bit of a reach. You think you have a need to see the medical records of an off duty officer, contact the hospital he's at an explain it to them maybe?

WE may not have the right to see the results, but the police certainly do to see if the driver was drunk when he was driving the opposite direction.

a reply to: Shamrock6

When politicians break the law in their off hours we are allowed to know. The people that are trusted to make the right call when arresting us should also abide by those same laws. There is no privacy when you break the law.

Holding police officers to a different standard than the rest of us is why most LE is not trusted.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: semperfortis

I await your follow up toxicology report that you intend to supply us with.

I'm sorry, was there a question there? Because it looks a snarky, petulant statement to me.

They said the truck driver wasn't impaired. Did I miss where they handed out copies of the test results to the press?

^ that's a rhetorical question, by the way.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical device may be posed declaratively by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: semperfortis

I await your follow up toxicology report that you intend to supply us with.

I'm sorry, was there a question there? Because it looks a snarky, petulant statement to me.

They said the truck driver wasn't impaired. Did I miss where they handed out copies of the test results to the press?

^ that's a rhetorical question, by the way.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical device may be posed declaratively by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written.

The face making sums it all up nicely champ

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: semperfortis

I await your follow up toxicology report that you intend to supply us with.

I'm sorry, was there a question there? Because it looks a snarky, petulant statement to me.

They said the truck driver wasn't impaired. Did I miss where they handed out copies of the test results to the press?

^ that's a rhetorical question, by the way.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical device may be posed declaratively by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written.

The face making sums it all up nicely champ

The name calling is even better and against ATS rules.....

I am not your "champ"

a reply to: Witness2008

And when the report comes back, I'm sure the results will be made known. The report? Probably not.

A tox screen isn't quite as quick as a breathalyzer.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: semperfortis

I await your follow up toxicology report that you intend to supply us with.

I'm sorry, was there a question there? Because it looks a snarky, petulant statement to me.

They said the truck driver wasn't impaired. Did I miss where they handed out copies of the test results to the press?

^ that's a rhetorical question, by the way.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical device may be posed declaratively by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written.

The face making sums it all up nicely champ

The name calling is even better and against ATS rules.....

I am not your "champ"

Indeed. I guess I should flag every comment when somebody says "friend" or "pal" or shamrock. Those are all names, after all. If you were offended by "champ" I dunno what to tell you.

Toodles

a reply to: SirKonstantin

This is probably going to sound nit-picky and at the risk of being called a grammar Nazi, persecution is quite a bit different than prosecution. That's my "the more you know" moment of the day.

As far as the op, sad story. I agree it doesn't matter the profession, a drunk driver is a drunk driver (as long as they're not on the job).

These results of the blood test ...will we know how long after the incident occurred the blood test was done ? That would be useful info.....

And honestly who goes to a strip club until almost 5 am and does it sober....then drives down the wrong side of a highway........these guys were plastered well and truly...i am betting not only were they drunk as skunks the were high as kites ......

Really really bad as these pillars of the community are supposed to be setting an example for the rest of us law abiding citizens ....

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Witness2008

And when the report comes back, I'm sure the results will be made known. The report? Probably not.

A tox screen isn't quite as quick as a breathalyzer.

I won't need a report, even though everyone elses can be made public. All I am interested in is how Law Enforcement reacts when their own kind break the law. A toxicology screening may also show if he had partaken of the coc aine before he lost it in the snow.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: Bedlam

That could be anything in those shot glasses! like iced tea.... or... iced t.. ya i got nothing.

Well, the driver could have been the DD and one of the other two might have ordered two drinks. Or they might be pics of someone else's drinks. You don't KNOW the driver drank one or more of those.

Not being sarcastic, either, without a BAL you just can't tell.

Hopefully between the different stories, they did draw a BAL per evidenciary rules and just haven't tested it yet, instead of waiting for the guy to be totally sober first.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: semperfortis

I await your follow up toxicology report that you intend to supply us with.

I'm sorry, was there a question there? Because it looks a snarky, petulant statement to me.

They said the truck driver wasn't impaired. Did I miss where they handed out copies of the test results to the press?

^ that's a rhetorical question, by the way.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point, rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical device may be posed declaratively by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written.

The face making sums it all up nicely champ

The name calling is even better and against ATS rules.....

I am not your "champ"

Indeed. I guess I should flag every comment when somebody says "friend" or "pal" or shamrock. Those are all names, after all. If you were offended by "champ" I dunno what to tell you.

Toodles

www.urbandictionary.com...

Toodles

a reply to: Bedlam

Very true, best to wait until all the facts (hopefully) come out.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Anyafaj

I noticed the article didn't make mention the cops receiving a Breathalyzer though.

They were probably unconscious based on the wreckage in the photo you provided. They would have had their blood drawn at the hospital as protocol.

If you don't draw specifically for an alcohol level, it's inadmissible in court.

An ER doc would do a serum alcohol and a urine tox on any mangled/unconscious patient just to know what they had to deal with on top of the injuries. But to do a serum alcohol for an admissible level requires a witness, typically a LEO, and you have to use a non-alcohol cleaning solution like Betadine, and the sample's got some sort of chain of evidence thing you have to follow - there's a kit for it. So we may know what level the guy was, but you can't introduce it as evidence unless it's gotten a particular way.

And in the case of fellow LEOs, that way won't be followed for...a while. You or me, we'd be getting an ETOH kit right off the bat but somehow it ends up happening hours late in some cases.

BTW, it's said the driver posted this on Instagram several hours before the crash:

eta: MSM says that levels were drawn on everyone, living or dead, so I was wrong about that.

I would assume, and it's strictly an assumption, that if you're posting three drinks and it's three guys, all a yaz are drinking. But we'll see. At any rate, I'm not sure how it really matters in this case if they're cops. It's not like they were in patrol cars or arresting people.

I've generally found that people who are careless and irresponsible in their free time are careless and irresponsible at work, but that's just what I've found over 40 years and hundreds of employees and people I've worked with. So, it kind of does matter, it gives an indication of what these cops were all about. I certainly won't paint all cops with a wide brush, but I haven't met many good cops and I am also not saying there aren't good cops. If this does get covered up, my opinion of most police will drop another notch, but that notch above the next, is already 3 sub-basements down below the sewers.

Cheers - Dave

Seems that anything to do with cops, even those out having a good time on their own time, just being human, sends people into a rabid frothing frenzy when the reality is that this is just a sad and tragic accident where someone made a mistake and people paid for it with their lives and families are suffering and hurting but people here are just compelled to judge and prejudge and cast aspersions. All the snide and snarky commentary and ignorant assumptions and just plain stupidity here is really sickening. If you're so bloody concerned march yourself on up to NJ and demand the tox reports. *Eyeroll.

ETA: And yes...I judged some of the behaviour here. Deal with it.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle


I've generally found that people who are careless and irresponsible in their free time are careless and irresponsible at work, but that's just what I've found over 40 years and hundreds of employees and people I've worked with. So, it kind of does matter, it gives an indication of what these cops were all about. I certainly won't paint all cops with a wide brush, but I haven't met many good cops and I am also not saying there aren't good cops. If this does get covered up, my opinion of most police will drop another notch, but that notch above the next, is already 3 sub-basements down below the sewers.

Cheers - Dave

I have noticed that with a few people related to my ex, not everyone mind you, but a few. I am hopeful that because this a small force this doesn't get buried or covered up, but you never know.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

When citizens are pulled over ticketed and arrested I doubt they are given the benefit of the doubt, just being human and all. No one should be allowed to enforce the law if they themselves knowingly break those laws.

I have no idea whether the driver of that vehicle was impaired or not, I only know that if he was and he is employed as law enforcement then the same standards apply to him as it does for the rest of us.

a reply to: Witness2008

And there is absolutely no reason here to make any assumptions that they wouldn't. Threads like this should never even make their way to a place like this. Creating big piles of dung out of virtually nothing but someone's speculation because they salivated over this happening to cops, when in fact it's just an every day tragedy that happens to all kinds of people. Even saints like the ones commenting here. And it's abhorant. In my opinion.