yes another cop/legal question

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Millennium
Guess what MORON? The 2003 code is RIGHT here and it STILL doesn't have the .08 listed.

That is the current code. It STILL says:

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:

AND:

321J.4B Motor vehicle impoundment or immobilization -- penalty -- liability of vehicle owner.
1. 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.

b. If a person operates a vehicle while that person's driver's license or operating privilege has been suspended, denied, revoked, or barred due to a violation of section 321J.2.



Eat it.

eat it

CkG

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
Guess what MORON? The 2003 code is RIGHT here and it STILL doesn't have the .08 listed.

That is the current code. It STILL says:

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:

AND:

321J.4B Motor vehicle impoundment or immobilization -- penalty -- liability of vehicle owner.
1. 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.

b. If a person operates a vehicle while that person's driver's license or operating privilege has been suspended, denied, revoked, or barred due to a violation of section 321J.2.



Eat it.

eat it

CkG

Eat what? I already said I was familiar with the .08 law. Go back through the thread. You will see I already said I knew about it when states FIRST started enacting it. The Feds decided to play hardball.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

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

Perhaps its just the idiots like yourself that dont trust the cops. You think you "know" the law when you dont know sh!t. The law is written with the officer in mind. The powers that are given to the officer at the time of their swearing in also including using their best judgment as to what to do in a current situation. You fail to comprehend that officers have much more power than you realise. And if you REALLY wanted the cop to enforce the law, I bet you she could have written you up for a dozen violations on the vehical alone.

Stop being a moron about it. The law implies officer discrition. Otherwise, you will need to list EXACTLY every crime and EXACTLY every sentence that is carried out. Furthermore, there is a such thing as common law, which on NOT written down, it doesnt have to be. Many sentences and laws can be simply based off common law, and it is accepted practice. If you want to take the human factor of leniency or harshness out of the criminal justice system, be my guest. You will have a police state far worse than any in history on your hands.

I was asking for the law - asshat. I also question why if you don't arrest for breaking that law you can still enforce penalties that result from that breakage.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
Guess what MORON? The 2003 code is RIGHT here and it STILL doesn't have the .08 listed.

That is the current code. It STILL says:

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:

AND:

321J.4B Motor vehicle impoundment or immobilization -- penalty -- liability of vehicle owner.
1. 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.

b. If a person operates a vehicle while that person's driver's license or operating privilege has been suspended, denied, revoked, or barred due to a violation of section 321J.2.



Eat it.

eat it

CkG

Eat what? I already said I was familiar with the .08 law. Go back through the thread. You will see I already said I knew about it when states FIRST started enacting it. The Feds decided to play hardball.

So that statue is not up to date - and inaccurate - which I pointed out. I had read that way before you and cap't klink got involved. I just never found the impound part of the law -which is what I was asking for.

CkG

 

[Mill]

BTW, the law isn't ambiguous to me. You don't know how to read statutes so I can understand it might be CONFUSING, but any ambiguity there is for a reason. We have already told you the law is written with the subsection a. so that an officer can use discretion to decide whether or not someone is "impaired." That impairment is UP to the officer, and they could have charged him even if he only failed one part of the sobriety test. Blowing through the stop sign and the BAC would have added to the case as even more evidence.

No, I am not afraid of the ambiguity because I understand WHY it is there. We HAVE to have discretion or our courts and CJ system would be overflowing with people. There is a reason zero-tolerance doesn't work when it comes to the overall system.

 

[Entity]

Nice posts, Millenium and Rogue -- this thread has been informative and entertaining, to say the least.

Rob

 

[Mill]

One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Millennium
One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

I know why they did it

- it wasn't for "safety" as they are painting it as. They did it for the $$$ - just like everything in gov't, It's all about the $$$

I know how to read the statute - and I think it sucks. It gives individual cops WAY too much latitude. As has been shown here cops do and will stick it to people they don't like or who question them. People have the right to question the law and the people who enforce them. Point "a" seems to be a CYA - and doesn't provide the clarity needed for these types of laws. Why have a .08 LIMIT if it is up to a cop anyway? I've sent off emails to to people who are in the REAL know or can get the REAL know. It'll be interesting to see what they think of how the law seems to be allowing quite broad discretion. Chuck Larson is one of them if you must know Look him up - he should be an authority on the subject or if nothing more his colleges are.

CkG

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

I know why they did it

- it wasn't for "safety" as they are painting it as. They did it for the $$$ - just like everything in gov't, It's all about the $$$

I know how to read the statute - and I think it sucks. It gives individual cops WAY too much latitude. As has been shown here cops do and will stick it to people they don't like or who question them. People have the right to question the law and the people who enforce them. Point "a" seems to be a CYA - and doesn't provide the clarity needed for these types of laws. Why have a .08 LIMIT if it is up to a cop anyway? I've sent off emails to to people who are in the REAL know or can get the REAL know. It'll be interesting to see what they think of how the law seems to be allowing quite broad discretion. Chuck Larson is one of them if you must know Look him up - he should be an authority on the subject or if nothing more his colleges are.

CkG

They are going to tell you what we said, because we are in the right. People in the know eh? You're an asshole and a dumbass.

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Rogue
KK,

Go ahead and refuse to cooperate in a DUI investigation as the primary suspect. As stated, most states ask nicely once and then the second time you do not drive for a year for lack of cooperation. The "odor of an alcoholic beverage" on a driver of a vehicle is what's called "probable cause for investigation." Here in Kansas, you refuse to cooperate, we sign the form and you don't drive for a year, period. Remember, driving is a privledge, not a right of the people. See, even better is that we record, on video, your lack of cooperation, then we send it up with the report to the judge just so he/she can get a good laugh at a drunk a$$hole thinking he's getting one over on the law by "not doing $hit" for the police. It's always a fun process.

are u saying he coudn't pley the 5th to any question the officer asked?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

I know why they did it

- it wasn't for "safety" as they are painting it as. They did it for the $$$ - just like everything in gov't, It's all about the $$$

I know how to read the statute - and I think it sucks. It gives individual cops WAY too much latitude. As has been shown here cops do and will stick it to people they don't like or who question them. People have the right to question the law and the people who enforce them. Point "a" seems to be a CYA - and doesn't provide the clarity needed for these types of laws. Why have a .08 LIMIT if it is up to a cop anyway? I've sent off emails to to people who are in the REAL know or can get the REAL know. It'll be interesting to see what they think of how the law seems to be allowing quite broad discretion. Chuck Larson is one of them if you must know Look him up - he should be an authority on the subject or if nothing more his colleges are.

CkG

They are going to tell you what we said, because we are in the right. People in the know eh? You're an asshole and a dumbass.

Thanks

Ditto to you. You spent multiple posts along with capt klink arguing points that weren't my question.
Yes he is in the know - he is a member of the state Legislature and Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Oh, did I mention he is a lawyer? Yeah, I guess he'd be in the know I also emailed the Iowa Dept of Public safety. Maybe they'd know too.

You didn't tell me squat besides the cop is free to do as they wish. They aren't - they have to follow the law. If the law really is that ambiguous then it needs to be changed to protect citizens from cops like you(if your really are a cop). I have a freind from highschool who is now a state trooper in Wisconsin - he is as much an asshole as you are proving to be. Chip on his shoulder and acts all tough when someone questions him. If you would have answered my question in the beginning instead of it taking 100+ posts all would have been cool but you people proceeded to flame and ignore my question.

That is all I have to say.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

I know why they did it

- it wasn't for "safety" as they are painting it as. They did it for the $$$ - just like everything in gov't, It's all about the $$$

I know how to read the statute - and I think it sucks. It gives individual cops WAY too much latitude. As has been shown here cops do and will stick it to people they don't like or who question them. People have the right to question the law and the people who enforce them. Point "a" seems to be a CYA - and doesn't provide the clarity needed for these types of laws. Why have a .08 LIMIT if it is up to a cop anyway? I've sent off emails to to people who are in the REAL know or can get the REAL know. It'll be interesting to see what they think of how the law seems to be allowing quite broad discretion. Chuck Larson is one of them if you must know Look him up - he should be an authority on the subject or if nothing more his colleges are.

CkG

They are going to tell you what we said, because we are in the right. People in the know eh? You're an asshole and a dumbass.

Thanks

Ditto to you. You spent multiple posts along with capt klink arguing points that weren't my question.
Yes he is in the know - he is a member of the state Legislature and Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Oh, did I mention he is a lawyer? Yeah, I guess he'd be in the know I also emailed the Iowa Dept of Public safety. Maybe they'd know too.

You didn't tell me squat besides the cop is free to do as they wish. They aren't - they have to follow the law. If the law really is that ambiguous then it needs to be changed to protect citizens from cops like you(if your really are a cop). I have a freind from highschool who is now a state trooper in Wisconsin - he is as much an asshole as you are proving to be. Chip on his shoulder and acts all tough when someone questions him. If you would have answered my question in the beginning instead of it taking 100+ posts all would have been cool but you people proceeded to flame and ignore my question.

That is all I have to say.

CkG

God you really are an asshat. You disagree with giving police officers discretion???? You are so hung up on .08 "limit" that you refuse to see that officers can make decisions based on the totality of circumstances. Go ahead and e-mail your party chairman, you self righteous, ignorant asshat.

It's not our fault you can't see what everyone else here sees and what is laid out in the statue.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, normally I stay away from all these threads because everyone flames people for what they did or didn't do and just say to get a lawyer but ofcourse my situation is different

My brother was just dropped off at my place after being pulled over by the wonderful "peace" officers in the town I live in. He was stopped and ticketed for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. $65 fine. Whoop-dee-doo

Now he admits to not stopping so he should pay the fine but......

He had a few beers(according to him) and so the cop had him perform field sobriety tests. She claims he failed but that is subjective anywho, so she gave him a breathelyzer. In Iowa the BAC limit is .08 mind you. He blew a .067 the first time and a .71 the second (don't ask me why he had to blow the second time which was 15 mins after the first one) but anyway he was not "legally" drunk so she couldn't get him for DUI. Now my question come in right here - Does the cop have any legal right to impound his vehicle? She did because according to her she "didn't feel that she should let" him drive home. Now he has to pay impound fees and the like. This is a reletively small city (20K?) and it could have been just left there parked on the street as there is on street parking.

Is there law or precidence for impounding cars when only a minor traffic ticket was issued?

I'm scouring the web since any decent lawyer would be sleeping at this hour and I don't feel it neccesary to get them involved anyway...at this point. Any help?


Again - sorry for the car/cop thread

CkG

Sorry to hear CKG,

I didn't read all the other posts but your brother is both lucky and a little stupid at the same time.

The lucky part:

He was very lucky to not have been charged and only have to pay the impound fe to get his car and the priviledge of driving it back.

Many Police now have a ZERO tolerance of any alcohol smell found on a person and that is because if they let somone go after they smelled alcohol (which they would write down in their report) but found to be under the legal limit and that person wrecks, hurts or kills someone down the road then the Police not only look bad but opens the door to all the legal and money crap going on in the U.S. these days.

Hate to say but the stupid part:

Because of the above mentioned legal/money hysteria it just isn't worth even having one or two beers/glass of wine or even one mixed drink in the U.S. anymore if you have to drive a vehicle after doing so. I know the Bar/Restaurant/Entertainment/Sports Industries hate to hear that but it is simply the truth. For a couple of years now I no longer give the Enforcement Community any reason to take me in for DUI or anything and have someone that has not had anything to drink drive my car if I go somewhere and have even just one beer.

 

[Lucky]

BTW your numbers are off, .71 is dead. A .067 is not a level you should be driving at.

All 50 states would disagree with you, according to the laws in place.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Breathalizers or no, the cop is legally reaquired to use his/her best judgement to determine if someone is intoxicated. And they're considered expert witnesses too, so a cop's judgement call is the same as a breathalizer.

And since she didn't want him to drive she had to impound the car or the deptartment would be liable for anything that happened to it.

 

[Grminalac]

The whole problem here is the fact that .08 is actually a per se law. Meaning regardless of signs of intoxication a person with a BAC of .08 is driving DUI i.e. you complete a field sobriety test with flying colors but show up .081 you are DUI.
DUI however does not implicitly mean driving with a .08 or higher level; it basically means driving under the influence of alcohol to the point of it hindering your ability to drive. Meaning if you fail a FST yet only have had one beer you are DUI. Most of the posters are correct in stating that the officer could have hauiled your brother to jail for driving under the influence and he would be in quite a bit more trouble. I wouldn't neccesarily say your brother got off lucky as most officers will not stick a motorist with a DUI when under .08 unless they show serious signs of intoxication.

I don't like any law that goes on the discretion of the officer. I know most police are on the up and up, but they are people too who just work a job. They can base decisions on looks, how they are feeling that day etc. I don't think a crime as devastating as a DUI should be left to the on the spot decision of a police officer. A more technical method of discerning a DUI needs to be made.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

I know why they did it

- it wasn't for "safety" as they are painting it as. They did it for the $$$ - just like everything in gov't, It's all about the $$$

I know how to read the statute - and I think it sucks. It gives individual cops WAY too much latitude. As has been shown here cops do and will stick it to people they don't like or who question them. People have the right to question the law and the people who enforce them. Point "a" seems to be a CYA - and doesn't provide the clarity needed for these types of laws. Why have a .08 LIMIT if it is up to a cop anyway? I've sent off emails to to people who are in the REAL know or can get the REAL know. It'll be interesting to see what they think of how the law seems to be allowing quite broad discretion. Chuck Larson is one of them if you must know Look him up - he should be an authority on the subject or if nothing more his colleges are.

CkG

They are going to tell you what we said, because we are in the right. People in the know eh? You're an asshole and a dumbass.

Thanks

Ditto to you. You spent multiple posts along with capt klink arguing points that weren't my question.
Yes he is in the know - he is a member of the state Legislature and Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Oh, did I mention he is a lawyer? Yeah, I guess he'd be in the know I also emailed the Iowa Dept of Public safety. Maybe they'd know too.

You didn't tell me squat besides the cop is free to do as they wish. They aren't - they have to follow the law. If the law really is that ambiguous then it needs to be changed to protect citizens from cops like you(if your really are a cop). I have a freind from highschool who is now a state trooper in Wisconsin - he is as much an asshole as you are proving to be. Chip on his shoulder and acts all tough when someone questions him. If you would have answered my question in the beginning instead of it taking 100+ posts all would have been cool but you people proceeded to flame and ignore my question.

That is all I have to say.

CkG

God you really are an asshat. You disagree with giving police officers discretion???? You are so hung up on .08 "limit" that you refuse to see that officers can make decisions based on the totality of circumstances. Go ahead and e-mail your party chairman, you self righteous, ignorant asshat.

It's not our fault you can't see what everyone else here sees and what is laid out in the statue.

NVM

you trolls aren't worth it

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

I know why they did it

- it wasn't for "safety" as they are painting it as. They did it for the $$$ - just like everything in gov't, It's all about the $$$

I know how to read the statute - and I think it sucks. It gives individual cops WAY too much latitude. As has been shown here cops do and will stick it to people they don't like or who question them. People have the right to question the law and the people who enforce them. Point "a" seems to be a CYA - and doesn't provide the clarity needed for these types of laws. Why have a .08 LIMIT if it is up to a cop anyway? I've sent off emails to to people who are in the REAL know or can get the REAL know. It'll be interesting to see what they think of how the law seems to be allowing quite broad discretion. Chuck Larson is one of them if you must know Look him up - he should be an authority on the subject or if nothing more his colleges are.

CkG

They are going to tell you what we said, because we are in the right. People in the know eh? You're an asshole and a dumbass.

Thanks

Ditto to you. You spent multiple posts along with capt klink arguing points that weren't my question.
Yes he is in the know - he is a member of the state Legislature and Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Oh, did I mention he is a lawyer? Yeah, I guess he'd be in the know I also emailed the Iowa Dept of Public safety. Maybe they'd know too.

You didn't tell me squat besides the cop is free to do as they wish. They aren't - they have to follow the law. If the law really is that ambiguous then it needs to be changed to protect citizens from cops like you(if your really are a cop). I have a freind from highschool who is now a state trooper in Wisconsin - he is as much an asshole as you are proving to be. Chip on his shoulder and acts all tough when someone questions him. If you would have answered my question in the beginning instead of it taking 100+ posts all would have been cool but you people proceeded to flame and ignore my question.

That is all I have to say.

CkG

God you really are an asshat. You disagree with giving police officers discretion???? You are so hung up on .08 "limit" that you refuse to see that officers can make decisions based on the totality of circumstances. Go ahead and e-mail your party chairman, you self righteous, ignorant asshat.

It's not our fault you can't see what everyone else here sees and what is laid out in the statue.

NVM

you trolls aren't worth it

Trolls eh? So everyone who disagress with you, which is basically everyone on this thread is a troll? Just like Lord Raiden.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Lucky

BTW your numbers are off, .71 is dead. A .067 is not a level you should be driving at.

All 50 states would disagree with you, according to the laws in place.

It doesn't matter. You can still be impaired and unsafe to operate at .067 or .071 one. People think the legal limit will save them. If they fail the FST then sometimes it doesn't matter.

 

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Millennium
One last thing from YOUR link:

In September 2002 the U.S. DOT announced the release of over $80 million in FFY 2002 incentive funds to those states with .08 laws.

Exactly what I had ALREADY mentioned.

I know why they did it

- it wasn't for "safety" as they are painting it as. They did it for the $$$ - just like everything in gov't, It's all about the $$$

I know how to read the statute - and I think it sucks. It gives individual cops WAY too much latitude. As has been shown here cops do and will stick it to people they don't like or who question them. People have the right to question the law and the people who enforce them. Point "a" seems to be a CYA - and doesn't provide the clarity needed for these types of laws. Why have a .08 LIMIT if it is up to a cop anyway? I've sent off emails to to people who are in the REAL know or can get the REAL know. It'll be interesting to see what they think of how the law seems to be allowing quite broad discretion. Chuck Larson is one of them if you must know Look him up - he should be an authority on the subject or if nothing more his colleges are.

CkG

They are going to tell you what we said, because we are in the right. People in the know eh? You're an asshole and a dumbass.

Thanks

Ditto to you. You spent multiple posts along with capt klink arguing points that weren't my question.
Yes he is in the know - he is a member of the state Legislature and Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Oh, did I mention he is a lawyer? Yeah, I guess he'd be in the know I also emailed the Iowa Dept of Public safety. Maybe they'd know too.

You didn't tell me squat besides the cop is free to do as they wish. They aren't - they have to follow the law. If the law really is that ambiguous then it needs to be changed to protect citizens from cops like you(if your really are a cop). I have a freind from highschool who is now a state trooper in Wisconsin - he is as much an asshole as you are proving to be. Chip on his shoulder and acts all tough when someone questions him. If you would have answered my question in the beginning instead of it taking 100+ posts all would have been cool but you people proceeded to flame and ignore my question.

That is all I have to say.

CkG

God you really are an asshat. You disagree with giving police officers discretion???? You are so hung up on .08 "limit" that you refuse to see that officers can make decisions based on the totality of circumstances. Go ahead and e-mail your party chairman, you self righteous, ignorant asshat.

It's not our fault you can't see what everyone else here sees and what is laid out in the statue.

NVM

you trolls aren't worth it

Trolls eh? So everyone who disagress with you, which is basically everyone on this thread is a troll? Just like Lord Raiden.

He knows he has lost the argument, and everyone but him can see that.

 

[tnitsuj]

Thier is no argument, he just want's everyone to come aorund to his narrow minded view of how the world should work. Well tough sh!@.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: Rogue
KK,

Go ahead and refuse to cooperate in a DUI investigation as the primary suspect. As stated, most states ask nicely once and then the second time you do not drive for a year for lack of cooperation. The "odor of an alcoholic beverage" on a driver of a vehicle is what's called "probable cause for investigation." Here in Kansas, you refuse to cooperate, we sign the form and you don't drive for a year, period. Remember, driving is a privledge, not a right of the people. See, even better is that we record, on video, your lack of cooperation, then we send it up with the report to the judge just so he/she can get a good laugh at a drunk a$$hole thinking he's getting one over on the law by "not doing $hit" for the police. It's always a fun process.

are u saying he coudn't pley the 5th to any question the officer asked?

I believe that this has been brought to your attention before, but I think the Fifth Amendment is only operative during a trial.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY <
Thanks

Ditto to you. You spent multiple posts along with capt klink arguing points that weren't my question.
Yes he is in the know - he is a member of the state Legislature and Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Oh, did I mention he is a lawyer? Yeah, I guess he'd be in the know I also emailed the Iowa Dept of Public safety. Maybe they'd know too.

CkG

You will update this thread when you get answers to your e-mails, right?

I just know you will.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: Ylen13

Originally posted by: Rogue
KK,

Go ahead and refuse to cooperate in a DUI investigation as the primary suspect. As stated, most states ask nicely once and then the second time you do not drive for a year for lack of cooperation. The "odor of an alcoholic beverage" on a driver of a vehicle is what's called "probable cause for investigation." Here in Kansas, you refuse to cooperate, we sign the form and you don't drive for a year, period. Remember, driving is a privledge, not a right of the people. See, even better is that we record, on video, your lack of cooperation, then we send it up with the report to the judge just so he/she can get a good laugh at a drunk a$$hole thinking he's getting one over on the law by "not doing $hit" for the police. It's always a fun process.

are u saying he coudn't pley the 5th to any question the officer asked?

I believe that this has been brought to your attention before, but I think the Fifth Amendment is only operative during a trial.

ylen13 is just as hard headed as CAD.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY <
Thanks

Ditto to you. You spent multiple posts along with capt klink arguing points that weren't my question.
Yes he is in the know - he is a member of the state Legislature and Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Oh, did I mention he is a lawyer? Yeah, I guess he'd be in the know I also emailed the Iowa Dept of Public safety. Maybe they'd know too.

CkG

You will update this thread when you get answers to your e-mails, right?

I just know you will.

LOL, I was wondering the same thing. You know he won't post them. I doubt they e-mail him back, but if they do they will tell him the same thing we did.