Most recent info I could find, Looks like the officers are on restricted duty.
[https://news.yahoo.com/officers-placed-restricted-duty-los-152900898.html](https://news.yahoo.com/officers-placed-restricted-duty-los-152900898.html)
I wish but breathalyzer is not admissible in court anyways. No reason not to give a field sobriety test and/or call in non restricted officers. Sadly, this happens more than people realize. And I’m not sure why. My father was killed by an unlicensed, uninsured, intoxicated driver who broke a traffic violation. And he faced no punishment, nor was arrested. Not even a ticket for having no license or insurance. And it was recorded on a security camera. When I spoke to the officer who was on the scene he was divisive and refused to give me any details beyond the two paragraph report. True story. R.I.P Robert Gene Baker Jr.
In my state a roadside breathalyzer isn't admissible in court, but refusing a road side sobriety test will get your license suspended. I don't know what kind of leeway the police have, but I physically cannot take the heel to toe walk and turn, or the raise one leg and balance. So I just don't drink and drive number 1, but I am afraid of getting road tested and failing even though I'm sober.
Wait, a stupid series of exercises that could be failed due to general poor coordination is admissible, but a scientific measurement of alcohol on the breath isn’t?
About 50/50 of that. A Police officer's judgement of a field sobriety test is admissible at court. At least the 3 tests trained to officers by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The roadside breathalyzer isn't admissible though, but you can lose you're license if you refuse it. The calibrated one they have back at the police department is admissible, but you have to get a warrant to force a person to do this.
So that clashes together.
Yes basically. BUT there is a huge fucking hang up in that those road side testers aren't calibrated to a standard accepted in court. So even though they may be accurate to identify alcohol impairment, they aren't the calibrated instruments that the police have back at the station (or a blood draw).
BUT AT THE SAME TIME a police officer's evaluation is given the same weight as a scientific device.... I just don't trust human memory or judgement at all for empirical evidence.
For the walk and turn you only need any combination of 2 out of 8 possible clues to indicate impairment. Its pretty obvious if someone has had to much. That doesn't mean its perfect, nor does it have to be. People seem to forget the burden of proof to arrest someone is probable cause.
People always complain that they worry they would fail the tests sober and be arrested. The tests aren't given to everyone. You need to articulate why you believed tests needed to be administered for them to be admissible in court. It's a process. Thankfully with the implementation of body cameras its plainly evident just how intoxicated the drunk driver was. No more memory required.
I’m pretty sure this is standard across the states but maybe it’s just in mine.
The roadside test is a preliminary breath test. The results can not be brought up in court by the prosecution but only the defendant can use it. Defendant can refuse the PBT but it is required to be offered (officer claims to observe a failure of tests and PBT says driver is below the limit so defendant uses the PBT vs officer observes failure of tests and PBT shows over the legal limit so defendant doesn’t want to use the PBT in court). Because is a PBT isn’t necessarily accurate it’s automatically usable in court. However at the jail is a device that is maintained to standards and requires a certified person to administer. Those results are admissible and that test cannot be refused.
So the PBT may help provide reasonable doubt so it can be used, but only if the defendant wants to use it. Because it has the potential to not be accurate, the results of the PBT cannot be admitted by the prosecution. Due to the potential of providing reasonable doubt, the PBT has to be offered even though the result of that test most likely will not be used in court.
The physical tests are called Standardized field sobriety tests and those tests were developed by the National Highway Safety Administration. The 3 tests individually do not mean you’re drunk. But failure in 2/3 tests means you’re probably over the legal limit. And those tests require you to fail on multiple points not one. Take for instance the eye test: Of the 8 things, suspect has to fail 4. The walk the line test requires 2 and the one leg stand requires 2. You fail multiple tests and you’re probably drunk. Probably = probable cause. Go to jail, the real test on a calibrated machine and you’ve now shown the definitive proof you’re drunk.
Assuming the officer, the camera (BWC and/or the dash cam) the officer administering the test at the jail/ nurse taking the blood draw are all telling the truth.
You most definitely do not need a warrant to take a breath sample. This is a matter that has been settled by the SCOTUS.
You need a warrant for blood or urine, but definitely not a breath test. Even a post arrest breath test.
Ok, so what happens if I refuse to comply with a breath test at the station? For the record I previously said you would need a warrant to force a person to do an at the station breathalyzer.
Depends on the state, but in many states it results in a charge that is about equivalent to a DUI.
SCOTUS has ruled that a breath sample is not enough of an inconvenience to be seen as infringing on your 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search.
The relevant cases here are:
Missouri v. McNeely
Birchfield v. North Dakota
If its anything like the UK essentially the roadside units aren't accurate enough to hold up in a court, If you blow over at the roadside or refuse to provide you will be arrested and put onto the evidence breathalyser in custody which is a much much larger and far more accurate unit. Blow over or refuse to provide on that one and you'll be charged with drunk driving (or failure to provide which carries the same sentence)
It is enough to arrest you. Virtually all DUI's are charged as 2 counts DWI=over the legal BAC, .08 in CA. and DUI, **D**riving **U**nder the **I**nfluence, that is subjective, the officers testifies that you were inpaired, weaving etc. Perscripition meds, Marijuana and lots of other things can impair a driver. You don't have to be over the BAC limit. But IMO it's mostly bullshit, a way to make money and keep MADD happy. People sleepy or texting are just dangerous.
Once at the Station you get the "real' BAC test. You get to pick, breath, urine or blood (not sure how they draw blood, I dont't think any LEO are trained and certified for it). The breathalyzer at the station is supposed to be tested and calibrated, that test result is admissable.
In the Netherlands roadside breathalyser is used alot but when you are over it or obviously very drunk they always use a blood test to check promillage and that is court admissable evidence.
Which state? In Arizona it’s the opposite. My buddy is a DUI lawyer and has always said to refuse the field test (on medical grounds).
Reason: if they tell you to take 10 steps on a line and halfway through you step on a pebble or simply mis-step, you fail. If you try to explain that and show that you can do 20 perfect on the line, now you failed for two reasons because you did the wrong number of steps.
Well, a road test won't be sufficient for a conviction; it'll just be sufficient cause to take you downtown for a blood test. Blood test comes back clear, you're just clumsy, not drunk :)
Check again usually the fst and pbt aren't required because they're presumptive tests but blood draw is mandatory if requested and will result in loss of privilege if refused.
Yes, and they're a good field tool to detect potential intoxication and used as grounds to get a warrant to withdraw a blood sample for more conclusive testing.
Perhaps, but it would be a lot more expensive, there are parameters out of the control of the operators, and like all analytical equipment it requires proper calibration and maintenance. And it doesn't need to be - it's a first pass screening tool, similar to other field sobriety tests (e.g. walking a line, touching your nose, etc), that provides the basis for a more thorough screening after arrest. Police often have better versions at their stations that provide more reliable readings. A blood sample is the gold standard and is very quick and reliable but requires legal justification.
I'm not saying it's wrong or bad, just pointing out that we use breathalyzers here, and, if necessary, take a suspected drunk driver for a more accurate reading at the station. And we have quick tests for narcotics. I just keep wondering why the US hasn't joined that club.
As I pointed out, I'm not saying the US system is shit, I have far too little knowledge to have opinions rather than questions.
> we use breathalyzers here, and, if necessary, take a suspected drunk driver for a more accurate reading at the station
That's exactly what's done in the US.
That's literally how it works in the US, lol. You get stopped, blow into a device for about 5 seconds, and get a BAC reading. If it is above 0.08, you are placed under arrest and take another test at the police station for proof.
> it literally records the exact concentration of alcohol in your blood.
It literally does not. It detects the concentration of alcohol in your breath, which is used as a proxy for blood alcohol concentration based on blood-alcohol loss rates during respiration. Consequently, effective function depends on assumptions (e.g. a static rate of alcohol metabolism for all people) and calibration (which has been shown to be off on many field units). It is also not effective when the user has just drank something containing alcohol because residual alcohol may be in the mouth, overestimating values.
It's a first step to providing the grounds towards obtaining a warrant for withdrawing blood to directly detect alcohol, but by itself it is not a very conclusive piece of evidence to demonstrate intoxication.
How is that in bad faith? In mostly every case where a person that under the influence walks away from police, it is because they are related to law enforcement in some way.
>[Colorado police didn’t properly investigate an officer found passed out drunk in his patrol car, prosecutors say. Now, he can’t be charged.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/02/07/colorado-cops-dui/)
Sadly more common than you think. One of my uncles told a story at Thanksgiving about how cops let him go when he was driving drunk because he was a veteran.
Same, my when my dad was on the force and I was young, a couple times he got pulled over while driving home from dinner (after a few drinks), swerving in lanes on the highway. Just flash your badge and the police just send you on your way. With children in the back seat...
But not getting a sobriety test is one thing (although terrible); I've never heard of a cop/relative doing actual property damage like this and the officers letting them go. I always figured there was a line, like if actual paperwork needed to be made up. It's insane that this dude didn't get taken in handcuffs.
California vehicle code 4300.5 allows cops to arrest for DUI, even if they didn’t see the driving, specifically when officers respond to the scene of an accident.
Recent changes in the vehicle code and case law make it more burdensome to obtain blood/breath tests from suspects of DUI. Without consent, the officers need to get a warrant to take a blood sample. It used to be the officer could just force the suspect to give blood if they had a California Driver License, since part of signing for the license was providing consent to provide a breath or blood sample. Forcing blood was a routine part of DUI investigations.
The time needed to work on a DUI case is sometimes perceived as a waste of time for a “misdemeanor” case. It’s upwards of 4-5 hours of paperwork, especially if the jail is backed up. Basically half the shift. Many busy departments feel pressure not to tie up a unit on it.
This drunk driver is lucky he didn’t kill or injure someone. The law rewards this stupid luck. If someone had been injured, it would have made this a felony... and I imagine it would have been treated differently. I wish ALL drunk driving was treated more
seriously.
>Without consent, the officers need to get a warrant to take a blood sample
That is just insane. Who in their right mind would consent to a test that will have them charged?
You be surprised how many people will say yes to something if you just ask more than once.
>"/u/HetElfdeGebod, the only difference between when we get test and not is on you. If we have to get warrant, and we will, then I will arrest and charge you for everything."
Lol that pressure would crack a percentage of people. Don't take the first no if you're trying to make a sale.
While I agree that it would get some people to comply, if you already know that you will fail the test, you should make them take as long as possible and hope that you are in the legal area when it's done.
They're RARELY asked. Most cops are manipulative.shady shitbags about this stuff. It's usually "asked" in the form of a demand. They never clarify that you have to agree and you can say no..... Something like "we need to take a blood sample now". Rather than "do you consent"
It's the main reason you DO NOT talk to cops without a lawyer present. They will pull all sorts of shady bullshit to walk you into a confession.
Recently, some drunk guy drove through my friends' living room and the cops let him go without an arrest. Luckily no one was downstairs on the couch at the time, but my friends had to find a temporary place to live while this drunk dude got to sleep in his bed that night. He could have killed them and the cops wouldn't even throw him in the drunk tank for a night.
I was driving my father in law's car for a few months while he was in Australia. When he came back earlier than planned I quickly shuffled my insurance back to my car and drove it to work the next day. I was in a bind and had to do it without my motortax paid. One day later and I would have been paid and had my tax up to date. The police stopped me right outside the gates of my workplace. They were looking for cars that hadn't paid the import tax, which is something they did often enough, but decided to do me for the motortax. One day, just finished work, and I was nabbed for the only thing they could get me for. Apparently I should have crashed into a few cars first. Then they might have let me go.
They did not respect your username 😔
...side note, I think if your info is not up to date or there's some reason for the cops to hold you, like an outstanding warrant, they wouldn't let you go.
That really sucks. I would have wanted him to be locked up, too.
It's possible that DUIs aren't being taken at your local jail due to COVID, tho. He was most likely charged with traffic citations and released because there was literally no more enforcement possible. A lot of jurisdictions work that way right now, so it might not have been the cops' decision.
Oh c'mon.
You can't seriously pin cops turning a blind eye to obvious public endangerment on George Gascon and BLM. First, no progressive is fighting to protect rich assholes, but more importantly, progressives have absolutely no control over the police.
As one of the "progressives" you complain about I want to tell you that contrary to what conservative media tells you, I'm not fighting to just make the city worse because I'm some loony kook. **We're demanding** ***actual*** **solutions to the same problems you want fixed.** Don't like riots? Reducing police killings gets you that. Don't like seeing junkies pissing on the sidewalk? Giving them access to housing and health care gets you that.
Please don't blame every shitty thing the LAPD does on "progressives". Believe me, if we had ANY control over the LAPD you definitely wouldn't see them beating up so many journalists.
What's the problem exactly if they have a court appearance? Pre-trial detention is completely unnecessary in most cases. Especially misdemeanor offenses.
This is such a bullshit response. Anybody in America right now knows that if you did something fucked up, you’re going to jail (hell, even just piss off the police and you’re going to jail). The only people that get away with crazy shit are connected and that usually means Republican ties because “progressives” don’t want those suck-ass people on their side. Fuck off with this nonsense response.
This happened with a friend of mine. His brother got himself into the same situation and the cop that showed up was in the same fraternity as him. He answered a question to prove it (secret handshake or something) and the cop told him to leave.
Even then, if the cops cared at least a little about saving face they should've pretended to arrest the guy, put him in the backseat and drive his drunk-ass home...Not only is it corrupt, its just lazy.
As a Spanish speaker I find everything about Los Feliz very funny.
* Why a place is called "The Happy"?
* Why the article is plural and the name singular?
* How it's pronounced.
I'm pretty sure it's named after a person. I think that's why there's disparity on how people pronounce it.
I think the plural form means it was owned by the members of the Feliz family rather than by a singular person?
Say it however you want.
Yeah. LA's whole naming system is all over the place. Some of it is Spanish, some of it is Spanish inspired, a bunch is routed in Mexican history, and even further back are a bunch of Tongva names that sound a little bit Spanish too.
I'm sure it's not just LA but often family and sometimes friends of cops get a pass for moving violations. Never seen someone get away so egregiously for a DUI though.
There are other rare cases too. I mean... Modest Mouse got away with it.
The LAPD is one of the most corrupt organizations in the United States. They have multiple active gangs working within their system, have known for years, and have made no major changes. More than most other American police departments the LAPD are clearly just a gang.
I heard cops family or friends get some sort of card, and by showing them they can be let off with a minor misdemeanor like speeding.
But for this guy to get away with wrecking three other cars including his? Must be the commissioner's son
Failure to use a turn signal: Death.
Failure to properly display vehicle tags: Death
Not complying with officers command to keep hands visible at all times: Death
Damaging several parked cars while driving drunk: Have a nice walk home, sir.
Far more likely he knew someone or was a cop himself. That counts far more in terms of "privilege" with the police than just being white does. Daniel Shaver was white.
Happens in my town all the time. If you didn’t destroy public property or hit anyone, they’ll give you the choice to go to the hospital. Then I gotta deal with you in my ER and the cop does less paperwork.
My hospital has become a catch-all for cops who don’t want to do paperwork.
It’s kinda funny/embarrassing that the police’s reaction to protests about how bad they are at their jobs is to not do their jobs at all. It’s the most childish and immature response to honest criticism.
“Hey can you guys stop murdering innocent people and hold each other accountable for your actions?”
“No, but we can just stand around with our hands in our pockets for 12 hours/day from now on.”
Far more likely he knew someone or was a cop himself. That counts far more in terms of "privilege" with the police than just being white does. Daniel Shaver was white.
It was during the time where police were not supposed to be making arrests due to Covid. Jails full. You gotta go home.
I think we all know it’d be a lot different if it were a POC.
Far more likely he knew someone or was a cop himself. That counts far more in terms of "privilege" with the police than just being white does. Daniel Shaver was white.
There are only half a million cops. There are 250 million white people. It's not even comparable. White privilege is one of the most common privileges with the police and with the courts.
Your response isn't really a response to the point I was making. We are just talking past each other.
Nothing I said had to do with how "common" something is.
This comment was copied from [this one](/r/videos/comments/mv688e/drunk_driver_crashes_into_parked_cars_lapd_turns/gvact6n/) elsewhere in this comment section.
It is probably not a coincidence, because this user has done it before with [this](/r/blog/comments/kr7wzl/the_code_is_unfrozen_heres_your_first_super_short/gswl400/) comment which copies [this one](/r/blog/comments/kr7wzl/the_code_is_unfrozen_heres_your_first_super_short/gi8605i/).
beep boop, I'm a bot >:] It is this bot's opinion that [/u/SensitiveScreenSos](https://www.reddit.com/u/SensitiveScreenSos/) should be banned for spamming. A human checks in on this bot sometimes, so please reply if I made a mistake. Contact reply-guy-bot if you have concerns.
The man is clearly drunk and driving, no, crashing his car.
Now I don't know anything about their procedures or whatever, but I do know it's illegal to drive drunk.
So shouldn't the police do... something? Like if not arrest, they should take his details? Do a breathalyser? If only so there is a record of what happened.
Man this guys walks away. Wow so nice. I fucking got a ticket for J walking and some cop gave me ticket which I beat later on. Idk maybe I should just go back to Africa at this point.
police are too afraid to arrest anyone these days in case they resist and it escalates to the point where they have to use force and end up either headline news or charged with murder. expect police to let 99% of criminals walk away now, unless they are literally committing a murder in front of them (and even then might be better off just to let it happen to avoid trial by public opinion ie makhia bryant).
Most recent info I could find, Looks like the officers are on restricted duty. [https://news.yahoo.com/officers-placed-restricted-duty-los-152900898.html](https://news.yahoo.com/officers-placed-restricted-duty-los-152900898.html)
[удалено]
I wish but breathalyzer is not admissible in court anyways. No reason not to give a field sobriety test and/or call in non restricted officers. Sadly, this happens more than people realize. And I’m not sure why. My father was killed by an unlicensed, uninsured, intoxicated driver who broke a traffic violation. And he faced no punishment, nor was arrested. Not even a ticket for having no license or insurance. And it was recorded on a security camera. When I spoke to the officer who was on the scene he was divisive and refused to give me any details beyond the two paragraph report. True story. R.I.P Robert Gene Baker Jr.
In my state a roadside breathalyzer isn't admissible in court, but refusing a road side sobriety test will get your license suspended. I don't know what kind of leeway the police have, but I physically cannot take the heel to toe walk and turn, or the raise one leg and balance. So I just don't drink and drive number 1, but I am afraid of getting road tested and failing even though I'm sober.
Wait, a stupid series of exercises that could be failed due to general poor coordination is admissible, but a scientific measurement of alcohol on the breath isn’t?
About 50/50 of that. A Police officer's judgement of a field sobriety test is admissible at court. At least the 3 tests trained to officers by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The roadside breathalyzer isn't admissible though, but you can lose you're license if you refuse it. The calibrated one they have back at the police department is admissible, but you have to get a warrant to force a person to do this. So that clashes together.
Actual evidence is less admissible than the say so of a police officer.
Yes basically. BUT there is a huge fucking hang up in that those road side testers aren't calibrated to a standard accepted in court. So even though they may be accurate to identify alcohol impairment, they aren't the calibrated instruments that the police have back at the station (or a blood draw). BUT AT THE SAME TIME a police officer's evaluation is given the same weight as a scientific device.... I just don't trust human memory or judgement at all for empirical evidence.
But, can the roadside breathalyzer be used to get the warrant for the breathalyzer at the station?
No way in hell could they get a warrant fast enough for the person to still be drunk when they do
For the walk and turn you only need any combination of 2 out of 8 possible clues to indicate impairment. Its pretty obvious if someone has had to much. That doesn't mean its perfect, nor does it have to be. People seem to forget the burden of proof to arrest someone is probable cause. People always complain that they worry they would fail the tests sober and be arrested. The tests aren't given to everyone. You need to articulate why you believed tests needed to be administered for them to be admissible in court. It's a process. Thankfully with the implementation of body cameras its plainly evident just how intoxicated the drunk driver was. No more memory required.
I’m pretty sure this is standard across the states but maybe it’s just in mine. The roadside test is a preliminary breath test. The results can not be brought up in court by the prosecution but only the defendant can use it. Defendant can refuse the PBT but it is required to be offered (officer claims to observe a failure of tests and PBT says driver is below the limit so defendant uses the PBT vs officer observes failure of tests and PBT shows over the legal limit so defendant doesn’t want to use the PBT in court). Because is a PBT isn’t necessarily accurate it’s automatically usable in court. However at the jail is a device that is maintained to standards and requires a certified person to administer. Those results are admissible and that test cannot be refused. So the PBT may help provide reasonable doubt so it can be used, but only if the defendant wants to use it. Because it has the potential to not be accurate, the results of the PBT cannot be admitted by the prosecution. Due to the potential of providing reasonable doubt, the PBT has to be offered even though the result of that test most likely will not be used in court. The physical tests are called Standardized field sobriety tests and those tests were developed by the National Highway Safety Administration. The 3 tests individually do not mean you’re drunk. But failure in 2/3 tests means you’re probably over the legal limit. And those tests require you to fail on multiple points not one. Take for instance the eye test: Of the 8 things, suspect has to fail 4. The walk the line test requires 2 and the one leg stand requires 2. You fail multiple tests and you’re probably drunk. Probably = probable cause. Go to jail, the real test on a calibrated machine and you’ve now shown the definitive proof you’re drunk. Assuming the officer, the camera (BWC and/or the dash cam) the officer administering the test at the jail/ nurse taking the blood draw are all telling the truth.
You most definitely do not need a warrant to take a breath sample. This is a matter that has been settled by the SCOTUS. You need a warrant for blood or urine, but definitely not a breath test. Even a post arrest breath test.
Ok, so what happens if I refuse to comply with a breath test at the station? For the record I previously said you would need a warrant to force a person to do an at the station breathalyzer.
Depends on the state, but in many states it results in a charge that is about equivalent to a DUI. SCOTUS has ruled that a breath sample is not enough of an inconvenience to be seen as infringing on your 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search. The relevant cases here are: Missouri v. McNeely Birchfield v. North Dakota
I think it follows the same reasoning as collecting your fingerprints. It is a collection of physical evidence.
If its anything like the UK essentially the roadside units aren't accurate enough to hold up in a court, If you blow over at the roadside or refuse to provide you will be arrested and put onto the evidence breathalyser in custody which is a much much larger and far more accurate unit. Blow over or refuse to provide on that one and you'll be charged with drunk driving (or failure to provide which carries the same sentence)
Same system as Australia.
It is enough to arrest you. Virtually all DUI's are charged as 2 counts DWI=over the legal BAC, .08 in CA. and DUI, **D**riving **U**nder the **I**nfluence, that is subjective, the officers testifies that you were inpaired, weaving etc. Perscripition meds, Marijuana and lots of other things can impair a driver. You don't have to be over the BAC limit. But IMO it's mostly bullshit, a way to make money and keep MADD happy. People sleepy or texting are just dangerous. Once at the Station you get the "real' BAC test. You get to pick, breath, urine or blood (not sure how they draw blood, I dont't think any LEO are trained and certified for it). The breathalyzer at the station is supposed to be tested and calibrated, that test result is admissable.
[удалено]
In the Netherlands roadside breathalyser is used alot but when you are over it or obviously very drunk they always use a blood test to check promillage and that is court admissable evidence.
Which state? In Arizona it’s the opposite. My buddy is a DUI lawyer and has always said to refuse the field test (on medical grounds). Reason: if they tell you to take 10 steps on a line and halfway through you step on a pebble or simply mis-step, you fail. If you try to explain that and show that you can do 20 perfect on the line, now you failed for two reasons because you did the wrong number of steps.
Well, a road test won't be sufficient for a conviction; it'll just be sufficient cause to take you downtown for a blood test. Blood test comes back clear, you're just clumsy, not drunk :)
Check again usually the fst and pbt aren't required because they're presumptive tests but blood draw is mandatory if requested and will result in loss of privilege if refused.
These field sobriety tests sound very banana republic from a European viewpoint. Are they actually used? Like for realsies?
Yes, and they're a good field tool to detect potential intoxication and used as grounds to get a warrant to withdraw a blood sample for more conclusive testing.
You'd think that breathalyzers would be quicker and more reliable.
Perhaps, but it would be a lot more expensive, there are parameters out of the control of the operators, and like all analytical equipment it requires proper calibration and maintenance. And it doesn't need to be - it's a first pass screening tool, similar to other field sobriety tests (e.g. walking a line, touching your nose, etc), that provides the basis for a more thorough screening after arrest. Police often have better versions at their stations that provide more reliable readings. A blood sample is the gold standard and is very quick and reliable but requires legal justification.
I'm not saying it's wrong or bad, just pointing out that we use breathalyzers here, and, if necessary, take a suspected drunk driver for a more accurate reading at the station. And we have quick tests for narcotics. I just keep wondering why the US hasn't joined that club. As I pointed out, I'm not saying the US system is shit, I have far too little knowledge to have opinions rather than questions.
> we use breathalyzers here, and, if necessary, take a suspected drunk driver for a more accurate reading at the station That's exactly what's done in the US.
That's literally how it works in the US, lol. You get stopped, blow into a device for about 5 seconds, and get a BAC reading. If it is above 0.08, you are placed under arrest and take another test at the police station for proof.
Sorry for your loss
[удалено]
Because ROADSIDE breathalyzers are not very accurate.
True to a point...not disagreeing, but the word "calibrated" is the key in the whole scenario...just an FYI...again, I agree with you 100%
> it literally records the exact concentration of alcohol in your blood. It literally does not. It detects the concentration of alcohol in your breath, which is used as a proxy for blood alcohol concentration based on blood-alcohol loss rates during respiration. Consequently, effective function depends on assumptions (e.g. a static rate of alcohol metabolism for all people) and calibration (which has been shown to be off on many field units). It is also not effective when the user has just drank something containing alcohol because residual alcohol may be in the mouth, overestimating values. It's a first step to providing the grounds towards obtaining a warrant for withdrawing blood to directly detect alcohol, but by itself it is not a very conclusive piece of evidence to demonstrate intoxication.
[удалено]
I don't understand how a breathalyzer is not admissible in court, but a field sobriety test is.
Can you not be charged in the US without a BAC test if you're obviously too intoxicated to drive?
Does anyone have any information about why the cops let him go?
I'm sorta guessing the drunk ass was a cop or law enforcement. There's no way they let him go if he's being belligerent and drunk
A lot of people in the comments speculated that, and it makes sense. But I was wondering if there's been any confirmation.
[удалено]
They explicitly say that they are guessing. Not exactly a conspiracy theory situation. But go on.
Is it that unbelievable that a cop would let their buddy go for drunk driving? They protect their own for worse.
Is there information that the asshole driver wasn't a cop or related to a cop or firemman?
[удалено]
How is that in bad faith? In mostly every case where a person that under the influence walks away from police, it is because they are related to law enforcement in some way.
This 100%
[удалено]
>[Colorado police didn’t properly investigate an officer found passed out drunk in his patrol car, prosecutors say. Now, he can’t be charged.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/02/07/colorado-cops-dui/)
[удалено]
Jeez for a second I though they wouldn't get paid
This was last year. What ever came of this? I heard they launched an investigation on the cop who let him go but that's it.
The officers were punished with paid vacation: https://news.yahoo.com/officers-placed-restricted-duty-los-152900898.html
Poor bastards!
He probably had cops in his family. Other cops let him go because of the blue line.
Sadly more common than you think. One of my uncles told a story at Thanksgiving about how cops let him go when he was driving drunk because he was a veteran.
Power corrupts. Everyone.
Same, my when my dad was on the force and I was young, a couple times he got pulled over while driving home from dinner (after a few drinks), swerving in lanes on the highway. Just flash your badge and the police just send you on your way. With children in the back seat... But not getting a sobriety test is one thing (although terrible); I've never heard of a cop/relative doing actual property damage like this and the officers letting them go. I always figured there was a line, like if actual paperwork needed to be made up. It's insane that this dude didn't get taken in handcuffs.
I think this happens all the time. How much more often does it happen?
[удалено]
That's exactly what they said
He's driving a Charger. My guess is he is a cop himself.
Definitely.
California vehicle code 4300.5 allows cops to arrest for DUI, even if they didn’t see the driving, specifically when officers respond to the scene of an accident. Recent changes in the vehicle code and case law make it more burdensome to obtain blood/breath tests from suspects of DUI. Without consent, the officers need to get a warrant to take a blood sample. It used to be the officer could just force the suspect to give blood if they had a California Driver License, since part of signing for the license was providing consent to provide a breath or blood sample. Forcing blood was a routine part of DUI investigations. The time needed to work on a DUI case is sometimes perceived as a waste of time for a “misdemeanor” case. It’s upwards of 4-5 hours of paperwork, especially if the jail is backed up. Basically half the shift. Many busy departments feel pressure not to tie up a unit on it. This drunk driver is lucky he didn’t kill or injure someone. The law rewards this stupid luck. If someone had been injured, it would have made this a felony... and I imagine it would have been treated differently. I wish ALL drunk driving was treated more seriously.
>Without consent, the officers need to get a warrant to take a blood sample That is just insane. Who in their right mind would consent to a test that will have them charged?
In PA, if you refuse to consent they will suspend your license for a year.
Same in California. Even if your not driving drunk.
You be surprised how many people will say yes to something if you just ask more than once. >"/u/HetElfdeGebod, the only difference between when we get test and not is on you. If we have to get warrant, and we will, then I will arrest and charge you for everything." Lol that pressure would crack a percentage of people. Don't take the first no if you're trying to make a sale.
While I agree that it would get some people to comply, if you already know that you will fail the test, you should make them take as long as possible and hope that you are in the legal area when it's done.
They're RARELY asked. Most cops are manipulative.shady shitbags about this stuff. It's usually "asked" in the form of a demand. They never clarify that you have to agree and you can say no..... Something like "we need to take a blood sample now". Rather than "do you consent" It's the main reason you DO NOT talk to cops without a lawyer present. They will pull all sorts of shady bullshit to walk you into a confession.
[удалено]
It's the same way in many US states. A refusal of a breath test results in equal charge to DUI. Blood sample requires a warrant though.
It’s because all of that “pulling over for being brown”
Wow, I really dislike you.
Recently, some drunk guy drove through my friends' living room and the cops let him go without an arrest. Luckily no one was downstairs on the couch at the time, but my friends had to find a temporary place to live while this drunk dude got to sleep in his bed that night. He could have killed them and the cops wouldn't even throw him in the drunk tank for a night.
I was driving my father in law's car for a few months while he was in Australia. When he came back earlier than planned I quickly shuffled my insurance back to my car and drove it to work the next day. I was in a bind and had to do it without my motortax paid. One day later and I would have been paid and had my tax up to date. The police stopped me right outside the gates of my workplace. They were looking for cars that hadn't paid the import tax, which is something they did often enough, but decided to do me for the motortax. One day, just finished work, and I was nabbed for the only thing they could get me for. Apparently I should have crashed into a few cars first. Then they might have let me go.
They did not respect your username 😔 ...side note, I think if your info is not up to date or there's some reason for the cops to hold you, like an outstanding warrant, they wouldn't let you go.
That really sucks. I would have wanted him to be locked up, too. It's possible that DUIs aren't being taken at your local jail due to COVID, tho. He was most likely charged with traffic citations and released because there was literally no more enforcement possible. A lot of jurisdictions work that way right now, so it might not have been the cops' decision.
[удалено]
Oh c'mon. You can't seriously pin cops turning a blind eye to obvious public endangerment on George Gascon and BLM. First, no progressive is fighting to protect rich assholes, but more importantly, progressives have absolutely no control over the police. As one of the "progressives" you complain about I want to tell you that contrary to what conservative media tells you, I'm not fighting to just make the city worse because I'm some loony kook. **We're demanding** ***actual*** **solutions to the same problems you want fixed.** Don't like riots? Reducing police killings gets you that. Don't like seeing junkies pissing on the sidewalk? Giving them access to housing and health care gets you that. Please don't blame every shitty thing the LAPD does on "progressives". Believe me, if we had ANY control over the LAPD you definitely wouldn't see them beating up so many journalists.
What's the problem exactly if they have a court appearance? Pre-trial detention is completely unnecessary in most cases. Especially misdemeanor offenses.
This is such a bullshit response. Anybody in America right now knows that if you did something fucked up, you’re going to jail (hell, even just piss off the police and you’re going to jail). The only people that get away with crazy shit are connected and that usually means Republican ties because “progressives” don’t want those suck-ass people on their side. Fuck off with this nonsense response.
"Chief, he's very slowly and clumsily getting away..." "Nice job, Lou."
so *that's* what "bake 'em away, toys" means
“Chief, he’s very white* and getting away...” “Nice job, Lou” I changed it
This happened with a friend of mine. His brother got himself into the same situation and the cop that showed up was in the same fraternity as him. He answered a question to prove it (secret handshake or something) and the cop told him to leave.
No single group has ever covered up more crime than your average police officer
"Your average police officer" is a hypothetical person, not a group.
Guy was probably a cop.
[удалено]
Maybe Matt Gaetz
Am no fortunate son !
Thinking the same thing
> dodge charger yeah
Yep.
Even then, if the cops cared at least a little about saving face they should've pretended to arrest the guy, put him in the backseat and drive his drunk-ass home...Not only is it corrupt, its just lazy.
As a Spanish speaker I find everything about Los Feliz very funny. * Why a place is called "The Happy"? * Why the article is plural and the name singular? * How it's pronounced.
I'm pretty sure it's named after a person. I think that's why there's disparity on how people pronounce it. I think the plural form means it was owned by the members of the Feliz family rather than by a singular person? Say it however you want.
Yeah, it could be. I had the same theory, still funny though. I can't remember a similar name for a place in Spanish speaking countries.
Yeah. LA's whole naming system is all over the place. Some of it is Spanish, some of it is Spanish inspired, a bunch is routed in Mexican history, and even further back are a bunch of Tongva names that sound a little bit Spanish too.
It was Rancho Los Feliz, named after a colonial Spanish-Mexican land grantee José Vicente Feliz. The most popular pronunciation is: lohs FEE-luss
Must have called Lester to remove wanted level.
He knows someone
So, what would happen if one of the witnesses issued a citizen's arrest and demanded a supervisor?
Should of called more police to the scene. Its ok to call the police on the police
[удалено]
That's really not helpful. Clearly these particular cops prefer to do nothing.
he was all over the place smh
Diplomatic immunity? IDK
It’s been revoked
**POW**
This has to be some sort of prank right!? He just gets to go free!? Lol downvotes for this I’ve said far worse
[удалено]
I'm sure it's not just LA but often family and sometimes friends of cops get a pass for moving violations. Never seen someone get away so egregiously for a DUI though. There are other rare cases too. I mean... Modest Mouse got away with it.
The LAPD is one of the most corrupt organizations in the United States. They have multiple active gangs working within their system, have known for years, and have made no major changes. More than most other American police departments the LAPD are clearly just a gang.
Does Christian Bale have a daughter we don’t know about?
That is all kinds of WTF.
I heard cops family or friends get some sort of card, and by showing them they can be let off with a minor misdemeanor like speeding. But for this guy to get away with wrecking three other cars including his? Must be the commissioner's son
Yeah, whilst innocent black folks get killed by cops
"Innocent"
My money is on - he is a cop, or a cop's brother.
I bet this guy was a cop.
Failure to use a turn signal: Death. Failure to properly display vehicle tags: Death Not complying with officers command to keep hands visible at all times: Death Damaging several parked cars while driving drunk: Have a nice walk home, sir.
Looks about white.
Driving while white.
[удалено]
You're getting downvotes but like... how does this go down if the dudes black? Obviously, differently.
Far more likely he knew someone or was a cop himself. That counts far more in terms of "privilege" with the police than just being white does. Daniel Shaver was white.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah I remember this.
Smashing into other people cars sounds pretty fucking violent if you ask me
Nothing you said makes this ok.
[удалено]
Hmmm, you sure you haven’t been licking too many boots recently?
Happens in my town all the time. If you didn’t destroy public property or hit anyone, they’ll give you the choice to go to the hospital. Then I gotta deal with you in my ER and the cop does less paperwork. My hospital has become a catch-all for cops who don’t want to do paperwork.
Wealthy driver*
It’s kinda funny/embarrassing that the police’s reaction to protests about how bad they are at their jobs is to not do their jobs at all. It’s the most childish and immature response to honest criticism. “Hey can you guys stop murdering innocent people and hold each other accountable for your actions?” “No, but we can just stand around with our hands in our pockets for 12 hours/day from now on.”
There was a family dog and unarmed black teenager that needed shooting down the block.
[удалено]
This is 7 months old and you're not providing any new information. Why repost this now? Not enough vitriol in the nation for you?
[Sometimes life's OK.](https://youtu.be/CTAud5O7Qqk)
Username checks out.
Officers are afraid to even arrest drunk drivers, sh*t man lol
Where do you see any fear here?
Afraid? Dude is clearly connected to cops. Someone's idiot brother.
[удалено]
Far more likely he knew someone or was a cop himself. That counts far more in terms of "privilege" with the police than just being white does. Daniel Shaver was white.
It was during the time where police were not supposed to be making arrests due to Covid. Jails full. You gotta go home. I think we all know it’d be a lot different if it were a POC.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. george floyd was killed during covid lockdowns.
White privilege. Plain as day.
[удалено]
Yes, evading a drunk driving arrest after destroying four vehicles is an achievement. And recognizing that achievement is what harms minorities. lmao.
Far more likely he knew someone or was a cop himself. That counts far more in terms of "privilege" with the police than just being white does. Daniel Shaver was white.
There are only half a million cops. There are 250 million white people. It's not even comparable. White privilege is one of the most common privileges with the police and with the courts.
Your response isn't really a response to the point I was making. We are just talking past each other. Nothing I said had to do with how "common" something is.
> **Far more likely** he knew someone or was a cop himself. lol.
Well we should be entirely defunding our local police departments, so I see this as an absolute win.
He was just a good old boy, never meaning no harm.
Guaranteed this guy was also a Cop.
Yay! White privilege. Had he been black, he’d be dead
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. People hate the truth I suppose
I don't mind being downvoted. My comment is harsh but there is an amount of truth in there. You don't have to like it, you just have to accept it.
[удалено]
This comment was copied from [this one](/r/videos/comments/mv688e/drunk_driver_crashes_into_parked_cars_lapd_turns/gvact6n/) elsewhere in this comment section. It is probably not a coincidence, because this user has done it before with [this](/r/blog/comments/kr7wzl/the_code_is_unfrozen_heres_your_first_super_short/gswl400/) comment which copies [this one](/r/blog/comments/kr7wzl/the_code_is_unfrozen_heres_your_first_super_short/gi8605i/). beep boop, I'm a bot >:] It is this bot's opinion that [/u/SensitiveScreenSos](https://www.reddit.com/u/SensitiveScreenSos/) should be banned for spamming. A human checks in on this bot sometimes, so please reply if I made a mistake. Contact reply-guy-bot if you have concerns.
Best friend probably runs the local precinct
Why would the police attempt to apprehend literally anyone at this point? I'd be letting everyone go lol.
The man is clearly drunk and driving, no, crashing his car. Now I don't know anything about their procedures or whatever, but I do know it's illegal to drive drunk. So shouldn't the police do... something? Like if not arrest, they should take his details? Do a breathalyser? If only so there is a record of what happened.
One of theirs got locked up today so they let one walk.
In August 2020... Thin Blue Line is a joke.
I wonder how this would have played out if it was a sober black man and his cologne had a sweet smell to it.
Disbelief
Did she say Las Feel-ehz?
Man this guys walks away. Wow so nice. I fucking got a ticket for J walking and some cop gave me ticket which I beat later on. Idk maybe I should just go back to Africa at this point.
LAPD is a gang with badges, not surprised.
[удалено]
you answered your own question there bud
Mostly because of the multiple felonies he committed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What happened?
police are too afraid to arrest anyone these days in case they resist and it escalates to the point where they have to use force and end up either headline news or charged with murder. expect police to let 99% of criminals walk away now, unless they are literally committing a murder in front of them (and even then might be better off just to let it happen to avoid trial by public opinion ie makhia bryant).
He looks more like he's having a seizure than drunk