Physics Student Owns Cop In Math

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
caught by police doing what? being innocent? if he was underage he wouldn't admit to drinking. SOME college students have fake id's, but suggesting this is the case is pure conjecture and assumes the person is guilty without any evidence or suspicion.

and assuming the people in the video did nothing to have a law enforcement contact is conjecture as well.

Hence the reason I wanted to know the reason for the contact... For some reason that part of the video / information is not available, which means the video itself is not placed into context, allowing for people to draw a conclusion that may or may not be correct, which is a problem.

It makes it difficult to understand the officers actions and the reason for those actions.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
after blowing a .018? i see a pissed off police officer who is taking his anger out on the person who corrected him.

Again why was the contact made? Was there anything else in the persons system? Did the person actually get a citation and if so for what? Again since we don't have anything that occurred after the contact, we don't know what occurred now do we?

Hence the reason for the questions.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
perhaps that is because two beers on average is under .08 BAC? it is in no way evidence of a crime, and does not constitute reasonable suspicion.

Actually it varies depending on the person in question and whether or not they are male or female. Secondly if they are under 21 its .02 and not .08. Third you don't have to be over .08 if you have other drugs in your system. Fourth you don't have to be over .08 to be charged... Demonstration of impairment under .08 can be used in court.

Again, hence the reasons for the information I've pointed out as to why there was contact to begin with and what else occurred prior to and after the video started and stopped recording.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
hmm...i remember saying the exact same thing to the police as they searched my truck. i verbally told the officers i did not consent to a search. probably a result of the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset seen in so many.

Ignorance of the law and what your rights are is your responsibility or your lawyers, not the police. If you allowed the search that's on you. If you told the officer no and he continued and you did not contact a lawyer or file a 42 USC 1983 violation, that's on you.

Just like the video, your story about the search is based on only one point of view, where we only have the information that you provided and no way to place the situation into context. We don't know the reason for the encounter, the reason for the search, or what occurred afterwards.

hence the reason I asked the questions I did.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
which is why police officers cannot be made to testify for someone, but only against them.

Incorrect - I have testified for the defense before. I have testified where my testimony destroyed the prosecutions case. Just because you don't take the time to research how this works doesn't mean the cops are only for one side alone.

We are almost always called by the prosecution because of our involvement in the investigation that resulted in the PA filing charge. Our adversarial system is there for a reason. It allows the defense to go after us and forces the prosecution to have all of their ducks in a row. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, and for good reason.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the officer becoming irate after being corrected is evidence of him doing many things wrong. he should be removed from the force because of his hostile personality and incompetence.

I would actually support that action if we can see what occurred prior to the encounter, why the encounter occurred, and what happened after where the video ends.

if you aren't willing to have all the facts present then you would be no better than the officer you want removed.

Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by Kody27

 

As far as I am concerned it is driving drunk. If you drink alcohol and get behind the wheel you are drinking and driving...no excuse for it...and its people like you that excuse this type of behavior and say its alright and then people get killed. This incident is different in that they guy was walking but I do not see a difference between a little bit of drinking and driving or a lot...especially after losing my 3 year old....my daughter and my wife to a drunk driver....get behind the wheel of a car after drinking...yes you deserve to go to jail in my opinion...period...its stupid and no reason for it

So basically everyone leaving from a restaurant or their home after having a glass of wine or a beer or two with their friends should go to jail? Even though our jails are already overflowing with people who sold or smoked pot? If I were you, I would be more upset at the fact that drinking is legal at all. The number of marijuana related car accidents compared to alcohol related ones pales in comparison.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Ignorance of the law and what your rights are is your responsibility or your lawyers, not the police.

police are under oath on the job to uphold the law, the officers searching me were not upholding the law.

Incorrect - I have testified for the defense before.

the key words were "cannot be made". you can testify for the defense only if you agree voluntarily.

I would actually support that action if we can see what occurred prior to the encounter, why the encounter occurred, and what happened after where the video ends.

i agree that more needs to be presented to reach an accurate conclusion, but from what i've seen in the video, it's clear that something is amiss by one of the parties.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
police are under oath on the job to uphold the law, the officers searching me were not upholding the law.

Actually it is and the officers were, whether you agree with it or not. Secondly its also an officer safety issue, something the US Supreme Court has stated time and again over the years.

Just because you dont agree with an action does not mean you can ignore it nor does it mean the officers actions are illegal.

With that being said, if you can proivide more specific information as to what you think a "search" is compared to a "frisk". While people use the two terms interchangably, they are not and there is a huge difference between the 2.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the key words were "cannot be made". you can testify for the defense only if you agree voluntarily.

Incorrect - You can be compelled to testify.. We have already been over this one.. Its called a material witness warrant. Refusing to provide relevent and factual information for either side, prosecution or defense, can result in charges and rightfully so. Specifically when the info you have affects the person who is on trial.

REfusing to provide that information violates Due Process of the affected person.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i agree that more needs to be presented to reach an accurate conclusion, but from what i've seen in the video, it's clear that something is amiss by one of the parties.

Sure... but which party? I dont mind holding law enforcement accountible, even more so because 1 officer being a moron screws it up for th e rest of us. I just have issues when an encounter that was recorded only shows a snippet of the entire encounter.

You want to hols law enforcement accountible via camera - im all for it.

However, when we record say a DWI stop, I am required by law to have the entire dash cam footage secured as evidence, from start to finish.

Why? Because a 30 second snippet does not always tell the entire story and viewing the video in its entirety could actually change the outcome based on actions prior to the part being shown.

As a side note welcome back.. Ive enjoyed the back and forth with you and look forward to more intellectual debate and difference in perspective.

reply to post by Xcathdra

With that being said, if you can proivide more specific information as to what you think a "search" is compared to a "frisk". While people use the two terms interchangably, they are not and there is a huge difference between the 2.

one cannot "frisk" an automobile. i can understand a pat down of a person that is suspicious, a terry stop, but i find it disturbing when an officer abuses their authority. searching one's automobile or vehicle over prescription medicine in the original container, and made out to the driver or passenger, is not grounds to search a vehicle or order out the occupants. that is what occurred in my particular situation. i informed the officers (there were three) that i did not consent to a search, and that they did not have probable cause. alas, this did not stop them. nothing was found, and i was released.

Incorrect - You can be compelled to testify.. We have already been over this one.. Its called a material witness warrant. Refusing to provide relevent and factual information for either side, prosecution or defense, can result in charges and rightfully so. Specifically when the info you have affects the person who is on trial.

you're right, i wasn't specific enough. what someone says to an officer after the miranda rights have been read "can and will be used against them", however it does not have to be used for them. it is hearsay under the federal rules of evidence 801(d)(2)(a).
www.youtube.com... 8:30 in goes over this.

Sure... but which party? I dont mind holding law enforcement accountible, even more so because 1 officer being a moron screws it up for th e rest of us. I just have issues when an encounter that was recorded only shows a snippet of the entire encounter.

it is enough to know that there is a problem for it to move forward. i think the officer's "argue it in court" statement after he was shown to be incorrect (a discussion on whether the device would be admissible in court is irrelevant, as the end result is the officer did not know how to properly read and interpret the results) points to poor handling of the situation at the very least and remedial instruction, with the possibility that his actions may have been illegal.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
one cannot "frisk" an automobile. i can understand a pat down of a person that is suspicious, a terry stop, but i find it disturbing when an officer abuses their authority. searching one's automobile or vehicle over prescription medicine in the original container, and made out to the driver or passenger, is not grounds to search a vehicle or order out the occupants. that is what occurred in my particular situation. i informed the officers (there were three) that i did not consent to a search, and that they did not have probable cause. alas, this did not stop them. nothing was found, and i was released.

A vehicle can be frisked actually - United States vs. Vinton - 2010
US vs. Vinton - brief overview

We have the ability to remove the driver of a vehicle and conduct a limited "frisk" of the passenger compartment of a vehicle.

As I stated in my last post, there is a huge difference between a "frisk" and a "search". A search has to have PC / Incident to arrest / consent / warrant to occur (other exceptions apply, but these are the most common). A frisk is NOT a search and as such does not require a warrant / PC to conduct.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you're right, i wasn't specific enough. what someone says to an officer after the miranda rights have been read "can and will be used against them", however it does not have to be used for them. it is hearsay under the federal rules of evidence 801(d)(2)(a).
www.youtube.com... 8:30 in goes over this.

Which only applies to Federal Court Proceedings, not state or municipal courts. A person who is a witness cannot invoke Miranda as they are not the focus of the criminal investigation. Secondly there are exceptions to the hearsay rule in court proceedings, from Federal down to state and local.

Third when I mirandize a person it is because they are A - In custody and not free to leave and B - are being asked guilt seeking questions. Any answer they provide to my questions can be documented and used against them in a court of law.

What you described, and I described above, is NOT hearsay. Hearsay would be Person A having a conversation with Person B. Person A then goes and repeats that conversation to Person C. Person C, trying to repeat that story in court, would not be allowed because it would be hearsay.

When a person is Mirandized and answers the questions, the officer in question is directly involved in that conversation and as such can repeat that information not only in the report, but in court under oath as they have direct knowledge of that conversation.

Information gathered from a person after Miranda is NOT hearsay.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it is enough to know that there is a problem for it to move forward. i think the officer's "argue it in court" statement after he was shown to be incorrect (a discussion on whether the device would be admissible in court is irrelevant, as the end result is the officer did not know how to properly read and interpret the results) points to poor handling of the situation at the very least and remedial instruction, with the possibility that his actions may have been illegal.

Remedial training - Absolutely, since its imperative for an officer to know what the hell they are talking about.
Illegal - The actions of an officer, or a person who is issued a citation / arrested, can only be determined to be lawful or unlawful by a court, not the individual nor the officer. Hence the "argue it in court" response.

Admissibility in court is actually key in these situations. The reason for that goes directly to the conversation the cop and the kid had. I want to know the age of the person to cop was dealing with as almost all states have laws that deal specifically with people who are under 21 and over 16 who have alcohol in their system. I also want to know if it stemmed from a traffic stop or a voluntary contact through other means.

The reason that info is key is the result of the PBT would be irrelevant at that point since the laws for under 21 are 0.02% and not 0.08%, for both DWI as well as Minor in Possession by Consumption.

I have had situations where a person wants to argue the legalities of a ticket or a charge, and I have referred them to the courts for that argument. We do NOT determine guilt or innocence, let alone if an action is legal or illegal. The courts do and that is in fact the best place to argue a point of view / legal argument as to why an action is illegal / unlawful.