DWI arrest article in Statesman (Austin: crime, lawyer, law) - Texas (TX) - City-Data Forum

Nighthawks11 · 05-15-2011, 01:24 PM

Travis high in drunken driving arrests, dismissals

This article relates to DWI dismissals in our community and seems to hint that it is due to bad arrest by our police.

Personally I feel a little differently than the Statesman.

I'm sure that there are folks out there that believe that any arrest made by a police officer is a bad arrest and of course all of those cases are getting dropped because of our incompetent police force.

For one reason or another Texas has deemed it unlawful to drive with a BAC over .08%. Some people handle that .08% better than others and some people just think that they do. Either way the people we collectively elected to make the laws have said that .08% is the limit.

My main complaint about this article is that I felt that it was a bit biased. Questions I asked myself were how many of those DWIs were because of refusals?

Lets say an officer stops a driver, the officer smells alcohol and the driver has other signs that lead the officer to believe that he should administer the sobriety test. The driver refuses all tests. That driver may have just had a beer spilled on them and that’s why they smell like alcohol. They may have been in a smoky room and so their eyes are bloodshot, they may show a dozen different signs, but not actually be intoxicated. So they refuse to take any test. That’s fine, that’s their right, but what kind of position does that leave the officer in? Are they just supposed to be like "oh darn, this guy smells like the booze and looks like he could have been drinking, but the DWI Dude told him not to take any test, so I guess he knows the secret, have a nice night, try not to hit anybody if you are drunk."

DWI is one of those offences that the average Joe can get and it is one of the cases that gets fought the most in court. A great person and a upstanding member of the community can have more to drink than they should have and drive. It’s not like a robbery or dealing drugs, it doesn't take a morally corrupt person to make that mistake. I'm sure a whole bunch of people drive over the limit all the time and nothing bad happens. No car crash, nobody gets hurt or dies, but sometimes they do and it sucks and that’s why there are laws against it.

mimimomx3 · 05-16-2011, 06:37 PM

I read the article, and it really made me mad that the average citizen would have to spend significant quantities of money to prove they are innocent. Isnt' it called 'innocent until proven guilty'???

oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots · 05-16-2011, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

I read the article, and it really made me mad that the average citizen would have to spend significant quantities of money to prove they are innocent. Isnt' it called 'innocent until proven guilty'???

You do know you're in Texas, right? (no pun intended)

FueledByBlueBell · 05-16-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

I read the article, and it really made me mad that the average citizen would have to spend significant quantities of money to prove they are innocent. Isnt' it called 'innocent until proven guilty'???

Agreed. It is infuriating. Did you see Acevedo say on the news last night that he tells his officers not to worry about what happens with/in court- it isn't their responsibility.

Amazing... just amazing.

AndyInc · 05-16-2011, 08:14 PM

Newspapers should really have a disclaimer at the top, "For entertainment purposes only."

Nighthawks11 · 05-16-2011, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

I read the article, and it really made me mad that the average citizen would have to spend significant quantities of money to prove they are innocent. Isnt' it called 'innocent until proven guilty'???

If you get a court lawyer and provide the free breath and blood samples offered to you by the arresting officer, you get a free lawyer and a whole bunch of free evidence proving that you were in fact wrongfully arrested and that you were not driving while over the limit.

Now if you were drinking and driving you are prolly goin to have to pony up that cash to get that charge to go away.

Nighthawks11 · 05-16-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FueledByBlueBell

Agreed. It is infuriating. Did you see Acevedo say on the news last night that he tells his officers not to worry about what happens with/in court- it isn't their responsibility.

Amazing... just amazing.

From my point of view that statement was taken out of context. The officers find a drunk driver, test that drunk driver, take that drunk driver to jail, and then fill out copious amounts of paperwork. Then the court system drops all charges without ever going to court because someone who was driving drunk pays a high dollar lawyer to get the case dismissed.

The officer's responsibility is to arrest the offender and then report the evidence. It is a jury's job to convict or find a person innocent.

The officer should know that they are righteous in getting an unsafe driver off the roadway and not get frustrated with the court system.

I bet that statement was not the only one he made to the reporter. That section of the clip just sounded good for the point they were trying to make.

CarnivalGal · 05-16-2011, 09:19 PM

I have a relative who was pulled over and suspected for DUI. By his own admission, he was drunk. But he refused all tests and charges were dropped before it ever went to court. He should have been punished.

I have a friend who was completely sober - had nothing to drink but the free Diet Cokes they gave her at the bar for being designated driver. Cop saw her pulling out of the bar parking lot late at night, and pulled her over. She took every test and passed with flying colors. The cop never gave her a breathalyzer, even though she asked for one, because he said is was broken. She was never even charged with a crime yet she spent $4000 to get her car out of impound and retain an attorney. Complete BS.

My point is that the law protects people it shouldn't and screws people it should be protecting. There has to be a better way.

mickey65 · 05-16-2011, 09:33 PM

This is why I do all my partying at home. There is NO way in heck I'm going to chance driving the streets of Austin, even with one beer in me.

I was pulled over in CA for a DUI about 10 years ago, and thankfully was free to go - after passing all the tests, including a breathalyzer - after drinking two nursed beers. I swore to NEVER drive EVER again after having only one beer or two after that!

mimimomx3 · 05-16-2011, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nighthawks11

If you get a court lawyer and provide the free breath and blood samples offered to you by the arresting officer, you get a free lawyer and a whole bunch of free evidence proving that you were in fact wrongfully arrested and that you were not driving while over the limit.

Now if you were drinking and driving you are prolly goin to have to pony up that cash to get that charge to go away.

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.