DWI arrest article in Statesman

[Nighthawks11]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

The woman in the article spent $3.000 for a lawyer, despite the fact that she tested BELOW legal limits, and was not in fact DWI. She was not indigent, so she didn't get a 'free' lawyer.

As usual, if you're wealthy, it's not a problem, you can afford it, if you're poor, the government bails you out. If you're middle class, bend over.

You are very right. She did test below the limit. Whether she was in fact DWI or not is not known. My argument is this the statesman advised the following:


"A second officer trained to recognize drug use among suspects deemed that Fuentes could have been taking a depressant or "dissociative anesthetic."

Police said they sent the blood sample to the state for testing, but have not yet gotten the results nearly three months later. Fuentes said the test will be negative."

You and I do not yet know if a combination of some kind of medication mixed with alcohol caused intoxication in the girl used as an example. The report has not come back.

You and I have not read the report detailing why the reasons the officer thought that Fuentes was impaired. The Statesman left that part out.

You and I have not witnessed the video of the field sobriety test.

You and I and the rest of us were given a small piece. The best looking piece for the writers to prove Their point.

Now because the case has been dismissed a jury will not have the opportunity to judge Fuentes on her guilt or innocence.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Nighthawks11

You are very right. She did test below the limit. Whether she was in fact DWI or not is not known. My argument is this the statesman advised the following:


"A second officer trained to recognize drug use among suspects deemed that Fuentes could have been taking a depressant or "dissociative anesthetic."

Police said they sent the blood sample to the state for testing, but have not yet gotten the results nearly three months later. Fuentes said the test will be negative."

You and I do not yet know if a combination of some kind of medication mixed with alcohol caused intoxication in the girl used as an example. The report has not come back.

You and I have not read the report detailing why the reasons the officer thought that Fuentes was impaired. The Statesman left that part out.

You and I have not witnessed the video of the field sobriety test.

You and I and the rest of us were given a small piece. The best looking piece for the writers to prove Their point.

Now because the case has been dismissed a jury will not have the opportunity to judge Fuentes on her guilt or innocence.

But again, we should be innocent until proven guilty. There was no proof of DWI on alcohol. The blood test will show if she was DWI on another drug. I find it odd that the Statesman wasn't more specific on why the officer thought she was impaired, other than that the woman was a revenue source.

[Nighthawks11]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

But again, we should be innocent until proven guilty. There was no proof of DWI on alcohol. The blood test will show if she was DWI on another drug. I find it odd that the Statesman wasn't more specific on why the officer thought she was impaired, other than that the woman was a revenue source.

Again I agree with you, but may I ask how she was proven guilty in this case? She was arrested, but an arrest does not constitute guilt itself.

In order for her to be guilty she needs to be tried and for it to be found that beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty of this charge. For an arrest an officer needs sufficient probable cause. Probable cause is a lower standard that beyond a reasonable doubt. The Texas Penal Code tells us the following:

Sec. 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

In this section of the penal code the definition of intoxicated is the following:

(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

So she does not have to be intoxicated just on alcohol. Many medications have a liable warning against driving or operating machinery after taking it. Several medications warn against mixing the medication with alcohol.

For probable cause for the arrest the officer needed to show the following or the judge will throw it out immediately:

That this person did not have normal use of her mental or physical faculties due to the introduction of some substance and showed impairment. Also that she was operating a motor vehicle in a public place while in this impaired state.

She was charged for this offence but was not guilty. It was her choice to get that pricy lawyer. She did not pay that money in fines and she was not sentenced to incarceration. The state still had the burden of proof and in that case the evidence would have been shown to 12 of her peers and they would have had the say on if she met the elements of the crime or if she did not.

[Trainwreck20]

Years ago, I 'assisted' the sheriff's department in training the rookies on how to do sobriety tests. If I recall correctly, they had a twelve point 'system' for assessing sobriety. If you passed on 6 or more points, you were not arrested. If you failed 7 or more, you were. The system was set up to be as objective as possible and included a nystagmus test as well as assessments of specific actions performed while attempting to follow the officer's instructions (hint: it wasn't who well you walked the line, it was how well you followed instructions).

Anyway, the officers were trained to take you into custody if you failed the requisite number of points, they were not allowed much, if any, judgement after coming up with the score. I can understand this partially on somewhat personal experience. Too many times a' borderline' drunk driver was let go, only to cause a wreck a short time later, and then some victim of that accident sues the city/county/etc. because the officers failed to arrest the person.

Btw, it sounds like most of you have an issue with the judicial system, not the law enforcement. As indicated above by Nighthawks, the officer is not the judge and jury, just an officer of the system. At no point did the arresting officer indicate you were guilty or innocent.

Finally, I don't know if they still do training the same way they used to, but I had to drink 9 shots of liquor over 1.5 hours to get to 0.1 BAC (the limit at the time). I blew a 0.11 at the end. Half the volunteers were targeted to get to 0.05 BAC and the officers were supposed to determine who was legally intoxicated and who wasn't. With some inside knowledge about the testing, I was able to pass my sobriety testing, which is a bit scary in of itself.

[Nighthawks11]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Years ago, I 'assisted' the sheriff's department in training the rookies on how to do sobriety tests. If I recall correctly, they had a twelve point 'system' for assessing sobriety. If you passed on 6 or more points, you were not arrested. If you failed 7 or more, you were. The system was set up to be as objective as possible and included a nystagmus test as well as assessments of specific actions performed while attempting to follow the officer's instructions (hint: it wasn't who well you walked the line, it was how well you followed instructions).

Anyway, the officers were trained to take you into custody if you failed the requisite number of points, they were not allowed much, if any, judgement after coming up with the score. I can understand this partially on somewhat personal experience. Too many times a' borderline' drunk driver was let go, only to cause a wreck a short time later, and then some victim of that accident sues the city/county/etc. because the officers failed to arrest the person.

Btw, it sounds like most of you have an issue with the judicial system, not the law enforcement. As indicated above by Nighthawks, the officer is not the judge and jury, just an officer of the system. At no point did the arresting officer indicate you were guilty or innocent.

Finally, I don't know if they still do training the same way they used to, but I had to drink 9 shots of liquor over 1.5 hours to get to 0.1 BAC (the limit at the time). I blew a 0.11 at the end. Half the volunteers were targeted to get to 0.05 BAC and the officers were supposed to determine who was legally intoxicated and who wasn't. With some inside knowledge about the testing, I was able to pass my sobriety testing, which is a bit scary in of itself.

Hello Trainwreck I believe the certification to get certified to administer the standard field sobriety test requires 40 hours of instruction. This includes classroom time and practical application. The APD does bring in volunteers to assist with the practical application. I don’t know how on earth the PD convinces people to volunteer their time to come out and drink free booze and take a bunch of test.

The standard field sobriety test does still consist of a nystagmus test and divided attention test. There is plenty of information on the net concerning the test itself and the clues that are looked for. Many of the DWI lawyer web sites have the test listed and will tell you that that particular test is only a certain percent accurate and they are right. But with all the test together the test is 93% accurate in determining if a driver is at or above .08% BAC. The officer does not base the investigation on the pass/fail of a single test but from the contact as a whole. The investigation begins while the officer is watching a vehicle being driven. Then continues when the officer makes the initial contact. The officer then investigates the need for a possibly impaired driver to take the test and then ask that person about current/past injuries or medical issues. The officer continues to investigate throughout the test and then comes to a decision.

The person is then given the opportunity to give a breath or blood sample. This evidence can be good for them if they are under the limit. Sure its going to be bad evidence against them if they blow over the limit or show to have a substance in their blood that cause them to be impaired.

I am afraid that part of the problem is that many people do not know when they hit that point where they should not be driving. Most people "feel fine" but who here has never seen the drunk guy/girl that did not think that they were drunk at all but they were in fact stumbling around and making a fool of themselves. One of the effects of alcohol is that it impairs judgment. Many of the persons that I have arrested for the offence that have blown into the intoxilyzer were pretty surprised with their results when shown. Several have been at twice the limit or more and were shocked. (To all you intoxilyzer naysayers that believe that the machine is completely inaccurate some DWI Lawyer web sites said the results can be +-15% and those guys are going to give you the stats from the high end.)

One of the things that I would think that would be an important fact in a news article alleging that the police are making bad arrest is the statistics on how many people were tested overall? Yes 11,503 people were arrested for drunk driving. I would like to know though is that 11,503 people out of 12,000 tested or 24,000 tested or maybe even 100,000 tested?
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

[mimimomx3]

I agree with the poster above about enjoying my alcohol at home. I will continue to do so until there are laws that prohibit me from drinking at home.....