Billings cop attacks breath tests, gains mistrial

Originally posted by NightGypsy


Apparently, we have someone here who has yet to explore the concept of "deny ignorance."

Who might that be? You>>>???

Come in here making up BS stories and expect
someone to take you seriously??

reply to post by -W1LL

that witness in fact is not and expert in the area of breathalyzers and shows that in the quote i posted.

I understand that.

And I responded by saying it was not our problem that the defense witness comes off like a numbskull on the stand. If he truly made the comment that you quoted, then that is an issue that should have solicited a response from the D.A.'s Office that would call into question the level of expertise of the defense witness. It does not appear that occurred. How does that become the police officer's fault if this situation resulted in her getting a mistrial?

My suggestion to you would be to focus on the TRULY outrageous miscarriages of justice that occur on a daily basis which result in very dangerous individuals skating on crimes such as murder.

Hating cops doesn't hurt the cops, it only hurts you.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by NightGypsy

 

Let me assure people that police officers who are arrested for DUI are NOT given any special treatment. In fact, the days where cops looked after their own who were caught driving drunk are diminishing rapidly, primarily out of fear of lawsuits.

Can you show some sort of proof of this? Or just some made up stuff?


I know this from personal experience, the circumstances of which I will begrudgingly share with you here on ATS since I think this topic is important.


Oh thanks....


I was arrested for DUI in the early 90's while employed as a police officer. I was driving home from a club at about 2 a.m. and was two blocks from my home. The reason I was pulled over was because I had a two-seater convertible and had three people (including myself) on board. Can't argue that violation.

AA would be my suggestion...

To my surprise, I was hooked up and hauled off by a CHP officer who even went to the extent of calling his supervisor over to make the decision to arrest because he didn't want to take the heat for it. I was taken to the jail and blew a .10 B.A.C., the legal limit, of course, being .08.

That is what happens to a drunk driver and....

I had no one to blame but myself for that situation. Many officers in my department were promoting a ticket war against the CHP in retaliation (no, I'm not joking), which I vehemently opposed on the grounds that I was pulled over fair and square and, therefore, cooked my own goose.

You got that right...

My department had not experienced one of their own being arrested for anything, so my chief, understandably, put me off for a couple of months with no pay, regardless of what the outcome of any trial would be. I had committed an unlawful act, and he had no choice but to send a clear message.

Of course, I obtained a lawyer, and, much to my chagrin, my first hearing found me in the courtroom with an angry group of M.A.D.D. members staring me down with a look of disdain. Oh, boy.....not fun. M.A.D.D. NEVER missed a hearing and even approached the D.A.'s Office asking that I not be given any leniency due to my status as a police officer, as I was expected to be held to a higher standard by the public.

Next, my attorney and I had the DMV hearing to request that I be given driving privileges to at least drive to and from work, and while on patrol. Not only did the hearing officer say no, he said, HELL NO!! The hearing officer brought the hammer down on me very abruptly and without batting an eyelash. First offense, same treatment as a civilian.....four months suspended license.

So, the next humiliating aspect of my punishment came when I had no choice but to work the desk for the four months my license was suspended. This assignment came with an ominous warning from my chief, "If I find out you so much as even back your vehicle out of your driveway while your license is suspended, you will be fired."

Did I step foot behind the wheel of my brand new convertible in those four months? Hell friggin' NO! LOL. I was scrounging for a ride to and from work every day, which was not a pleasant task since my workplace was in a different town as my residence.

I ultimately received a hefty fine and probation for my offense. Was it over at that point? HELLO NO! LOL

The very first night that I returned to patrol, guess what my first arrest was? A DUI! When court rolled around for the suspect I had arrested, the D.A. pulled me aside to let me know what was occurring behind the scenes of this case. Apparently, the defense attorney had suggested that since I had been arrested and convicted of the DUI, there was reason to speculate as to my sobriety while on duty on the evening that I arrested his client!

You should be fired and not allowed to be a police officer bottom line.. If this whole made up story is true per say..

WOW!

Needless to say, it was literally the most embarrassing position I ever found myself in in the history of this lifetime.

I'll tell you one thing, I never once drove after I'd been drinking from that time on. As a matter of fact, I eventually grew to detest alcohol after that experience and don't even drink anymore at all.

You may be surprised to know, however that I DO agree that police officers should definitely be held to a higher standard because of their status as a cop.

I was lucky I wasn't fired. Some of you probably believe I should have been, and I can understand why. When it was over, my chief made it a point to tell me he appreciated I didn't try to pawn responsibility off on the CHP officer who arrested me and that he respected the fact I admitted my own stupidity caused my predicament.

Yes, because it sounds like you got some special treatment...

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by -W1LL

 

Hating cops doesn't hurt the cops, it only hurts you.

Who the hell in this thread is hating cops?

Don't feed the trolls I forgot sorry..

reply to post by hillynilly

Come in here making up BS stories and expect someone to take you seriously??

LMAO....yes, for my own pure entertainment, I make up stories about the stupid actions on my part that resulted in my own arrest.....when I was a cop. That's sounds like something someone would lie about. I LIVE to make up stuff to put a black mark on my reputation in front of the public.

What was I saying earlier about "denying ignorance?"

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by -W1LL

 

that witness in fact is not and expert in the area of breathalyzers and shows that in the quote i posted.

I understand that.

And I responded by saying it was not our problem that the defense witness comes off like a numbskull on the stand. If he truly made the comment that you quoted, then that is an issue that should have solicited a response from the D.A.'s Office that would call into question the level of expertise of the defense witness. It does not appear that occurred. How does that become the police officer's fault if this situation resulted in her getting a mistrial?

My suggestion to you would be to focus on the TRULY outrageous miscarriages of justice that occur on a daily basis which result in very dangerous individuals skating on crimes such as murder.

Hating cops doesn't hurt the cops, it only hurts you.

Y do you feel the need to imply i hate cops stop bashing me.

it is your problem the witness who created this mistrial IS a numbskull and not an expert that is the exact reason I dislike our current system as i said in my OP.
you cannot use this person as a valid witness and if a civilian tried the same thing that witness' testimony would not be admissible. the so called expert witness is NOT an expert in Breathalyzers and has never had training

Jodoin questioned whether the chemist had any training in analysis of field sobriety tests. Miranda said he hadn’t,

nuff said.
he Truely did make that statement im sure its in the court logs as its in the news article as a quote.


I only want to see equal treatment for law enforcement officers when they break the law NOTHING more that you are assuming or implying certainly no hate.

how does it become the officers fault you ask? i never said it was.. its the system and the brotherhood of easily manipulated puppets they use who are above the laws they enforce. more often than not.

reply to post by -W1LL

you cannot use this person as a valid witness and if a civilian tried the same thing that witness' testimony would not be admissible. the so called expert witness is NOT an expert in Breathalyzers and has never had training

I am giddy with excitement in anticipation of the evidence you will be providing that proves this allegation of yours.

reply to post by -W1LL


WILL, I'm sorry, but if I may stray off topic for a moment to comment that your signature is most excellent, echoing lyrics from one of my favorite tunes of all time by Mad Season.

Okay, back on topic. Man your weapons, OP.

reply to post by NightGypsy


i have posted that evidence a couple times its in the article

from this quote he is a metallurgist by trade... and has a phd in chemistry. the chemistry background may give him some knowledge that would backup his opinion on this case.

Miranda, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Montana and works as a senior metallurgist for Idaho-based Thompson Creek Mining Co., has had some training related to breath-testing and has previously testified as an expert witness about eight or 10 times, he said.

key word in this HE SAID, I'll show you why after the next quote.

Jodoin questioned whether the chemist had any training in analysis of field sobriety tests. Miranda said he hadn’t,

so which is it either he had some training or he didn't He said both so either hes a liar or a hypocrite or both. he makes no mention of what training has had or his previous cases, and the importance of previous cases has no merit with me without knowing the details of said cases.


and this

After viewing the results of a second breath test at the detention center, she was asked on video whether she was under the influence of alcohol. “Obviously, yes,” she said.

for any civilian that would be an admission of guilt right there.

she was convicted of speeding. so she was convicted of speeding while admittedly under the influence.


and that is why our corrupt system needs to be taken a-hold of and remodeled, like our local sheriff the way it is outside of town where there are no large police forces run like big businesses.

reply to post by -W1LL

T she was convicted of speeding. so she was convicted of speeding while admittedly under the influence. and that is why our corrupt system needs to be taken a-hold of and remodeled, like our local sheriff the way it is outside of town where there are no large police forces run like big businesses.ext

Okay, WILL, I am on board with you here, but I think this fact speaks more about the flaws in the justice system overall than it does about police getting special treatment. I don't know if you have any experience on either side of the criminal justice system, but I'm telling you, the whole thing is a sham regardless of who the defendant is.

As a former cop myself, I will not deny that there are many instances where police believe themselves to be above the law and assume that they will never be held accountable for any unlawful acts they commit. It is part of the mentality that develops as police officers are in the job for a while. They believe themselves to be invincible. Indeed, I could share many examples that I personally am aware of where police were involved in unethical and/or unlawful activities.

But what I'm trying to convey here in this thread is that, believe it or not, the "good ol' boy" code of honor in police work is gradually losing it's grip in the police realm. Cops would bend over backwards years ago to prevent a fellow officer from getting caught with his hands dirty. Today, police departments are less tolerant of this kind of behavior. I suspect this is due to the sue-happy society we now live in and the fact that many supervisors are no longer willing to risk their own careers in order to save the neck of someone who has f-d up. Cities do not have a desire to pay out large cash settlements because some a-hole cop pulled a stupid stunt. Plus, with a population of citizens being more active in videotaping police in the course of their job, and because citizens are growing increasingly intolerant of the reports and videos that surface detailing abuses by police, city officials and police chiefs have to watch their actions because they, too, can wind up facing the music if they try to cover something up.

What I should have made clear from the onset of your thread is that regardless of my background, I have zero tolerance for some of the s--t that is pulled out there in the street by stupid, egomaniacol cops who think in terms of nothing but "us" and "them." While I understand their need to defend themselves and others against attack, I know it's a fine line. As people on the street have become more dangerous, the police have responded by pushing the limits of their boundaries as well.

Every cop who commits a despicable act puts black mark is put on all cops. These particular police officers, frankly, are more of a thorn in my side than some of the criminals they are trying to apprehend.

reply to post by NightGypsy


WELL said and I agree with you 100%

lol I too could be more clear in my OP and every day just ask my wife.

reply to post by -W1LL

WELL said and I agree with you 100% lol I too could be more clear in my OP and every day just ask my wife.

Hmmmm, give me her contact info and I will initiate an interrogation of this spouse of yours......

Nice Thread.

Starting off, I do not think this is an example of our flawed system. I do not feel this is a case where an Officer was shown special treatment because they are an Officer.

When it comes to DUI cases, any attorney worth a dime will tell you exactly what I am going to tell you now. Never take the breathalyzer. Always refuse.

Now understand that many states have statutes in place that will cause you to lose your driver's license if you do refuse to blow. Just accept it and always refuse.

Now the reason why defense lawyers suggest you refuse the test is for exactly that same reason testified to by the expert witness in this case. It is a flawed test any many things can effect the results. I do not expect anyone to take my word for it, but if you would like to conduct your own test and you have access to a breathalyzer, try drinking some cough syrup and then blow. Try taking medication and then blow. The chances are high that you may just fail the test, even if you have not had a single drop of alcohol. Besides the reason I have listed and the reasons the expert testified to, there can also be issues with the breathalyzer itself and the training of the person who is administering the test to you. The machine itself needs to be calibrated on a regular basis,by someone who is actually trained to do so.

Now with all that being said, it is VERY VERY important to know the laws in YOUR local area. Refusing a breathalyzer test is not a decision to take lightly. In some cases, it may even be the most important decision you make. In some states, your refusal can bring more serious consequences than if you took the test and failed. It is best to consult a DUI attorney before making any decision, however that is not always possible in the moment. This mainly due to many states having laws regarding "implied consent". When you get your driver's license you are required to sign a form. Many people fail to actually read the form. What that form basically states is that you agree to submit to such testing when asked. There are many legal arguments against implied consent, breathalyzers, DUI and the like, but I am at work right now and I need to get my butt back to work. So I will read the OP again, make sure I did not misunderstand or misread anything and I will try to get back here and explain further when I have more time to really focus.

reply to post by NightGypsy


I guess I could ask why the DA didn't blow this witness out of the water..

Maybe he favored the cop as it sounds to me like the "so called" expert witness would have been easy to discredit..

So who does the DA work for??

Breath tests are should ONLY be used and are ONLY used to get the POWER OF ARREST.

You CANNOT convict on a breath test.

Once the breath test fail gets you arrested, you are given (or should be given) a BLOOD TEST.

and ONLY then can they convict on a number of blood test failures (if borderline).

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by NightGypsy

 

I guess I could ask why the DA didn't blow this witness out of the water..

Maybe he favored the cop as it sounds to me like the "so called" expert witness would have been easy to discredit..

So who does the DA work for??

The DA didnt blow this witness out of the water because the witness is right. There are many many flaws to the breathalyzer test, but unless you pay a lot of money for a very good DUI lawyer who knows the ins and outs, you would not know this information.

The fact is the breathalyzer test is VERY flawed and easy to discredit by someone who knows how to do it. The old saying is "follow the money". I would suggest you look into how much revenue a DUI conviction brings in. Excluding attorney fees, you are looking at court cost, defensive driving classes, addiction meetings, probation, a remote breathalyzer that hooks up to your car so if you fail it will not start. Of course you pay for the installation of the device, a monthly fee to use the device, and you pay to have the device removed once you have completed your sentence. Of course what most people do not know is if you happen to have car trouble and the device malfunctions and needs to be reset...you will pay for that too.

Originally posted by hillynilly
You know what>?

All these people defending the police officers IN THIS CASE
are sick...

You know damn well if it was ANYONE ELSE they would of got the hammer
for being .2 over...

Calibrate this, cops stick together like a brotherhood, through good AND bad
bottom line..

They get the *special* treatment in this case.

Trial by jury... REALLY super special treatment there! Wish we all had a right to trial by jury... oh wait... we do!

Originally posted by hillynilly
Yes, because it sounds like you got some special treatment...

Yeah he sure did!

He got found guilty of DWI. That's even more super secret squirrel special treatment than trial by jury that the OP is whinging on about.