Originally posted by: Rogue
Yeah, but I know damn good and well what I'm pulling them over for and why. I also use the elements of the offense as written in the statute to write the synopsis on the back of the ticket. The tickets we right have a narrative block on the back that JAG requires us to be very detailed on. We can't just say, "I observed the vehicle fail to stop at the posted sign" and leave it at that. We have to include the date/time (even though it's also on the front of the ticket), vehicle description (year, make, model, color, specific details such as rims, etc.), offense committed and how/where in detail, etc. If we don't include that information, often times the ticket is thrown out of court if the judge feels it's incomplete. I just got in the habit of ensuring that my tickets were written to the letter of the law, that's all.
Originally posted by: Rogue
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!
Originally posted by: Rogue
Lunar,
I answered all of this in my reply. I posted links to the law(s) related and pretty much proved that what occurred was well within the constraints of the law. The discussion should be over, but somehow I know it won't be.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Rogue
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!
No ownage As I said in the first post - I was scouring the net trying to find out where they get the authority to do such a thing. You nanny-staters kept bringing up "public safety" due to drinking. He wasn't legally too drunk to drive according to the very law you linked(which is outdated btw) The part you bolded of the law is ambiguous because of point "b." I had read Iowa's law(the current one) which is similar to what you posted but since point a and b conflict if you take them literally. You weren't giving me a new link and I wasn't asking for DUI laws. I was looking for IMPOUND and SEIZURE laws.
321.356 ..5..&4 don't show that a cop can impound a vehicle - it says that cops can remove cars from traffic on highways. The part you quoted doesn't give permission for them to remove it my brother's case for traffic purposes since 355 is about "Disabled vehicles" and 354 is concerning "Stopping on traveled way"
I choose not to listen to cops and their "legal opinions" since I have seen and heard some pretty wild stuff - and have now read it. A cop needs to follow the law - not make it. Like I said - I'm looking to see if they have that right. So far nothing you or anyone else has said give the cop consent to search and seize the vehicle. No she has no right to seize property unless granted the specific right to do so by law or warrant - which I'm asking for. Show me where - until then I'm through talking about "public safety" and intoxication levels.
Oh, and just so you know to calm your little head - I made him stay at my house that night even though he wanted me to give him a ride home immediately He has other vehicles - and I wasn't going to let him drive I secured all of my keys before I retired for the night too...just in-case. So shut YOUR piehole - you know nothing about me and how I think. Flaming me and/or my brother while ranting about irresponsiblity is retarted - you are preaching to the chior. I rarely drink anymore unless I get together with highschool buddies and we are off the road or water. I don't need to hear your inane whining about responsibility.
CkG
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Rogue
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!
No ownage As I said in the first post - I was scouring the net trying to find out where they get the authority to do such a thing. You nanny-staters kept bringing up "public safety" due to drinking. He wasn't legally too drunk to drive according to the very law you linked(which is outdated btw) The part you bolded of the law is ambiguous because of point "b." I had read Iowa's law(the current one) which is similar to what you posted but since point a and b conflict if you take them literally. You weren't giving me a new link and I wasn't asking for DUI laws. I was looking for IMPOUND and SEIZURE laws.
321.356 ..5..&4 don't show that a cop can impound a vehicle - it says that cops can remove cars from traffic on highways. The part you quoted doesn't give permission for them to remove it my brother's case for traffic purposes since 355 is about "Disabled vehicles" and 354 is concerning "Stopping on traveled way"
I choose not to listen to cops and their "legal opinions" since I have seen and heard some pretty wild stuff - and have now read it. A cop needs to follow the law - not make it. Like I said - I'm looking to see if they have that right. So far nothing you or anyone else has said give the cop consent to search and seize the vehicle. No she has no right to seize property unless granted the specific right to do so by law or warrant - which I'm asking for. Show me where - until then I'm through talking about "public safety" and intoxication levels.
Oh, and just so you know to calm your little head - I made him stay at my house that night even though he wanted me to give him a ride home immediately He has other vehicles - and I wasn't going to let him drive I secured all of my keys before I retired for the night too...just in-case. So shut YOUR piehole - you know nothing about me and how I think. Flaming me and/or my brother while ranting about irresponsiblity is retarted - you are preaching to the chior. I rarely drink anymore unless I get together with highschool buddies and we are off the road or water. I don't need to hear your inane whining about responsibility.
CkG
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
Originally posted by: FallenHero
CADkindaGUY
The law is supposed to be that ambiguous. Thats the point, and the reason why the police officer was able to do what she did. Cops know a hell of a lot more about the law than you do, so I would shut your pie hole and listen.
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Rogue
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!
No ownage As I said in the first post - I was scouring the net trying to find out where they get the authority to do such a thing. You nanny-staters kept bringing up "public safety" due to drinking. He wasn't legally too drunk to drive according to the very law you linked(which is outdated btw) The part you bolded of the law is ambiguous because of point "b." I had read Iowa's law(the current one) which is similar to what you posted but since point a and b conflict if you take them literally. You weren't giving me a new link and I wasn't asking for DUI laws. I was looking for IMPOUND and SEIZURE laws.
321.356 ..5..&4 don't show that a cop can impound a vehicle - it says that cops can remove cars from traffic on highways. The part you quoted doesn't give permission for them to remove it my brother's case for traffic purposes since 355 is about "Disabled vehicles" and 354 is concerning "Stopping on traveled way"
I choose not to listen to cops and their "legal opinions" since I have seen and heard some pretty wild stuff - and have now read it. A cop needs to follow the law - not make it. Like I said - I'm looking to see if they have that right. So far nothing you or anyone else has said give the cop consent to search and seize the vehicle. No she has no right to seize property unless granted the specific right to do so by law or warrant - which I'm asking for. Show me where - until then I'm through talking about "public safety" and intoxication levels.
Oh, and just so you know to calm your little head - I made him stay at my house that night even though he wanted me to give him a ride home immediately He has other vehicles - and I wasn't going to let him drive I secured all of my keys before I retired for the night too...just in-case. So shut YOUR piehole - you know nothing about me and how I think. Flaming me and/or my brother while ranting about irresponsiblity is retarted - you are preaching to the chior. I rarely drink anymore unless I get together with highschool buddies and we are off the road or water. I don't need to hear your inane whining about responsibility.
CkG
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
Originally posted by: Rogue
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
Now that is some ownage! Pull a LordRaiden and leave while you still have some dignity about you. Perhaps I can find the town you live in and make a personal call to the officer involved in this case to ensure that your entire fvcking gene pool is shown the full extent of the laws as you break them. That would be entertaining!
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Rogue
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!
No ownage As I said in the first post - I was scouring the net trying to find out where they get the authority to do such a thing. You nanny-staters kept bringing up "public safety" due to drinking. He wasn't legally too drunk to drive according to the very law you linked(which is outdated btw) The part you bolded of the law is ambiguous because of point "b." I had read Iowa's law(the current one) which is similar to what you posted but since point a and b conflict if you take them literally. You weren't giving me a new link and I wasn't asking for DUI laws. I was looking for IMPOUND and SEIZURE laws.
321.356 ..5..&4 don't show that a cop can impound a vehicle - it says that cops can remove cars from traffic on highways. The part you quoted doesn't give permission for them to remove it my brother's case for traffic purposes since 355 is about "Disabled vehicles" and 354 is concerning "Stopping on traveled way"
I choose not to listen to cops and their "legal opinions" since I have seen and heard some pretty wild stuff - and have now read it. A cop needs to follow the law - not make it. Like I said - I'm looking to see if they have that right. So far nothing you or anyone else has said give the cop consent to search and seize the vehicle. No she has no right to seize property unless granted the specific right to do so by law or warrant - which I'm asking for. Show me where - until then I'm through talking about "public safety" and intoxication levels.
Oh, and just so you know to calm your little head - I made him stay at my house that night even though he wanted me to give him a ride home immediately He has other vehicles - and I wasn't going to let him drive I secured all of my keys before I retired for the night too...just in-case. So shut YOUR piehole - you know nothing about me and how I think. Flaming me and/or my brother while ranting about irresponsiblity is retarted - you are preaching to the chior. I rarely drink anymore unless I get together with highschool buddies and we are off the road or water. I don't need to hear your inane whining about responsibility.
CkG
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
You are an asshat because I ASKED FOR THE FVCKING LAW - not some 2bit cop's interpretation. No one has been able to show where they get the right to selectively enforce the punishment without arresting for the crime - WHICH IS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. Please understand my question.
You people are amazingly good at twisting the discussion away from the original question.
CkG
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Rogue
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!
No ownage As I said in the first post - I was scouring the net trying to find out where they get the authority to do such a thing. You nanny-staters kept bringing up "public safety" due to drinking. He wasn't legally too drunk to drive according to the very law you linked(which is outdated btw) The part you bolded of the law is ambiguous because of point "b." I had read Iowa's law(the current one) which is similar to what you posted but since point a and b conflict if you take them literally. You weren't giving me a new link and I wasn't asking for DUI laws. I was looking for IMPOUND and SEIZURE laws.
321.356 ..5..&4 don't show that a cop can impound a vehicle - it says that cops can remove cars from traffic on highways. The part you quoted doesn't give permission for them to remove it my brother's case for traffic purposes since 355 is about "Disabled vehicles" and 354 is concerning "Stopping on traveled way"
I choose not to listen to cops and their "legal opinions" since I have seen and heard some pretty wild stuff - and have now read it. A cop needs to follow the law - not make it. Like I said - I'm looking to see if they have that right. So far nothing you or anyone else has said give the cop consent to search and seize the vehicle. No she has no right to seize property unless granted the specific right to do so by law or warrant - which I'm asking for. Show me where - until then I'm through talking about "public safety" and intoxication levels.
Oh, and just so you know to calm your little head - I made him stay at my house that night even though he wanted me to give him a ride home immediately He has other vehicles - and I wasn't going to let him drive I secured all of my keys before I retired for the night too...just in-case. So shut YOUR piehole - you know nothing about me and how I think. Flaming me and/or my brother while ranting about irresponsiblity is retarted - you are preaching to the chior. I rarely drink anymore unless I get together with highschool buddies and we are off the road or water. I don't need to hear your inane whining about responsibility.
CkG
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
You are an asshat because I ASKED FOR THE FVCKING LAW - not some 2bit cop's interpretation. No one has been able to show where they get the right to selectively enforce the punishment without arresting for the crime - WHICH IS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. Please understand my question.
You people are amazingly good at twisting the discussion away from the original question.
CkG
BTW you are a dumbass for saying the 2001 law is not accurate. They don't update the state code but every so often moron. Don't worry I am going to find some more statutes to show how stupid you really are.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Rogue
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!
No ownage As I said in the first post - I was scouring the net trying to find out where they get the authority to do such a thing. You nanny-staters kept bringing up "public safety" due to drinking. He wasn't legally too drunk to drive according to the very law you linked(which is outdated btw) The part you bolded of the law is ambiguous because of point "b." I had read Iowa's law(the current one) which is similar to what you posted but since point a and b conflict if you take them literally. You weren't giving me a new link and I wasn't asking for DUI laws. I was looking for IMPOUND and SEIZURE laws.
321.356 ..5..&4 don't show that a cop can impound a vehicle - it says that cops can remove cars from traffic on highways. The part you quoted doesn't give permission for them to remove it my brother's case for traffic purposes since 355 is about "Disabled vehicles" and 354 is concerning "Stopping on traveled way"
I choose not to listen to cops and their "legal opinions" since I have seen and heard some pretty wild stuff - and have now read it. A cop needs to follow the law - not make it. Like I said - I'm looking to see if they have that right. So far nothing you or anyone else has said give the cop consent to search and seize the vehicle. No she has no right to seize property unless granted the specific right to do so by law or warrant - which I'm asking for. Show me where - until then I'm through talking about "public safety" and intoxication levels.
Oh, and just so you know to calm your little head - I made him stay at my house that night even though he wanted me to give him a ride home immediately He has other vehicles - and I wasn't going to let him drive I secured all of my keys before I retired for the night too...just in-case. So shut YOUR piehole - you know nothing about me and how I think. Flaming me and/or my brother while ranting about irresponsiblity is retarted - you are preaching to the chior. I rarely drink anymore unless I get together with highschool buddies and we are off the road or water. I don't need to hear your inane whining about responsibility.
CkG
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
You are an asshat because I ASKED FOR THE FVCKING LAW - not some 2bit cop's interpretation. No one has been able to show where they get the right to selectively enforce the punishment without arresting for the crime - WHICH IS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. Please understand my question.
You people are amazingly good at twisting the discussion away from the original question.
CkG
BTW you are a dumbass for saying the 2001 law is not accurate. They don't update the state code but every so often moron. Don't worry I am going to find some more statutes to show how stupid you really are.
His linked statute is outdated - they changed it to .08
Care to try again?
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Rogue
You're a goddamn moron and I hope you never need the police to help you. You are the most self-righteous arrogant know-it-all prick on this forum. Do you have ANY legal training at all? If not shut the fvck up, because some of us KNOW how to read and interpret statues. Laws are written ambiguously for a reason. That reason is an officer's or court's discretion. What little respect I had for you has been lost, and you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite especially with all the bullsh!t you post in P&N.
Now that is some ownage! Pull a LordRaiden and leave while you still have some dignity about you. Perhaps I can find the town you live in and make a personal call to the officer involved in this case to ensure that your entire fvcking gene pool is shown the full extent of the laws as you break them. That would be entertaining!
Exactly why people have come to not trust cops. Nice going - you perpetuate the cycle.
CkG
Originally posted by: Millennium
OWI and impounding:
For purposes of this section:
a. "Immobilized" means the installation of a device in a motor vehicle that completely prevents a motor vehicle from being operated, or the installation of an ignition interlock device of a type approved by the commissioner of public safety.
b. "Impoundment" means the process of seizure and confinement within an enclosed area of a motor vehicle, for the purpose of restricting access to the vehicle.
c. "Owner" means the registered titleholder of a motor vehicle; except in the case where a rental or leasing agency is the registered titleholder, in which case the lessee of the vehicle shall be treated as the owner of the vehicle for purposes of this section.
2. A motor vehicle is subject to impoundment in the following circumstances:
a. If a person operates a vehicle in violation of section 321J.2, and if convicted for that conduct, the conviction would be a second or subsequent offense under section 321J.2.
HE WAS IN VIOLATION. THERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THEY COULD IMPOUND HIS CAR. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?