So I got pulled over...

13»

Comments

  • bikezappa
    bikezappa Posts: 2,463
    edited October 2010
    tommyboy wrote: »
    I was just CURIOUS of what my rights really were during the incident as it seemed odd I was free to go then he decides to keep me in custody (with apparently no new evidence to do so). Thats all. If there was a cop on here to answer this question thats all I expected from the thread.

    I would ask a lawyer.

    He would be qualified to tell you your rights.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • steveinaz
    steveinaz Posts: 19,538
    edited October 2010
    How about we focus on the millions of idiots, driving perfectly sober, that have no idea what "right of way" means?

    TRUE STORY:

    My dad was rear-ended while driving on the highway, by a car ENTERING the highway via a ramp. The cops said my dad was at fault?? His car was totaled, lucky he and mom just had some bruising.

    Why his insurance company didn't fight that call is beyond me. Some cops need to retest on basic driving principles.
    Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dkg999
    dkg999 Posts: 5,647
    edited October 2010
    Steve - it's the same here in IL. If they feel you had some way to avoid the accident, no matter how stupid or wrong the other person's actions were, they assign all or part of the blame on you.
    DKG999
    HT System: LSi9, LSiCx2, LSiFX, LSi7, SVS 20-39 PC+, B&K 507.s2 AVR, B&K Ref 125.2, Tripplite LCR-2400, Cambridge 650BD, Signal Cable PC/SC, BJC IC, Samsung 55" LED

    Music System: Magnepan 1.6QR, SVS SB12+, ARC pre, Parasound HCA1500 vertically bi-amped, Jolida CDP, Pro-Ject RM5.1SE TT, Pro-Ject TubeBox SE phono pre, SBT, PS Audio DLIII DAC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • snow
    snow Posts: 4,337
    edited October 2010
    tommyboy wrote: »
    Once again, I'm not here to ask if I could build some sort of case against him! If I really was, I would not be asking an audio forum for legal advise. I was just CURIOUS of what my rights really were during the incident as it seemed odd I was free to go then he decides to keep me in custody (with apparently no new evidence to do so). Thats all. If there was a cop on here to answer this question thats all I expected from the thread.
    You must have missed the part where I said he has the right to detain you for 72hrs without charging you with anything.



    REGARDS SNOW
    Well, I just pulled off the impossible by doing a double-blind comparison all by myself, purely by virtue of the fact that I completely and stupidly forgot what I did last. I guess that getting old does have its advantages after all :D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited October 2010
    Doesn't sound like his situation applies:
    State of Pennsylvania; 302: Involuntary 72 Hour Hold:

    A person meets the criteria for a 72 hour hold if 1) They have had a mental illness for at least 30 days. 2 ) They are a danger to themselves; this includes verbalization’s of threats to mutilate, to commit suicide or in any other way harm themselves (these statements can be made to counselor, therapist or a physician). 3) They are a danger to others by threatening, attempting to or inflicting serious bodily harm on another. 4) They cannot satisfy need for food, clothing, shelter or provide safety for their own protection that could possibly lead to death. The petitioner writing the 302 for the hold must have first hand knowledge of these behaviors and have the 302 signed by the Office of Behavioral Health. From here on out any action that requires paperwork must be received by the OBH. Then the person is either transported by law enforcement or ambulance to an ER for medical clearance and the need for a psychiatric evaluation. If the person has to wait more than 12 hours the hospital must file a reason for just cause. Events that are accepted as just cause are; a population with a high acuity or one or more trauma situations. Once the person is medically cleared from the hospital they are then taken to a psychiatric facility. If after 72 hours the treating psychiatrist feels that the patient no longer meet criteria they must be discharged immediately.

    http://www.alleghenycounty.us/dhs/commitment.aspx

    Either way, just because the cops can do things doesn't mean they're the right thing to do. He consumed a couple beers, BFD. Hardly a mental health crisis.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • snow
    snow Posts: 4,337
    edited October 2010
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Doesn't sound like his situation applies:



    http://www.alleghenycounty.us/dhs/commitment.aspx

    Either way, just because the cops can do things doesn't mean they're the right thing to do. He consumed a couple beers, BFD. Hardly a mental health crisis.
    Lmao that is an entirely different type of hold :D The police have the right to detain you on suspicion of practically anything which has nothing to do with what your talking about.

    REGARDS SNOW
    Well, I just pulled off the impossible by doing a double-blind comparison all by myself, purely by virtue of the fact that I completely and stupidly forgot what I did last. I guess that getting old does have its advantages after all :D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited October 2010
    snow wrote: »
    Lmao that is an entirely different type of hold :D The police have the right to detain you on suspicion of practically anything which has nothing to do with what your talking about.

    REGARDS SNOW

    Cite it. The "5150" laws like in CA are the only ones I'm aware of.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • snow
    snow Posts: 4,337
    edited October 2010
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Cite it.
    I just did. Demi I have no desire to prove anything to you believe me or not your choice.

    REGARDS SNOW
    Well, I just pulled off the impossible by doing a double-blind comparison all by myself, purely by virtue of the fact that I completely and stupidly forgot what I did last. I guess that getting old does have its advantages after all :D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bobman1235
    bobman1235 Posts: 10,822
    edited October 2010
    Someone on the Internet said it, IT MUST BE TRUE.
    If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bikezappa
    bikezappa Posts: 2,463
    edited October 2010
    Can you call a lawyer during the 72 hours while being detained?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited October 2010
    snow wrote: »
    I just did. Demi I have no desire to prove anything to you believe me or not your choice.

    REGARDS SNOW

    Its not a matter of believing you or not...I'm just asking for the cite, because I'm only aware of the type of laws I posted. I have never heard of such a thing with regard to what you're talking about. Doesn't make you wrong.

    Just go to a state website and look up the state statute(s). He's in PA.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • snow
    snow Posts: 4,337
    edited October 2010
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Its not a matter of believing you or not...I'm just asking for the cite, because I'm only aware of the type of laws I posted. I have never heard of such a thing with regard to what you're talking about. Doesn't make you wrong.

    Just go to a state website and look up the state statute(s). He's in PA.
    Virtually all states allow a time period 24-72 hrs that the police can legaly hold someone on suspicion of criminal activity, within 48 hrs most if not all have to provide to the court system a justifiable reason for doing so and within 72 hrs have to either charge you or let you go. Im pretty sure from reading an articile years ago the time period was 72 hrs in PA of course I could be wrong but have neither the time nor desire to look this up to verify it.

    I think that even if they suspected him of being under the influence of something they are only allowed to hold you for 24 hrs on that exhibting strange behavior etc.

    Either way its not important to me :D Any time you get pulled over given an FST fail it and get released without being charged it's a good day as far as im concerned, driving while impaired doesnt have to be drug or alchohol related.

    REGARDS SNOW
    Well, I just pulled off the impossible by doing a double-blind comparison all by myself, purely by virtue of the fact that I completely and stupidly forgot what I did last. I guess that getting old does have its advantages after all :D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • megasat16
    megasat16 Posts: 3,521
    edited October 2010
    One way any cop can retain you when you are the driver seat is when he / she thinks you drive recklessly and endangers other motorists.

    Well, in this case, the OP mentioned he didn't comply what the cop asked before?
    Trying out Different Audio Cables is a Religious Affair. You don't discuss it with anyone. :redface::biggrin:
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • reeltrouble1
    reeltrouble1 Posts: 9,312
    edited October 2010
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Try North Korea, you'll love it there.

    Nice approach.


    Let's see your departure.

    RT1
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited October 2010
    reeltrouble1 wrote: »
    Nice approach.


    Let's see your departure.

    RT1

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/16FdJrrAWSo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/16FdJrrAWSo?fs=1&hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • orrb_05
    orrb_05 Posts: 215
    edited October 2010
    I'd say that the Officer had the power of persuasion over you...you got off without a trip to the can, so be happy with that. Pick your fights wisely...

    "I fought the law, and the...law won"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • revfanbak
    revfanbak Posts: 8
    edited October 2010
    Sounds like the LEO did not release you from custody. Were you in handcuffs on your ride to the Police Station? Did you take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (P.A.S.) device test in the field or at the Police station? In California you are required to submit to a "chemical test" of blood, breath or urine if the Officer believes that your blood alcohol concentration(B.A.C.) is .08% or more. If the Officer believes that you are under the influence of a controled substance then you are required to submit to a blood or urine test. Let me give you on theory on why I don't think you were free to leave and that you were still in the Officers custody. Alcohol burn off rate is approximately .016%-.02% per hour in the average adult. If you took the P.A.S. test in the field and blew a .06-.07% B.A.C. the Officer may have good grounds to believe you pounded your last drink as you were walking out the door. If this is the case you have a rising B.A.C. and the Officer knows from past experience that if he arrests you, waits approximately 30 minutes to one hour to obtain your blood sample, the Officer knows your blood test B.A.C. will come back higher. F.Y.I., the Officer doesn't know until about 1-2 weeks later what the blood test results are until a laboratory tests the blood for B.A.C. results. You were not free to leave, you were under arrest!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hockeyboy
    hockeyboy Posts: 1,428
    edited October 2010
    You're lucky the guy didn't plant something on you. Never assume a cop is remotely honest because when push comes to shove they aren't.
    My Main Gear
    Mitsu HC5000 (Proj.)
    Marantz SR8001 (AVR)
    Sunfire TGA7200 (AMP)
    Marantz DV7001 (SACD)
    Samsung BD-P1500 Blu-Ray
    LSi 15's (Front)
    LSiC (Center)
    LSiFx (Surrounds)
    DUAL SVS 20-39 CS Plus     (Passive Subs)
    Marantz IS201 I-Pod Dock[/SIZE]
    Panamax M5300EX
    Carada Criterion 106" Brightwhite Screen
    Sunfire TGA 5200 & (4) B&W 605's in the party room
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tommyboy
    tommyboy Posts: 1,414
    edited October 2010
    revfanbak wrote: »
    Sounds like the LEO did not release you from custody. Were you in handcuffs on your ride to the Police Station? Did you take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (P.A.S.) device test in the field or at the Police station? In California you are required to submit to a "chemical test" of blood, breath or urine if the Officer believes that your blood alcohol concentration(B.A.C.) is .08% or more. If the Officer believes that you are under the influence of a controled substance then you are required to submit to a blood or urine test. Let me give you on theory on why I don't think you were free to leave and that you were still in the Officers custody. Alcohol burn off rate is approximately .016%-.02% per hour in the average adult. If you took the P.A.S. test in the field and blew a .06-.07% B.A.C. the Officer may have good grounds to believe you pounded your last drink as you were walking out the door. If this is the case you have a rising B.A.C. and the Officer knows from past experience that if he arrests you, waits approximately 30 minutes to one hour to obtain your blood sample, the Officer knows your blood test B.A.C. will come back higher. F.Y.I., the Officer doesn't know until about 1-2 weeks later what the blood test results are until a laboratory tests the blood for B.A.C. results. You were not free to leave, you were under arrest!

    So what are you saying? Even though I was let go with nothing, he let me go not knowing any blood test results and could technically still give me a DUI? Either way, I probably went at least two hours without a drink before my blood was taken so I'm not too worried there.

    He did tell me at the end the drug testing might take a week or two for testing but my alcohol content was cleared. Maybe he was lying I don't know.
    AVR: H/K AVR240
    Fronts: Monitor 50s
    Center: CSI3
    surrounds: R15s
    Sub:Velodyne DPS10
    Dvd/Cd: Samsung HD upconverter (for now)
    TV: 50" Sammy Plasma
    game hardware: 360 and gcn.
    Gamertag: kovster27
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • cokewithvanilla
    cokewithvanilla Posts: 1,777
    edited October 2010
    Tons of people said, "just be glad you got off" or similar. Is this what our society has come to? We are supposed to fear police officers and be HAPPY when we "get off light" for doing nothing wrong?

    Sad thing is, it's true. Officers can make your life real difficult without any justification. In my opinion, the police have too much power.

    edit: I wonder how many criminals or real drunk drivers they could have caught/deterred while they were wasting their time with this.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • revfanbak
    revfanbak Posts: 8
    edited October 2010
    tommyboy, he didn't let you go. The Officer told you that you must go to the Police station with him. If he let you go or released you from his custody then you would be free to go, obviously you were not free to go. The Officer apparently wrote a report charging you with driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The report was forwarded to the District Attorney's for review and prosection. You hired an attorney and went to court didn't you? If your B.A.C. came back .04% I wouldn't think the D.A.'s office would seek prosecution against you unless you had a prior D.U.I. conviction or were on probation for some other reason. Educate yourself regarding your rights and don't drink and drive. And it's true some Officers will fabricate the truth. But if you stop a car full of drunks and it wreaks of alcohol inside the vehicle, the Officer has an obligation to conduct an investigation and determine if the driver is impaired or not. The Officer only needs probable cause (P.C.) to conduct a traffic stop, tinted windows, no front plate etc. The Officer was also patroling in a target rich environment, bars=drunks.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • cokewithvanilla
    cokewithvanilla Posts: 1,777
    edited October 2010
    The fact that he let you drive afterward is an admission by him that you were not impaired. It seems like everything you did was by choice. Officers have a clever way of using threats to persuade you to give up your rights. At the point when he asked you to drive to the station, you should have asked if you were being detained. At that point, he would either have to arrest you or let you go.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • snow
    snow Posts: 4,337
    edited October 2010
    I think you shoud listen to the last 3 bozos that responded to this thread, they obviously are much wiser and have much more life experience than all of us old farts, like with Allstate your in good hands with these three :p

    REGARDS SNOW
    Well, I just pulled off the impossible by doing a double-blind comparison all by myself, purely by virtue of the fact that I completely and stupidly forgot what I did last. I guess that getting old does have its advantages after all :D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Demiurge
    Demiurge Posts: 10,874
    edited October 2010
    cokewithvanilla wrote: »
    Tons of people said, "just be glad you got off" or similar. Is this what our society has come to? We are supposed to fear police officers and be HAPPY when we "get off light" for doing nothing wrong?

    Yes, it is. Too many fall into the 'if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about' trap and they give all their rights away and accept all of the undue inconvenience. Its sad.

    This cop clearly manipulated tommyboy into doing what he wanted. We still don't have an explanation from anyone as to how someone who, in the officer's eyes, is too impaired to drive home, was being told to get behind the wheel of his car and follow said officer to the police station.

    The cop was 100% in the wrong at that point. Prior to that, he was fine. What, is being behind a cop going to magically stop an impaired driver from swerving into oncoming lanes of traffic?

    Either that officer is a total moron or he was just trying to be a richard.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tommyboy
    tommyboy Posts: 1,414
    edited October 2010
    revfanbak wrote: »
    Were you in handcuffs on your ride to the Police Station?

    Yeah, its a new groundbreaking test given by the police, try to drive a car in handcuffs to see how impaired you really are.. Of course I was safe the whole time since I was driving behind a police officer
    revfanbak wrote: »
    tommyboy, he didn't let you go. The Officer told you that you must go to the Police station with him. If he let you go or released you from his custody then you would be free to go, obviously you were not free to go. The Officer apparently wrote a report charging you with driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The report was forwarded to the District Attorney's for review and prosection. You hired an attorney and went to court didn't you? If your B.A.C. came back .04% I wouldn't think the D.A.'s office would seek prosecution against you unless you had a prior D.U.I. conviction or were on probation for some other reason. Educate yourself regarding your rights and don't drink and drive. And it's true some Officers will fabricate the truth. But if you stop a car full of drunks and it wreaks of alcohol inside the vehicle, the Officer has an obligation to conduct an investigation and determine if the driver is impaired or not. The Officer only needs probable cause (P.C.) to conduct a traffic stop, tinted windows, no front plate etc. The Officer was also patroling in a target rich environment, bars=drunks.

    Please re-read my posts, I was free to go BEFORE I drove to the station. Eveerything after that was the cop being a quote on quote ****. There is no court date and I was never officially in custody.


    Well, I can see everyones wide view about the subject, and thanks for the replies. I can see how the cop did push me around when he didn't need to. But he ultimately didn't charge me which would have hurt the most. BTW, no call yet from the employer, but I just applied three days ago so didn't expect an immediate call but wish me luck!;)
    AVR: H/K AVR240
    Fronts: Monitor 50s
    Center: CSI3
    surrounds: R15s
    Sub:Velodyne DPS10
    Dvd/Cd: Samsung HD upconverter (for now)
    TV: 50" Sammy Plasma
    game hardware: 360 and gcn.
    Gamertag: kovster27
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • George Grand
    George Grand Posts: 12,258
    edited October 2010
    The smart money says "Don't drink and drive." To me, that does not mean "Drink but don't get legally drunk and drive." The way things are today, most can't afford the loss of driving privileges because mass transit is not available or, an option. No license, no workee.

    The guy behind the counter at the airline can be a dog. The sales associate at a shop can be a dog. The guy that slices your bologna could be a dog.

    I'm sure if that cop wanted to cite you for something, he would've found something, and cited you. The guy didn't end your life. Breathe in and out.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter