JoshAllenHasBigHands

Im not sure, but I can say that a police officer in this thread said he noticed two issues with his test, just based on the video, which is obviously not the best vantage point. Also, I think the container was just the probable cause to do the field sobriety test, but I dont know for sure. Is this all normal, is this all fair? I dont know. Thats a higher level question. If there is a better alternative, Im all ears. I just dont think there is.

Where does ***** laude put me? Those articles are a pretty good illustration of what happens when dumb people dont understand what they are reading. As to the first article, that was the exact situation Im talking about - he refused a request, and when police pushed it into a demand (which he then complied with), the courts later determined the demand was unlawful, thus proving my point: if the demand is unlawful, it will be thrown out by the courts. The failed sobriety test....what is your point? The blood test didnt come until after the arrest. Sure, the system isnt perfect, but how else do you confirm someone is under the influence of drugs?

I understand where you are coming from, and its definitely an imperfect system. We should be investing wayyyy more in our public defender system. That said, Oliver’s arrest was justified. He failed the field sobriety test, which assess both alcohol and substance abuse impairment. A breathalyzer obviously doesn’t test for drugs.

There is a difference with agreeing with a request and complying with an instruction. Yes, if they ask if they may see your trunk, you should say no. Thats not what Im talking about though. Im saying if they say you HAVE to open your trunk, you need to comply. I hope you see the distinction.

Well, I am a lawyer, but sure, you probably know better.

If a cop gives you an instruction, you must follow it, right or wrong. Whether the cop has probable cause, or whether its right or wrong, should not be litigated on the streets. If the cop is in the wrong, that will be sorted out after the fact. You should NEVER refuse a clear instruction, no matter what you, an armchair lawyer, THINK the law is. Say, sure. Refuse an instruction, no. If you refuse an instruction, you are rightfully the subject of violence. Telling people otherwise is why so many police encounters turn violent. To be clear: there are proportion levels of violence. It can go too far. But when you introduce violence, situations become unpredictable. Every thing that follows is your fault for refusing to comply with instructions. The cop may share comparative fault, but the original blame lies with the person that refused the instruction.

I would prefer they not get to court in the first place. Are there situations they should not speak, of course. However, from a practical standpoint, the response you advocate immediate encourages further investigation. Granted, its not reasonable suspicion/probable cause. But you better believe that cop is gonna wonder what he is missing. I know, the opposite of “innocent until proven guilty.” But good lawyers give advice for the legal world and the real world. You treat every police encounter as a confrontation, you are gonna get a confrontation.

I dont do DUI law, but I would bet its one of those things that violates the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. In other words, having a bunch of empties in the car may technically be illegal, but no cop or prosecutor would pursue fines/charges because its clear the person did not have an open container for consumption. Im a lawyer, and I would never give someone this advice. At least not as a generic approach to police encounters.

Absolute fire. I think "heavily" is an exaggeration, but still, its a great way of framing the issue.

I can get behind this. The answer is always in the middle. On the one hand, cops need to exercise wayyyyy more restraint. On the other hand, people interacting with cops have to understand they don't get to disregard a police officer's orders.

That fact doesn't change anything . . .

I feel like you are saying I am "being that overdramatic fan that reads too far into everything." Really hurts my feelings.

My wife calls in erratic drivers. It makes me immeasurably angry. Outside extreme circumstances, people should not be calling in bad drivers. At the risk of sounding snarky, when I say "I don't follow," I mean that the words you are using are unclear. I don't understand the point you are trying to convey.

I don't really follow what you are saying, but I think a pretty significant piece is missing from what you are saying: the cops were arresting him for suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol (that may have been the original reason they pulled him over); they were arresting him for being under the influence of illicit substances, hence they clean blood test was the deciding factor. The cops would have had that conversation with Ed Oliver. He would have understood that blowing a 0.0 wasn't going to be enough to get him off. I don't follow what your saying here.

People can be under the influence of substances that are not alcohol... If you are taught your whole life that the police are the enemy, you will think that the police are your enemy. If you are taught your whole life that police are pulling you over because of the color of your skin, you will think the police are pulling you over because of the color of your skin.

Yeah - But it sounds like you still complied.

Yeah, but the blood analysis comes after the fact. They don't do that at the scene. Once they got the blood analysis, he was cleared. Whats the problem, here?

Sooooo at the risk of being that overdramatic fan that reads too far into everything: those vets that don't know the playbook are Foster and Duke, right?

Of course it does.

The beer can was for his dip spit. Breathalyzer or no, a failed field sobriety test (the stumbling, etc.) is enough for probable cause. Obviously he was exonerated by the subsequent drug test. However, how else do you think drivers impaired by non-alcoholic substances are identified?

Yes. That is how police encounters work. Under any circumstance, you have to comply. If you do not, the police will use the appropriate amount of force to achieve compliance. Once force is introduced, the situation becomes unpredictable and you risk serious injury and/or death. That is true regardless of race, and the suggestion that it is "odd" that failure to comply could result in serious injury is absurd. Does anyone really believe they can say "no" to the police?

We didn't really have much behind him.

He tested positive, he didn't opt out.

I dont even think he has great instincts. He constantly attacks the wrong gap in run defense, opening those wide open holes opposing teams ran through last year.

I don't know if the defense fell apart as much as Tre fell apart...