JG Excerpt:With a reasonable cause to pull over this driver in the first place, making the decision to administer this test and then failing it should have raised the status of this traffic stop.
Stacy had acknowledged to DeWitt that he had been drinking, and his preliminary breath test, or PBT, administered by another Janesville officer at the initial traffic stop, indicated a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.12. Wisconsin's legal threshold for intoxication is 0.08.
JG Excerpt:Not having clues? He received two tickets - one for unreasonable speed (90+ mph in a 25 zone) and another for driving left of center (on a cell phone) – we’re talking about a possible head-on collision here. And a preliminary .12 alcohol level?
"Despite not having clues to arrest Mr. Stacy, Officer DeWitt felt uncomfortable with Mr. Stacy continuing to drive with that PBT reading," Davis said.
JG Excerpt:For a town (Janesville) whose leaders preach zero tolerance when it comes to building codes, nuisance laws and other seemingly minor infractions, not arresting this drunk driver seemed unconscionable. Anyone can make a mistake, but when it comes to drunk drivers, anything higher than .08 alcohol level is the time to practice zero tolerance.
While bad driving and a PBT over the limit could constitute a ticket, they generally are not enough probable cause in themselves for an OWI arrest, Groelle said.
I cringe when I hear about ordinances that are enforced only at the discretion of authorities. Why have the equipment to administer a test for blood/alcohol levels? Why use mathimatical percentages and other scientific data for judgment when discretion is available?
Anybody familiar with Wisconsin drunk driving laws knows they are far too lenient, fines are too low and repeat offenders are too repetitious. And this case is just another good reason to handcuff drunk drivers to a street pole till they’re sober. What a sad, sad story.
2 comments:
Yes, if nothing else this immediately struck me as a clinic in officials getting their story lined up. Normally, one person is now days a spoke's person for a multi-agency event like this one. DAs, prosecutors, police, sheriff's deputies, newspapers, and even probably the building janitor are circling the wagons on this one.
The one quote that is of interest to me is when a sheriff's deputy says something to the effect that it is important Mr. Stacy's 4th Amendment rights were respected. Give me a break; I have been pulled over and harrased for a half hour by the same crowd for just having an ugly car.
The police did not drive Mr. Stacy's car off the road, he did that apparently. But at the very least the wagons are being circled because I think the authorities realize something might hit the fan on this one. Stay tuned folks.
Bob Keith
www.cooldadiomedia.com
Hello Bob, you must be referring to this quote from the Gazette. "I really appreciate that there is some support and respect for the Fourth Amendment of the (U.S.) Constitution, which is the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, because you don't see it all that frequently."
This is a bizarre statement to make considering the circumstances. On one hand some experts are saying the officer did violate the drivers rights by requesting for the breath test in the first place. While on the other hand, the failed test evidence may have been inadmissable because of no probable cause? Unfortunately a courtroom won't be needed because the officer decided to use his "discretion."
Imagine somebody walking down the street shouting vulgarities and just smelling bad. The police pull him over to see what the problem is and ask him what's inside the duffle bag he's carrying. He says its empty, but refuses to show them. Do they pat him down and search the bag? And if they find a bomb, do they just take the bomb away and send him on his merry way out of fear that they may have violated his 4th Amendment Rights? Or do they arrest him and let the courts decide?
Traveling 90+ mph on city streets at 1 am should be reasonable cause to warrant the PBT. Failing the PBT should have overruled the physical field tests. Discovery is everything, asking why administer the test after failing the test is pointless.
This is a mess.
Post a Comment