.
.
Last edited by Rat Fink; 12-06-2020 at 05:14 PM.
Thanks for the 14 years of LOLs. Govern yourselves accordingly and avoid uppercut reactions!
Feel free to read back through the replies if you're struggling. And if you're going to make a lot of broad generalized assumptions about all of this yourself, it's rather hypocritical to accuse others of the same in their replies to you.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I don't have any interest in arguing at all. Trying to have an adult discussion here, but you seem to take issue with anyone questioning you and not taking your wildly biased opinion as gospel. You've made some statements, and I've asked for elaboration, how is that arguing?
I think you need to read the article again. The lady was at home for a couple of hours by the time the cops showed up by tricking her and then forced her to blow into a breathalyzer.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This is the big fear that was discussed leading up to this new law. The 2nd issue would be why the lady had her charges thrown out so quickly. Something went horribly sideways for the charges to be thrown out so quickly.
Where are we conflicting? We both said the same thing. I think perhaps you’re getting something confused?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Last edited by phil98z24; 06-04-2019 at 09:22 AM.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
In your defense, I think your understanding of this law is a bit fuzzy.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Police can’t just show up and demand a sample without grounds. They can’t make warrantless entry to a home to make that demand. An anonymous call won’t suffice for grounds to demand a sample, as there needs to be more information gathered by the investigator first.
This change in the law doesn’t supersede anyone’s charter rights aside from the MAS at roadside. That’s the only chance. The rest existed before and the wording has been modified.
What happened here was an investigation after she drove, based (as far as what we know from her account) on her having a drink at a pub, someone calling in about it and her driving (presumably the pub), and the police sweet talking their way in to gather evidence where they built their grounds for demanding samples (which in itself is usually unlawful unless there are specific circumstances.)
This wasn’t warrantless entry. It wasn’t mandatory screening. It was something different, and by all accounts, a totally flawed investigation. I don’t know if it was done with malice, but absolutely was done improperly.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
Rat is here giving his account of how the law is applied, and calling the article wrong. Despite the fact that the article is simply telling us what the police actually did, which is in direct opposition to what Rats opinion on the law is.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Then you pop in to say something about semantics, and that this is isn't "mandatory screening" but rather part of an investigation.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
And yes the there is a separate issue of whether the officers lied, but no that is not THE issue. THE issue is the law itself and how it is being applied.
Being that you said this was not part of the new DUI laws and just part of an investigation, I then ask for clarity on whether the reasons for this ladies DUI investigation are valid.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Rat seems to feel that this ladies case was not reasonable grounds for an investigation. However it seemed like you were saying that what happened is standard practice.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Rat seems to have either forgot what has been said, or not read your replies as well. Or he is trying to deflect now that he realized what happened? Not sure.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
If either of you would like to clarify anything you've said I'm all ears. I realize some things may get lost in translation when it comes to typing things out, that's why I asked for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions and being rude. Not sure why Rat has panties in a bunch now?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
It would appear that there is confusion with what the police are ALLOWED to do (which the two members have articulated) and what they COULD do (or have done, even though not within the power of the law) which is your point of contention.
The more I keep reading about it, and reading your replies, it doesn't seem I'm fuzzy on it at all. Or maybe we both are fuzzy on it?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The police CAN just show up and demand sample without grounds, as was demonstrated by this case in question. But yes I would agree that won't stand in court. However that is a major distinction between those two things.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Agree and disagree. The mandatory roadside screening is exactly what I'm talking about when superseding charter rights is in question. However making unlawful entry and demanding breath samples is charter violating as well, and if there is officers that misunderstand the law and apply this as such like the article in question, then there is a problem with the law and it needs clarifying. This is why I don't think it is genuine for anyone to try and cut this law as black and white. If trained officers are misunderstanding it this poorly, there is too much grey.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Agreed.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
You’re not understanding what happened here. What they did wasn’t mandatory alcohol screening at roadside while she was driving (new law) during a traffic stop. It was a breath demand after driving based on what they thought were reasonable grounds to make a breath demand (existing law). They are two different things under two different sections of the criminal code. We both said the same thing.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Correct. It’s a breath demand made under a separate part of the criminal code. (Existing law)Then you pop in to say something about semantics, and that this is isn't "mandatory screening" but rather part of an investigation.
Yes, it is the issue. This law isn’t new. You’re thinking the new mandatory screening law was being used in this instance, when it wasn’t. That is exactly why the issue is how these officers did their investigation, not the law itself.And yes the there is a separate issue of whether the officers lied, but no that is not THE issue. THE issue is the law itself and how it is being applied.
Yes, and I forgot to reply until now when I said the phone call in itself isn’t enough, and more investigation would be required.Being that you said this was not part of the new DUI laws and just part of an investigation, I then ask for clarity on whether the reasons for this ladies DUI investigation are valid.
No, I agreed with him. Until my last post, I didn’t address the part about the phone call being enough for grounds. I didn’t say I agreed with it or they were justified in it, what I did say is they were doing an investigation of impaired driving after the fact, based on them thinking they had grounds to do so. I didn’t address whether they actually had those grounds or if it was justified. You’re extrapolating my opinion on that when I hadn’t yet yet addressed it.Rat seems to feel that this ladies case was not reasonable grounds for an investigation. However it seemed like you were saying that what happened is standard practice.
Rat is right in all of this, and I think my last post reflects that. In the absence of me addressing specific things, the idea of what it “seems” I’m saying is in fact not what I said at all.
No, we both said the same thing and you’re not understanding it.Rat seems to have either forgot what has been said, or not read your replies as well. Or he is trying to deflect now that he realized what happened? Not sure.
I thought I already had in my last post, but I’m happy to further clarify if you’d like.If either of you would like to clarify anything you've said I'm all ears. I realize some things may get lost in translation when it comes to typing things out, that's why I asked for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions and being rude. Not sure why Rat has panties in a bunch now?
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
No, you’re confusing MAS and samples after driving. You keep saying this was the former when it was the latter. Don’t deflect.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Your assessment of this, after the fact, is they had no grounds when no one knows with any certainty what all those grounds were. You’re basing your opinion off of her account, that’s it.The police CAN just show up and demand sample without grounds, as was demonstrated by this case in question. But yes I would agree that won't stand in court. However that is a major distinction between those two things.
What I’ve said is they conducted an investigation of impaired driving, post operation of a conveyance, based on whatever grounds they thought they had. You’re assuming they had no grounds, when none of us know outside of the phone call and reports of her erratic driving, what those grounds ACTUALLY are.
No you weren’t. You were talking about police showing up and making warrantless entry to a home to demand samples without a warrant. You specifically said police showing up and demanding samples without reasonable suspicion. You compared it to an example of police not being able to do that on a drug house call, yet they can with this. That’s not MAS. You weren’t talking about MAS. That’s something else entirely.Agree and disagree. The mandatory roadside screening is exactly what I'm talking about when superseding charter rights is in question. However making unlawful entry and demanding breath samples is charter violating as well, and if there is officers that misunderstand the law and apply this as such like the article in question, then there is a problem with the law and it needs clarifying. This is why I don't think it is genuine for anyone to try and cut this law as black and white. If trained officers are misunderstanding it this poorly, there is too much grey.
You’re making an assumption about all of this when there isn’t enough information to know what ACTUALLY happened. You’re backpedaling because you’re wrong or completely confused, and you’re trying to put this on us like we aren’t the ones who get it.
Last edited by phil98z24; 06-04-2019 at 10:12 AM.
---------------------------------------------------
Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.
I guess we are both guilty. You seem to keep making note that I'm mistaking this case with mandatory roadside screening, despite the fact I've never once claimed that. Maybe that's why it's a struggle to clarify this, as you're attempting to clarify something that was never stated. Appreciate the attempt at least.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
So to be fair I'll just agree that we don't have all the facts, and that without the full story of what actually triggered their investigation, it's impossible to know whether this investigation was done with malice or with good intention based on the officers understanding of the law.
With that in mind, are you able to clarify this part then. If the new amendments to the DUI law are essentially to stop people from using the scam of fleeing to a place they can get out of their vehicle and claim they started drinking after driving. And the old law already allowed these officers to come in and breath test after the fact. Why was this amendment needed? And what is the actual amendment then? Are you saying that the only real change is the mandatory roadside screening?
You're exactly right, I was talking about breath samples after the fact. NOT about roadside testing, like you kept claiming. I'm not sure where you're going with this? Now that you're changing your tune about what you think I said, that would be back pedaling. So let's just stay on topic and leave the ad hominem at the door.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Nope, I think it is just you man, no offense.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I completely understand what Rat and Phil are explaining, and I don't see any discrepancies.
I think you are getting 2 different things wrapped up into one, and haven't understood the difference.
They can't demand and collect a sample simply from a phone call. They have to investigate first and determine if there are reasonable grounds first, hence why they sweet talked there way into the house. Once inside, it can be pretty much impossible to get them to leave since they were invited in. Regardless, they have to investigate and collect enough evidence to determine that there are sufficient grounds and then collect a sample. They didn't just knock on the door and say give us a breath sample right now. At least this is my understanding. It seems like this follows any other kind of investigation the police would perform.
My question is, if the police were to show up on my property and knock on my door, do I even have to interact with them? Could I simply just not answer the door? Or greet them and then refuse to interact further and ask them to leave? Am I compelled to co-operate in this type of investigation?
Boosted life tip #329
Girlfriends cost money
Turbos cost money
Both make whining noises
Make the smart choice.
Originally posted by Mibz
Always a fucking awful experience seeing spikers. Extra awful when he laps me.
Question is what do you have to gain by answering the door if your paranoid of something bad happening? Dont let that be an option.
I'd suspect you wouldn't be able to tell the police to get lost once you greeted them and they began their investigation.
I've been essentially agreeing with him on everything. It was a little tongue in cheek saying that he is fuzzy on things as well, being that if I agree with him and I'm fuzzy, he has to be too.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
And fair enough, phil tried to clear up his position a little better, and I give him the benefit of the doubt on it now. The only discrepancy is coming from the assumptions being made, Rat seems to be assuming all proper channels were followed and these officers did everything by the book. And phil seems a little more realistic in at least partially believing the story and that the rules probably weren't followed 100%. And I've been making the assumption that the story was reported correctly and I'm taking it at face value.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Unfortunately most people do not understand their rights, and when they aren't guilty they feel they have nothing to hide and are welcoming in talking to the police. It's in most peoples nature to trust the police exist to protect them. But like any good lawyer will say, it doesn't matter if you're innocent or not, you have absolutely nothing to gain by speaking to the police.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
.
Last edited by Rat Fink; 12-06-2020 at 05:12 PM.
Thanks for the 14 years of LOLs. Govern yourselves accordingly and avoid uppercut reactions!
Don't even go to the door?
Only communicate through the door, dont open it?
If you open the door to speak to them but dont allow them in can you close it on them and its over?
Or once the conversation is started (door opened) its free game?
All seems very complicated.
Ok so you didn't want to participate in the discussion, just more interested in arguing. Got it.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
We are still not catching them all.
Jesus
Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name
There are two main types of drunk drivers: the stupid aggressive (as in this video) and the stupid cautious. Men typically fall into the former category.