Why is the officer that hard up for a result.
But it sounds like the guy gave him a refusal with a bow on top.
Why is the officer that hard up for a result.
So we're believing, as gospel truth, what a local newspaper reports about what one side claims happened...no questions asked? Oh wait, of course we are. For a second there I forgot where I was.
...We shouldn't believe this guy because something like this would never happen....
My issue is simply this- taking sides and assuming, as some here are, that one side id right and the other is wrong based upon an initial filing in a civil case, or worse yet, a newspaper story about an initial filing, is exactly the same as accepting the word of police, without question, when criminal charges are brought. How many people here would do that?
An open mind is all I would like to see and usually what I see is people choosing sides based upon preconceptions and slamming their minds shut.
...and now I have read the Complaint, so I no one side, kind of. Plaintiff says that the police did a breathalyzer and told him he blew a .11, but he claims that there is no evidence of that. He says that he offered up blood which showed a .073 (question- how were the results reported?). He then claims he drank a glass of water, then still could not urinate, so they forcibly used a foley catheter to extract the urine. Missing from the Complaint if the alcohol results of the urine test, if it was tested.
If everything he says happened just the way he said, well, some people have some answering to do. Certainly, but objectively, we don't know if that is what happened or not.
I've had a catheter while in the hospital. No one should ever have to endure that outside of a medical emergency or medical need. It has no business in law enforcement.
The ones siding with the COPS on this, just wait till YOU have a rough, rubber HOSE, being FORCED up yer D***HOLE! I'm thinkin' you jest MIGHT change your mind.....
I was lucky enough to have been under sedation for the insertion. I woke up with it in, I was like "WTF is this?" It was no fun getting it removed but it had to be better than being awake for the insertion.The ones siding with the COPS on this, just wait till YOU have a rough, rubber HOSE, being FORCED up yer D***HOLE! I'm thinkin' you jest MIGHT change your mind.....
I was hospitalized and had one inserted while wide awake and alert. Not a pleasant experience even while trying to remain relaxed knowing it is necessary. I could not imagine having one forcibly inserted while I was restrained. Being mostly males on here I cannot see anybody disagreeing with that.I was lucky enough to have been under sedation for the insertion. I woke up with it in, I was like "WTF is this?" It was no fun getting it removed but it had to be better than being awake for the insertion.
The ones siding with the COPS on this, just wait till YOU have a rough, rubber HOSE, being FORCED up yer D***HOLE! I'm thinkin' you jest MIGHT change your mind.....
...and now I have read the Complaint, so I know one side, kind of. Plaintiff says that the police did a breathalyzer and told him he blew a .11, but he claims that there is no evidence of that. He says that he offered up blood which showed a .073 (question- how were the results reported?). He then claims he drank a glass of water, then still could not urinate, so they forcibly used a foley catheter to extract the urine. Missing from the Complaint if the alcohol results of the urine test, if it was tested.
I don't understand this? Why didn't they just treat it as a refusal and hook him? He's required to submit to all chemical tests, not just one....and if he couldn't pee then he can explain it to the judge.
Urine from my understanding can give more than a pass/fail. But blood is more accurate as to what is currently in your system. Urine can give an idea of what was in your system. For alcohol the timeline is usually within a few hours, other drugs can be up to a month or more.From what I've been told, urine is more of a pass/fail kind of test. It's a **** poor (pun intended) replacement for blood. There is no better test than blood. The only immediate blood test I know of is one done at the hospital and HIPA should prevent Hospitals from releasing that information. Why is the officer that hard up for a result. Do your SFST in the field, administer a PBT in the field to insure you are dealing with ETOH. If the PBT results are not consistant with SFST results, call a DRE to the scene (drug recognition expert) and see if they can determine the type of drug involved. If you have poor driving behavior and failure of SFST's you have enough for the OMVWI arrest and forget the "per se" charge involving the BAC, you don't need it. I've had a catheter while in the hospital. No one should ever have to endure that outside of a medical emergency or medical need. It has no business in law enforcement.
But it sounds like the guy gave him a refusal with a bow on top.
Seems like an 8th amendment violation to me. This is about as bad as what you hear about happening to POWs.
AMENDMENT VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I was lucky enough to have been under sedation for the insertion. I woke up with it in, I was like "WTF is this?" It was no fun getting it removed but it had to be better than being awake for the insertion.
I can agree with that.Rule #23-What is in your colon or bladder is yours to keep.
why any and all chemical tests. If I blow and bleed but can't pee on command what's the problem.
Who said that? Are you saying that if the police deny it, we shouldn't believe them because people accused of crimes never lie?
I don't know who to believe. All I know is that only one side has had it's story told.
"In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines." Proverbs 18:17 NIV