Don't listen to a cop or two telling you exactly why she did it and why she was justified. NO! We don't know $hit. You're all knowing in this matter, right? I guess you should have never asked the question since you already knew the answer.
I will say one more time that she did the public a service, no matter what you want to think. Leaving the vehicle on the side of the road is a traffic hazard first and foremost and most departments have a policy against leaving vehicles parked on the side of the road for any period of time. Leaving the vehicle where the intoxicated owner knows where it is, regardless of his level of intoxication according to the breath test, puts people at risk. I guarantee you that he would have wanted to go straight back to his car, but I don't doubt that you'd prevent that, because you know everything about the law already, so you would have stepped in, right? Third, perhaps the vehicle was better removed to prevent any number of damages, break ins or vandalisms that may have occured over night. You seem to be unwilling to see the benefits here. There was a reason, whether you like it or not. He was intoxicated, period, end of discussion. He was so intoxicated that drove through a stop sign which could have killed someone, failed the SFST in the field and his BAC was still on the rise when she put him on the breathalyzer, but she had no fvcking cause for taking his vehicle away for the night????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! My gun analogy was spot on, whether you want to see it or not. There are rules and laws governing vehicles too and that rule is that it's a privledge to drive, a privledge your brother took for granted. A privledge that could have killed someone that night, but you can't see that, can you?
Now, after some research, I found the following, which hopefully will shut you up once and for all, although I doubt it.
321J.2 Operating while under the influence of alcohol or a drug or while having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more (OWI).
1. A person commits the offense of operating while intoxicated if the person operates a motor vehicle in this state in
any of the following conditions:
a. While under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or other drug or a combination of such substances.
b. While having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more.
c. While any amount of a controlled substance is present in the person, as measured in the person's blood or urine.
2. A person who violates subsection 1 commits:
a. A serious misdemeanor for the first offense, punishable by all of the following:
(1) Imprisonment in the county jail for not less than forty-eight hours, to be served as ordered by the court, less credit for any time the person was confined in a jail or detention facility following arrest. However, the court, in ordering service of the sentence and in its discretion, may accommodate the defendant's work schedule.
(2) Assessment of a fine of one thousand dollars. However, in the discretion of the court, if no personal or property injury has resulted from the defendant's actions, the court may waive up to five hundred dollars of the fine when the defendant presents to the court at the end of the minimum period of ineligibility, a temporary restricted license issued pursuant to 321J.20. As an alternative to a portion or all of the fine, the court may order the person to perform unpaid community service.
(3) Revocation of the person's driver's license pursuant to section 321J.4, subsection 1, section 321J.9, or section 321J.12, which includes a minimum revocation period of one hundred eighty days, including a minimum period of ineligibility for a temporary restricted license of thirty days, and may involve a revocation period of one year.
(4) Assignment to substance abuse evaluation and treatment, a course for drinking drivers, and, if available and appropriate, a reality education substance abuse prevention program pursuant to subsection 3.
Note the bolded use of the word
any above. That means that by the state law as of 2001, your brother was legally DUI and she proved it. Note again that it says
any of the following conditions, of which your brother was PROVEN to be
a. While under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or other drug or a combination of such substances, right? Now, all told, she probably had his car towed as a lesson to him, if not for every other reason I've mentioned above.
Here's the
link to Iowa's DUI law so you can read it for yourself. I'm guessing that she decided not to throw him in the slammer and took "remedial legal action" on him by taking his car away for the night. Your insistence, however, that he did not break the law is false. He in fact committed a misdemeanor (rolling through the stop sign) and a serious misdemeanor (DUI) that night. So stop saying he didn't break the law, he did, he just wasn't
charged with it.
See also:
321.356 Officers authorized to remove.
Whenever any peace officer finds a vehicle standing upon a highway in violation of any of the foregoing provisions of sections
321.354 and 321.355 such officer is hereby authorized to move such vehicle, or require the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle to move the same, to a position off the paved or improved or main traveled part of such highway.
Looks to me, by my research, that the officer did exactly what she was permitted to do within the constraints of the law. It is dependant upon where he in fact was pulled over/stopped his vehicle and I'm going to assume that it was inviolation of Section 321.354 of Iowa state law and that's why she had the vehicle removed.
To finish, I think you have been summarily pwned in this reply and you can shut your pie hole now. Next time, do your own damn research!