Browns WR Donte Stallworth involved in a FATALITY

[lets_go_bills]

WTF does that mean? It was believed by WHO exactly (besides you)?

 

Nothing in the articles I've seen gives any indication he was drinking.

 

That's what PFT and rotoworld were speculating. And I emphasize speculating. Don't shoot the messenger.

[DanInUticaTampa]

Without knowing the laws in Florida, I would say it is more bad moral advice rather than bad legal advice. But, could be a combination of both if the law goes against someone who refuses testing.

 

If you refuse testing down here, you get locked up. The only good thing about refusing to test, you might get away with not having a DUI on your record. But you still go to jail and you need a really good lawyer to prove you were not DUI. Lawyers have an easier time proving that when there are no breath tests or anything.

[cale]

If you refuse testing down here, you get locked up. The only good thing about refusing to test, you might get away with not having a DUI on your record. But you still go to jail and you need a really good lawyer to prove you were not DUI. Lawyers have an easier time proving that when there are no breath tests or anything.

 

I think it's that way in most states. But my intent was to say that if he was drinking why would he submit unless he had nothing to hide?

 

At any rate, we''ll wait for the results. At 7 in the AM, I'm bleary eyed too...

 

C

[SKOOBY]

I think it's that way in most states. But my intent was to say that if he was drinking why would he submit unless he had nothing to hide?

 

At any rate, we''ll wait for the results. At 7 in the AM, I'm bleary eyed too...

 

C

 

FWIW, it's still pretty dark in FL at ~7:00 AM after the time change. Not that it's different anywhere else in the east but in all fairness.

[DanInUticaTampa]

But my intent was to say that if he was drinking why would he submit unless he had nothing to hide?

 

From past experiences with people, a lot of people believe if you offer to take a test before they offer it, they might believe you have nothing to hide and not give you a test, thinking it is a waste of time. I don't think this is the case though. 7 am isnt exactly drinking time and Stallworth doesnt exactly have a bad reputation or anything.

[Sig1Hunter]

Just as an aside, if I was his lawyer and he was drinking at 7AM in the morning heading out to the beach, I would have told Stallworth to not submit to the test. This honestly sounds like an unfortunate accident.

 

C

 

A couple things:

 

1) The police need to have reasonable suspicion of impairment before they can take the blood. So, they had to have something - odor of alcohol, admissions to drinking, etc.

 

2) If the police do have that reasonable suspicion, and the case involves serious bodily injury or death, then you CANNOT refuse the blood test. The cops can pin you down, stick a needle in your arm and forcefully take it if they have to.

 

So, it seems there was something that led the cops to believe that there was alcohol and/or drugs involved here, so the blood was taken.

 

-A DUI cop in Florida

[Steely Dan]

Linkage

 

Effect of a Breathalyzer Refusal in New York

 

If you have been drinking and driving and a police officer asks you to submit to a breathalyzer test, you need to understand that there are consequences if you refuse to do so. New York law specifically states that refusal to cooperate with sobriety testing will result in the generation of a report of such a refusal by the officer and an automatic suspension of your driving privileges as a result.

 

 

Interesting article:

 

 

BREATHALYZER ON TRACK FOR SCRAP

 

By OWEN MORITZ

 

Friday, April 17th 1998, 2:04AM

 

After 44 years, the Breathalyzer is a hiccup away from retirement.

 

New York state police said yesterday they will phase out the Breathalyzer, which has been used to test drivers for drunkenness since 1954, and replace it with a high-tech, infra-energized, electrochemical, fail-safe tool called the Draeger Alcotest.

 

"It takes us into the next millennium with equipment that is much more advanced," said Trooper Robert Sawicki.

 

Another trooper, David Miller, said that comparing the Breathalyzer to the $7,000 Draeger Alcotest 7110 Mark III is like comparing a typewriter to a word processor.

 

"The typewriter does a great job, but now you can use a computer that does a spell check for you and saves you time," he said.

 

The only thing that won't change is that motorists accused of driving drunk still will have to exhale into a hose at the police barracks.

 

The Breathalyzer measures the alcohol content of a person's blood through a chemical reaction in a test that takes 25 minutes to administer, police said. The Alcotest checks blood-alcohol content by two methods in a single use in only 15 minutes.

 

The Breathalyzer, in use since 1954 and a staple of every TV cop show from "Dragnet" to "NYPD Blue," has long been vulnerable to challenges by defense attorneys because of the potential for human error the operator has to calibrate testing gauges and the machine provides no printed readouts.

 

The Alcotest virtually eliminates the potential for human error, state troopers said. The machine prints out the results and has a built-in microprocessor that constantly monitors itself and shuts down when proper procedures are not followed.

 

The new equipment has been used by state troopers based in Albany and Middletown. Troopers in western New York are expected to make the switch later this year. The entire state police force should be equipped by sometime in 1999.

 

A spokesman for New York City police said the department has ordered two Draeger Alcotests and will evaluate the equipment before deciding whether to order more.

[Steely Dan]

Linkage

 

Saturday, November 05 2005 @ 01:50 PM EST

 

What a difference it makes to have a good lawyer.

 

You may have heard about the DUI cases in Florida, where the defense attorneys for 150 defendants asked to see the breathalyzer source code, and won. If you have ever been arrested for DUI, and I hope you haven't been, did your lawyer think of that?

 

This is an interesting situation the breathalyzer company is in. They are asserting trade secret, and they have just said they will not turn over the source code, despite the judge's order:

 

 

Linkage

 

 

Florida DUI law.

 

DEFINITIONS:

 

"Per Se" Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Level

As of August 2005, all states have DUI laws that deem "per se intoxicated" any driver with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above .08 percent. This means that drivers with a BAC at or above .08 are intoxicated in the eyes of the law, and no additional proof of driving impairment is necessary.

 

"Zero Tolerance" Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Level

All states carry "zero tolerance" laws that target drivers under the legal drinking age. These laws penalize persons under 21 for operating a vehicle with any trace of alcohol in their systems (a BAC above 0.0), or with negligible BAC levels such as .01 or .02 percent.

 

"Enhanced Penalty" Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Level

Many states impose harsher penalties on DUI offenders with a particularly high BAC at the time of the offense, typically .15 to .20 percent. DUI offenders with a BAC at or above their state's enhanced penalty standards will likely face additional jail time, harsher fines, and more severe driver's license sanctions.

 

"Implied Consent" Laws

"Implied consent" laws require vehicle drivers to submit to some form of chemical test, such as breath, blood, or urine testing, if suspected of DUI. If a driver refuses to submit to such testing, implied consent laws carry penalties such as mandatory suspension of a driver's license, usually for six months to a year.

[Saint Doug]

Geez, sorta makes Lynch's troubles look like child's play.

[BuffaloBill]

Very sad situation for everyone involved ... especially th family and friends of the individual killed. Prayers go out for all of them.

[Mr. WEO]

Well since he had a history of bringing his own alcohol into bars, surely the DA, in his exhaustive one month search for the truth before agreeing to a traffic ticket, would have uncovered someone, ANYONE, who actually saw him drinking that night, don't you think? Someone like a bartender, waitress, patron, valet, street bum? Wait let me guess: everyone was covering for him.

 

Lynch did what his lawyer instructed him to do (i.e. keep quiet and let the cops make their case for themselves), just like that video someone posted and I told you to watch said one should do whether he/she is innocent or guilty. But even if he had come clean in the beginning and gotten the traffic ticket, you and others would have obviously still claimed that he accepted the plea deal to avoid having the truth come out. Nothing less than a "I was drunk, knew I hit her, and ran because I was scared" would have sufficed for you and you know it.

 

 

I never said anything about him being guilty of DUI. But in any case, a person died because of him, and he'll still likely get charged with something more than a traffic ticket. In addition, since he's in the NFL's drug program, the Commish is well within his right to suspend him for at least a few games, right?

 

Drinking in a bar is not illegal. Nor is drinking in a bar and driving home. So finding witnesses to his drinking is useless. He can only be charged with DWI if you are caught DWI and fail a field sobriety test and/or have a BAL greater than 0.08. Since Lynch took off after he hit the woman, there was no test of any kind. Your point is moot.

 

If he broke no law, he will not be charged. The Commish will not suspend him if this turns out to be a terrible accident--just because he's in the NFLs drug program. That makes no sense at all.

[VOR]

Drinking in a bar is not illegal. Nor is drinking in a bar and driving home. So finding witnesses to his drinking is useless. He can only be charged with DWI if you are caught DWI and fail a field sobriety test and/or have a BAL greater than 0.08. Since Lynch took off after he hit the woman, there was no test of any kind. Your point is moot.

So we suspect Lynch was DUI because...he brought his own alcohol into bars in the past and he refused to make the police's case for them? LOL, got it! Talk about moot points. Fortunately our legal system doesn't take such dreck into account and requires evidence like people seeing him drinking right before the accident, or the videotape of the incident showing him slowing down or hastily leaving because he realized he hit someone, or calling someone right after it happened to get advice on what to do next.

 

I suggest you accept the fact that the DA could find NOTHING to suggest he was even drinking that night and that it was "just a (not so) terrible accident."

 

If he broke no law, he will not be charged. The Commish will not suspend him if this turns out to be a terrible accident--just because he's in the NFLs drug program. That makes no sense at all.

Just because you don't understand it, or refuse to accept it, doesn't mean it makes no sense. But to clarify it for you, since he was in the substance abuse program, obviously Goodell "talked to him" about being a good representative for the NFL, kind of like he would have done with Lynch after last year's traffic ticket. And killing someone, even if it's "a terrible accident" (the hypocrisy of this statement is too rich!) is still a black mark on the league. But hey, good on Stallworth for admitting he killed the person, was drinking until midnight, and honked his horn to get the victim to move out of his way.

[Mr. WEO]

So we suspect Lynch was DUI because...he brought his own alcohol into bars in the past and he refused to make the police's case for them? LOL, got it! Talk about moot points. Fortunately our legal system doesn't take such dreck into account and requires evidence like people seeing him drinking right before the accident, or the videotape of the incident showing him slowing down or hastily leaving because he realized he hit someone, or calling someone right after it happened to get advice on what to do next.

 

I suggest you accept the fact that the DA could find NOTHING to suggest he was even drinking that night and that it was "just a (not so) terrible accident."

 

 

Just because you don't understand it, or refuse to accept it, doesn't mean it makes no sense. But to clarify it for you, since he was in the substance abuse program, obviously Goodell "talked to him" about being a good representative for the NFL, kind of like he would have done with Lynch after last year's traffic ticket. And killing someone, even if it's "a terrible accident" (the hypocrisy of this statement is too rich!) is still a black mark on the league. But hey, good on Stallworth for admitting he killed the person, was drinking until midnight, and honked his horn to get the victim to move out of his way.

 

Again, a DA cannot make a case of DUI if he cannot prove the guy was drunk. Just because he not seen stumbling out of a bar does not mean he wasn't impaired. And of course a guy who is guilty of a crime is not going to "make the police's case for them"!! Thanks for restating my point.

 

An innocent guy with nothing to hide doesn't need to hinder or "not help" the DA make a case against him. Get it?

 

As for the terrible accident--if someone walks in your path and you hit them and kill them (through no fault of your own) would you expect to be punished, by anyone, just because you had a past history of substance abuse? Of course not, and neither does our legal system, nor does the Commish, I bet.

 

I'm also betting that the Commish is more skeptical of Lynch's story than a "my guy can do no wrong" homer such as those found here.

[VOR]

Again, a DA cannot make a case of DUI if he cannot prove the guy was drunk. Just because he not seen stumbling out of a bar does not mean he wasn't impaired. And of course a guy who is guilty of a crime is not going to "make the police's case for them"!! Thanks for restating my point.

 

An innocent guy with nothing to hide doesn't need to hinder or "not help" the DA make a case against him. Get it?

 

As for the terrible accident--if someone walks in your path and you hit them and kill them (through no fault of your own) would you expect to be punished, by anyone, just because you had a past history of substance abuse? Of course not, and neither does our legal system, nor does the Commish, I bet.

 

I'm also betting that the Commish is more skeptical of Lynch's story than a "my guy can do no wrong" homer such as those found here.

If the DA can't make the case of DUI, why are you? Why can't you and others like you admit that you're just mad that Lynch did what his lawyer told him to do, and kept quiet? There is no other explanation for you irrationally ignoring the evidence that supports his contention of not knowing he hit her. You have NOTHING except for the silly "he brought his own alcohol into bars in the past" and "he didn't come forward fast enough." Please.

 

And since you're asking me what I would do if someone walked in my path, I sure as hell would slow down and make an attempt to avoid hitting them, not honk my horn and flash my lights. I also certainly wouldn't have admitted to drinking the night before. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. It's called self-preservation and something most people would do, despite what they claim on a message board or when they're not the ones affected. I have no respect for Stallworth for admitting what he did. Obviously he's your hero.

 

What Stallworth has admitted to (drinking the night before and seeing the pedestrian but not slowing down) is enough to hang him not only legally, but with the Commish. Lynch's traffic incident is no worse than Stallworth being in the drug program, because both would have needed to be "talked to" by the Commish. Now Lynch has a gun charge and Stallworth killed someone, and both came clean immediately in these latest incidents because they were caught dead-to-rights. But in Lynch's case, no one died, or was even close to dying. So who should get a suspension, and for how long?

[jester43]

They go limp instead of rigid and are able to absorb that impact better as a result (physics class in college).

that's not really true. they just get lucky sometimes.

[Tcali]

My nephew's mom was riding a motorcycle a drunk hit her from behind, she laid in the street for hours, with her leg 20 feet from her. The drunk drove off, was caught 2 weeks later.

omg

[yall]

Dany Heatley killed his best friend... Actually the Snyder family was supsortive of him... Ya, he was only buzzed...

0

 

It's possible the family was supportive because they knew that it could have been either one driving, as I've seen that before.

 

Imagine 2 knucklehead kids going out and drinking and driving all the time despite the protests from loved ones. I've actually seen that happen where the family of the deceased realized it was just a matter of time before their lucks runs out, and who was actually behind the wheel seemed irrelevant (to the family - not the state).

[Steely Dan]

Donte' Stallworth-WR- Browns Mar. 16 - 1:06 am et

 

Yahoo Sports reports that Donte' Stallworth is expected to be charged for his involvement in an automobile crash that killed a pedestrian Saturday.

The investigation is ongoing but DUI, vehicular manslaugher, and reckless driving are among the possible charges. There's still no word if Stallworth was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A witness claims the accident happened when Stallworth drove his Bentley around a stopped car to beat a red light. The situation has the potential to threaten Stallworth's career.

Source: Yahoo Sports

[Sig1Hunter]

[by OWEN MORITZ

 

Friday, April 17th 1998, 2:04AM

 

After 44 years, the Breathalyzer is a hiccup away from retirement.

 

New York state police said yesterday they will phase out the Breathalyzer, which has been used to test drivers for drunkenness since 1954, and replace it with a high-tech, infra-energized, electrochemical, fail-safe tool called the Draeger Alcotest.

 

"It takes us into the next millennium with equipment that is much more advanced," said Trooper Robert Sawicki.

 

Another trooper, David Miller, said that comparing the Breathalyzer to the $7,000 Draeger Alcotest 7110 Mark III is like comparing a typewriter to a word processor.

 

"The typewriter does a great job, but now you can use a computer that does a spell check for you and saves you time," he said.

 

The only thing that won't change is that motorists accused of driving drunk still will have to exhale into a hose at the police barracks.

 

The Breathalyzer measures the alcohol content of a person's blood through a chemical reaction in a test that takes 25 minutes to administer, police said. The Alcotest checks blood-alcohol content by two methods in a single use in only 15 minutes.

 

The Breathalyzer, in use since 1954 and a staple of every TV cop show from "Dragnet" to "NYPD Blue," has long been vulnerable to challenges by defense attorneys because of the potential for human error the operator has to calibrate testing gauges and the machine provides no printed readouts.

 

The Alcotest virtually eliminates the potential for human error, state troopers said. The machine prints out the results and has a built-in microprocessor that constantly monitors itself and shuts down when proper procedures are not followed.

 

The new equipment has been used by state troopers based in Albany and Middletown. Troopers in western New York are expected to make the switch later this year. The entire state police force should be equipped by sometime in 1999.

 

A spokesman for New York City police said the department has ordered two Draeger Alcotests and will evaluate the equipment before deciding whether to order more.[/i]

 

Steely, don't believe everything you read, my friend!

 

This article is laced with so many errors or factual omissions, that it made me laugh out loud.

 

First, the "Breathalyzer" hasn't been used in God knows how long (here in Florida, at least). We do have the Intoxilyzer 8000, which prints results, constantly monitors itself, goes through self checks, yada yada yada. Basically, what the article says this "Alcotest" does. It makes it sound as if law enforcement is using antiquated 1950s technology in DUI investigations, and this is certainly not the case. Another case of the media misleading the public - shocking!

 

 

EDIT - I just noticed the date on the article - 1998! Give me something a little more updated, Steely!

[Steely Dan]

Steely, don't believe everything you read, my friend!

 

This article is laced with so many errors or factual omissions, that it made me laugh out loud.

 

First, the "Breathalyzer" hasn't been used in God knows how long (here in Florida, at least). We do have the Intoxilyzer 8000, which prints results, constantly monitors itself, goes through self checks, yada yada yada. Basically, what the article says this "Alcotest" does. It makes it sound as if law enforcement is using antiquated 1950s technology in DUI investigations, and this is certainly not the case. Another case of the media misleading the public - shocking!

 

 

EDIT - I just noticed the date on the article - 1998! Give me something a little more updated, Steely!

 

Why don't you look at the date on the article.

 

It was merely meant as an article on the breathalyzer being phased out since 1998. Since so many people were referring to the breathalyzer I posted that article, boneeous headius.