That's because field sobriety tests aren't designed to find out if people are actually impaired, they are designed to give cops a reason to arrest people purely on their own discretion even when they otherwise lack any evidence of wrongdoing. And in doing so it boosts both the local cops and court's funding through mandatory court fines and fees and programs when they hammer down on people too poor to afford a lawyer.
So whats the solution? 37 people die every day in a crash involving an alcohol impaired driver. Do we think if we inhibit the police's ability to arrest drunk drivers, the world will be a better place? People are clearly not going to stop drinking and driving.
I am neither left nor right, but I feel like I need to say this much more in spaces that heavily lean left -- I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
Same with polygraph tests. It's not admissible in court. It's an interrogation tactic designed to give some perceived authority to the police's claims that a suspect is lying and give the suspect a reason to talk more.
He refused a blood test as was his right, and probably the correct decision given that this "top cop" (ie, the one they say had by far the most DUI arrests) was a criminal and shown to break the evidence chain of custody.
I don't understand how simple DWI testing is like that in your country. 3 seconds of a certified calibrated breathalyzer is sufficient, this walking in a straight line and saying the alphabet backwards sounds like a joke.
You can. Refusing the field test allows them to arrest you. But it isn't sufficient to charge you. They also have to offer you a breathalyzer at the station and you can refuse that but demand a blood test.
But your car still gets towed even if you pass the tests at the station and don't ultimately get charged because you refused the field test.
In Michigan, refusing the roadside breathalyzer is $150 automatic fine. Refusing the chemical test once at the station is an automatic 1 year suspended license and 6 points, even if you are subsequently let go without charge.
I've been saying this for awhile as well. Corruption is horse-shoe, once it is pervasive enough, it becomes affordable to the common man and not just the rich. Counter-intuitively, even more egalitarian, perhaps.
Ive had police in Mexico just walk up and steal $100+ from my wallet. It was refreshing as in the US they instead police have just dragged me to jail on fabricated allegations. When Mexican police can get all they want by just stealing my money and not my time, it feels like living in a more free country, liberating comparatively.
To be a bit pedantic, its not sovereign immunity, its qualified immunity. It is defeatable, and there are examples of it, but its rather rare. It is an abused and obviously problematic legal doctrine
So police in african countries are poorly paid so it's OK for them to just...rob people? Wouldn't it make more sense to just pay the police better? Is it OK for a waitress or a teacher or a taxi driver to steal your wallet? They're also underpaid...
That bit of justification seems absolutely bananas to me.
What are you going to pay them with? The money for their wages has been embezzled by the police chiefs, or the civil administrators, or the politicians.
Taxi drivers won't steal your wallet, but they may kill you if you're a tswana and get into (say) a zulu taxi, although more usually they're killing other taxi drivers rather than passengers, and setting fire to trains to cut out the competition.
I'm sure the police in Cote d'Ivoire will be upset to find out that Americans think they're corrupt.
It is the way of things. You're not really paying a bribe but more in the line of baksheesh, a small fee to expedite processing or make things run more smoothly. It usually amounts to the equivalent of a few dollars so no big deal.
Becoming that in the USA only requires 1 year of training AFAIK and a massive ego. Seems like one of the best options for someone who can't afford the "universities".
Police budgets are completely out of control. Defenders will often quote base salaries and it's almost always intellectually dishonest. Overtime can 2-3x that base salary. It gets worse too because, depending on the police department, your pension is based on how much you earned your last year so people in their last year get to take all the OT.
And beyond that they're so awash with money that they're turning into paramilitary forces.
And on top of that we have a regime of legalized theft aka civil asset forfeiture. Often the police departments get to keep some or all of what they seize. They'll often get a cut of ticket revenue too such that cops will have quotas of tickets to write.
Combine the two and you end up with so-called "forfeiture corridors". You might find that drugs go one way but the cash goes the other and they'll only police the cash direction with excessive stops and tickets to seize as much acashn as they can get and then the burden is on you to prove the cash is not the proceeds of crime.
The saddest part is that I didn’t even blanche at that. At least here in New England, that kind of OT seems to be baked into the system, at least for senior officers. Just pulling regular construction duty can make a massive difference in income.
Officers may retire from the ISP with pension benefits under the following plans:
Tier 1
This information applies to individuals who became a member of SERS or a reciprocal system on or before December 31, 2010. The alternative formula applies to members in certain positions with 20 years of alternative service. Members eligible for the alternative formula may retire at age 50 with 25 years of service, or at age 55 with 20 years of service.
Tier 2
This information applies to individuals who became a member of SERS or a reciprocal system after December 31, 2010. The alternative formula applies to members in certain positions with 20 years of alternative service. Members eligible for the alternative formula may retire at age 55 with 20 years of service.
A maximum retirement benefit of 80% of ending salary is earned after 26 years and 8 months of creditable service.
This is the pension game. When the amount of your pension is determined by your last 3 years of compensation before retirement, you do everything you can to maximize overtime in those 3 years.
So people work as much as possible during that time and your peers are expected to make way for you to get as many hours as possible because it’s your turn.
One of many reasons why pensions are broken and going away. When the payout math was based on what people were typically paid but everyone plays games to double or triple it during the calculation window it breaks down.
Would be easy to fix by making it calculated over an entire career rather than the last 3 years, but when the people who make the rules also want their pension gamified you can’t get the rules changed.
Police and fire fighters have tons of opportunities for overtime. they get paid absurd amounts of money to do it. It’s another thing that badly needs reform.
This was incredibly dangerous of the victim. In another version of events, the officer could have shot him and plausibly (unfortunately) claimed the victim had a vendetta against the cop for arresting him.
And this is why most cops should be tarred with the brush of corruption - it isn’t that they broke the law, but too many are willing to cover up, defend and sweep under the rug those that do.
It’s an interesting aside in the story but if you’re under investigation for a DUI you can just refuse the field sobriety tests and it appears they don’t follow up so you’ll be declared innocent even if you were arrested for felony DUI.
Assuming the best case version of this guy’s story he arrested this guy for the DUI and then forgot to check in his wallet, key, and laptop or whatever. Fine, not unbelievable. But it doesn’t look like he followed up about the DUI thing.
> At the gas station, Bradley accused Holland of driving under the influence. When asked if he would submit to field sobriety tests, Holland calmly refused.
Much as I hope Bradley would be fired and lose his pension for abuse of power, this part is on Holland. In my state, refusing a breathalyzer is by law an automatic penalty because of the "implied consent statute" that you accept when you get behind the wheel: automatic license suspension for 1 year, and you still have to face the officer's testimony. There are consequences to the refusal that have nothing to do with the officer.
"I kept it for his courtesy, like I said with his phone, key and wallet," Bradley told investigators. "It's my mistake. I forgot to give him his stuff back and he tracked it."
For anyone who knows policing, evidence and suspect possessions do NOT go the arresting officer's home for obvious reasons.
I do not think it is completely a forgone conclusion that he was lying. I think it's possible that it was separated from the other possessions (e.g. because it didn't fit in a bag, for example) and then forgotten in the patrol vehicle. However, this definitely should have been investigated thoroughly and the officer fired and blacklisted if it was attempted theft.
I was pulled over by a motorcycle cop back in the 80's. I gave him my license, and he gave me a ticket, but didn't give me my license back. The next day I called the police dept, and told them what happened. They mailed my license back to me, with the cop explaining that he found it on the ground, and I had driven off. The problem is, the cop pulled away before I did. They seem to make any excuse to cover their ass.
Exhibit A for why we need to rewrite sovereign immunity laws and get them out of union contracts, at the same time professionalizing how DUI is enforced. If we made the punishments like they have in Europe, the incidence would go way down.
50 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 57.9 ms ] threadThink of a field sobriety test. Now think of if that actually tests for sobriety. There, there's your source.
I am neither left nor right, but I feel like I need to say this much more in spaces that heavily lean left -- I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
Should be illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGHFpc6uiWA
But your car still gets towed even if you pass the tests at the station and don't ultimately get charged because you refused the field test.
Ive had police in Mexico just walk up and steal $100+ from my wallet. It was refreshing as in the US they instead police have just dragged me to jail on fabricated allegations. When Mexican police can get all they want by just stealing my money and not my time, it feels like living in a more free country, liberating comparatively.
That bit of justification seems absolutely bananas to me.
Taxi drivers won't steal your wallet, but they may kill you if you're a tswana and get into (say) a zulu taxi, although more usually they're killing other taxi drivers rather than passengers, and setting fire to trains to cut out the competition.
That is horrible anti-american behavior. It's the definition of corruption; and goes against the fundamental principles of the founding of the US.
And, to put it quite bluntly: Cops walking around demanding tips from affluent Americans will quickly get shut down because no one will stand for it.
It is the way of things. You're not really paying a bribe but more in the line of baksheesh, a small fee to expedite processing or make things run more smoothly. It usually amounts to the equivalent of a few dollars so no big deal.
Holy cow.
And beyond that they're so awash with money that they're turning into paramilitary forces.
And on top of that we have a regime of legalized theft aka civil asset forfeiture. Often the police departments get to keep some or all of what they seize. They'll often get a cut of ticket revenue too such that cops will have quotas of tickets to write.
Combine the two and you end up with so-called "forfeiture corridors". You might find that drugs go one way but the cash goes the other and they'll only police the cash direction with excessive stops and tickets to seize as much acashn as they can get and then the burden is on you to prove the cash is not the proceeds of crime.
From https://isp.illinois.gov/JoinIsp/BecomeATrooper:
Officers may retire from the ISP with pension benefits under the following plans: Tier 1 This information applies to individuals who became a member of SERS or a reciprocal system on or before December 31, 2010. The alternative formula applies to members in certain positions with 20 years of alternative service. Members eligible for the alternative formula may retire at age 50 with 25 years of service, or at age 55 with 20 years of service.
Tier 2 This information applies to individuals who became a member of SERS or a reciprocal system after December 31, 2010. The alternative formula applies to members in certain positions with 20 years of alternative service. Members eligible for the alternative formula may retire at age 55 with 20 years of service.
A maximum retirement benefit of 80% of ending salary is earned after 26 years and 8 months of creditable service.
So people work as much as possible during that time and your peers are expected to make way for you to get as many hours as possible because it’s your turn.
One of many reasons why pensions are broken and going away. When the payout math was based on what people were typically paid but everyone plays games to double or triple it during the calculation window it breaks down.
Would be easy to fix by making it calculated over an entire career rather than the last 3 years, but when the people who make the rules also want their pension gamified you can’t get the rules changed.
So instead they’re just going away for everyone.
> That's more than the salary of the Illinois State Police director.
Assuming the best case version of this guy’s story he arrested this guy for the DUI and then forgot to check in his wallet, key, and laptop or whatever. Fine, not unbelievable. But it doesn’t look like he followed up about the DUI thing.
Much as I hope Bradley would be fired and lose his pension for abuse of power, this part is on Holland. In my state, refusing a breathalyzer is by law an automatic penalty because of the "implied consent statute" that you accept when you get behind the wheel: automatic license suspension for 1 year, and you still have to face the officer's testimony. There are consequences to the refusal that have nothing to do with the officer.
I expect he will be pardoned by Trump because of his creativity.