Intoxilyzer issues

[Indy]

A terry search, isnt that what its called?

A terry stop & frisk was intended as a safeguard for officers to be legally allowed to pat down the outer layer of a subjects clothing to check for weapons for their safety while talking to the person. They don't need consent, a warrant, or reasonable suspicion. If, during that pat down, they come across something that "in their professional opinion and experience" leads them to believe it's something illegal (IE: crack pipe or bag of dope), they can seize that as well. I would imagine that at that point if they find an illegal substance, they have just cause to do a full search and place them under arrest - correct? Still learning.

Feel free to correct me or add to it verifieds, but garda, I believe that's what you're thinking of.

[TXCharlie]

I fail to see how taking blood would be searching or seizing anything however there is multiple allowances in most nations for police officers to search and seize items without warrant.

I'm just a CJ student, but as I understand it, any type of invasive procedure to the body is normally considered illegal in the U.S.A., unless it's voluntary or there's a court order (to make sure there's Probable Cause for the "search").

Even with a Terry pat-down, they can't empty the pockets unless they find a potential weapon in the pat-down, or they have enough Probable Cause for an arrest, isn't that right? Just feeling something that "resembles" a rock of crack in a pat-down, for example, would not get them Probable Cause for an arrest or full-fledged search, because it could just be a plain ol' rock.

Even mouth swabs to collect DNA wouldn't be allowed - That's invading the body, therefore an illegal search, plus it's self-incrimination which must also be voluntary. However, DNA on anything that's discarded is fair game.

I wasn't aware of the fleeting evidence rule connected with alcohol blood tests, but that just because the alcohol metabolizes so fast - if the alcohol persisted a long time, it'd probably be illegal to collect too. That's the same logic that makes warrantless car searches easier to justify than home searches, I believe.

[Darin]

In Virginia, when you drive in the state, you consent to have your breath and/or blood taken if you are suspected of DUI.

[Terminator]

A terry stop & frisk was intended as a safeguard for officers to be legally allowed to pat down the outer layer of a subjects clothing to check for weapons for their safety while talking to the person. They don't need consent, a warrant, or reasonable suspicion. If, during that pat down, they come across something that "in their professional opinion and experience" leads them to believe it's something illegal (IE: crack pipe or bag of dope), they can seize that as well. I would imagine that at that point if they find an illegal substance, they have just cause to do a full search and place them under arrest - correct? Still learning.

Actually, that is incorrect. You must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous before you can pat them down.

You also must be able to immediately recognize any contraband (other than weapons) they have on them, to seize it, and charge them with it. During a pat down you are not allowed to grab, squeeze etc.

Anything you immediately find (like a bag of dope during a pat down) can be reason to do a full search of the suspect.

[Indy]

Gotcha - thanks for the clarification Brad.

Edit: what would this fall under?

Say you've got information a minor crime has been committed, so you approach the subject to talk to them and gather more information. I know you can do a full search subject to arrest, but if you're just detaining the person for the time being until you determine whether an arrest is appropriate, you would frisk them, right? Where does the reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous come into play if the person in no way indicates they are either of the above?

[Jay7376]

and he smelled alcohol on her breath

Please tell me the officer did not say that on the stand?

I can't remember the exact quote, it's been so long ago, but is there something wrong with him saying that if he did?

Alcohol is odorless, therefore, the officer could not have smelled alcohol on her breath.

However, what he smelled was the odor of an alcoholic beverage.

[TXCharlie]

Alcohol is odorless, therefore, the officer could not have smelled alcohol on her breath.

However, what he smelled was the odor of an alcoholic beverage.

Ahhh - I gotcha! Yeah, he may have said that. I guess you have to really be careful in court, huh - No meaning left open to attack!

[chris2001]

Ahhh - I gotcha! Yeah, he may have said that. I guess you have to really be careful in court, huh - No meaning left open to attack!

You bet hince why I asked I hope the officer did not say that. Hell even during the traffic stop the officer better not say he smells alcohol again its oderless. The officer should be saying I smell an alcoholic beverage coming from this car/or you did you have anything to drink tonight/today.

Say you've got information a minor crime has been committed, so you approach the subject to talk to them and gather more information. I know you can do a full search subject to arrest, but if you're just detaining the person for the time being until you determine whether an arrest is appropriate, you would frisk them, right? Where does the reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous come into play if the person in no way indicates they are either of the above?

If I am detaining them because I believe they have committed the crime in question they get handcuffed and patted down for my safety and theirs. Unless they give me consent to search them then its on.

Also I think you were referring to search incident to arrest, which means since I have arrested you and you were driving or not driving. I now get to search all of you meaning go into your pockets, wasteband etc.. If you are also driving I alos now get to search the inside of your car with exception to your trunk and hood. Reason being I can only search what is in the immediate are of your hands. That is unless you tell me that I can search the entire car and then again its on.

Also lets say I have done a traffic stop and I see possible evidence of drugs in the car. I pull you out and talk with you. I then ask you if I can search your vehicle (I am asking for consent here). You give me consent I can again only search the inside of the car not the trunk or engine bay. Unless you give me consent to search those area.

Lets see how much you CJ students are paying attention in class (VERIFIEDS DO NOT ANSWER UNTIL THE CJ STUDENTS HAVE ALL HAD A CHANCE).

Take the same scenario as above. Can you as the driver of that vehicle tell me what I can and can not search? In other words if its a female can you tell me not to search your purse? Or that I am not allowed to search the glove box?

[Indy]

Hmmm....since I want to know the answer, I'll put myself out there. Hopefully I don't do too horrible.

I would say "yes." If they can't tell you specifically what you can search, they could tell you they changed their mind and are retracting consent when you get near the area they don't want searched. Obviously, you would then be suspicious, but under the law you can't do something just because someone says they won't give consent. IE: if you ask consent to search a car, and they refuse, you can't then say, "Your refusal says to me that you are hiding something, so it has given me reasonable suspicion to search your car. Please sit on the curb." Unless you have already found something that would give you further cause to search or you have anything else to hold them on (such as finding crack in the front seat where they forgot it was), I would imagine you'd have to stop midway through if they told you to. Is consent to search like consent to answer questions, in which they can stop at any time?

Not 100% confident of that answer, but that's my stab at it. I do pay attention but you can tell those CJ classes are really paying off...

[Virginian]

Can you as the driver of that vehicle tell me what I can and can not search? In other words if its a female can you tell me not to search your purse? Or that I am not allowed to search the glove box?

Yeah I believe you can limit it. But it's been a while since I even thought about those issues, since I don't carry my purse everywhere I go

[Garda]

Over here its am intoxicant or intoxicating liquor depending on what the substance was.

The DNA sample thing is true enough as it has to be a doctor that takes it and we do need permission from either a superior officer, judge or consent however thats different to needing a warrant.

Also, its not a search as we are removing a specific item that we know exists as evidence in a case and you have been arrested for the purpose of this test.

Drink driving and similar offences cannot really be compared to other crimes and statutes as it is a world of law all wrapped up in itself and is constantly being challenged, won and changed.

[TXCharlie]

Also lets say I have done a traffic stop and I see possible evidence of drugs in the car. I pull you out and talk with you. I then ask you if I can search your vehicle (I am asking for consent here). You give me consent I can again only search the inside of the car not the trunk or engine bay. Unless you give me consent to search those area.

Lets see how much you CJ students are paying attention in class (VERIFIEDS DO NOT ANSWER UNTIL THE CJ STUDENTS HAVE ALL HAD A CHANCE).

Take the same scenario as above. Can you as the driver of that vehicle tell me what I can and can not search? In other words if its a female can you tell me not to search your purse? Or that I am not allowed to search the glove box?

I think Reasonable Suspicion that your safety was in jeapordy only gives you enough to do a pat-down and search of the interrior of the car and glovebox, but you must be able to give a plausable a reason that you felt your safety was in jeapordy, such as threatening moves, suspicious behavior or circumstances, or weapons in plain view - Just saying you had a "feeling" won't suffice.

If you find enough Probable Cause in plain view or as a result of the Terry searches to make an arrest and seize the car, then you can take an Inventory Search of the whole car (including closed or locked containers such as purses, toolboxes, trunk, and engine compartment) regardless of whether they consent or not. Anything you find in an Inventory or Terry searches can be used in court.

If you don't have enough in plain view or after a pat-down for an arrest, you can remove the purse to a safe area but that's all - I don't think you can open it even after you make the arrest, unless they consent (or unless it's left in the car so thus falls under the scope of the Terry & Inventory searches).

Actually, I'm a little unclear about whether you could search the purse if they got out of the car holding it, then threw it on the ground and wouldn't give you consent. I don't think you can search it at that point, but if you order them to put it down and they throw it back in the car, that's on them - so you could search it under Terry if you were in fear of your safety, and under the Inventory search if you arrest them.

How many red marks did I get?

[Terminator]

Where does the reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous come into play if the person in no way indicates they are either of the above?

It doesn't. Reasonable suspicion all comes down to articluation by the officer conducting the pat down.

A stop (based on reasonable suspicion) is justified in any combination of the following circumstances:

• the suspect doesn't seem to "fit" the time or place
• the suspect fits a description of a wanted person in a flyer
• the suspect is acting strangely, emotional, angry, frightened, or intoxicated
• the suspect is loitering, hanging out, or looking out for something
• the suspect is running away or engaging in furtive movements
• the suspect is present in a crime scene area
• the area is a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering)

A frisk is ALWAYS justified in the following circumstances:

• there are concerns of safety for the officer and for others
• there is suspicion that the suspect is armed & dangerous
• there is suspicion that the suspect is about to commit a crime & a weapon is commonly used

A frisk MAY be justified in the following circumstances:

• the officer is alone and backup has not yet arrived
• the number of suspects and their physical size
• the emotions, behavior, and look of the suspects
• the suspect gave evasive answers (that didn't dispel fear) during the initial stop
• the time of day, and the geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves to justify a frisk)

[FishTail]

Man...we can put anyone on a roadside breath test kit if we suspect:
1. they've been drinking (demeanour, smeel intoxicants, manner of driving etc)
2. they've committed a moving traffic offence
3. they've been involved in a traffic accident as a driver

I can arrest anyone who is driving or attempting to drive and either fails the test or I can articulate is unfit to drive through drink or drugs.

Once at the station they get to blow on the machine. Failure or refusal to blow is an offence in it's own right. If they blow low (but over the limit) or the machine is unavailable I choose whether they give blood or urine. No warrant or anything...my choice. Refusal is an offence.

Basically, if they won't blow, give blood or urine I charge them with that any the court will jail them.

[Garda]

Man...we can put anyone on a roadside breath test kit if we suspect:
1. they've been drinking (demeanour, smeel intoxicants, manner of driving etc)
2. they've committed a moving traffic offence
3. they've been involved in a traffic accident as a driver

I can arrest anyone who is driving or attempting to drive and either fails the test or I can articulate is unfit to drive through drink or drugs.

Once at the station they get to blow on the machine. Failure or refusal to blow is an offence in it's own right. If they blow low (but over the limit) or the machine is unavailable I choose whether they give blood or urine. No warrant or anything...my choice. Refusal is an offence.

Basically, if they won't blow, give blood or urine I charge them with that any the court will jail them.

Laws here are being introduced that will allow testing for no reason whatsover. I will be allowed breath test purely because I want to without any suspicion. Will I use it? Maybe as an attitude corrector

[FishTail]

People have tried to introduce that here several times...public outcry has stopped it every time. Personally, I'm happy with the way it is now. I can usually find some reason to get them to blow.

[Garda]

People have tried to introduce that here several times...public outcry has stopped it every time. Personally, I'm happy with the way it is now. I can usually find some reason to get them to blow.

the minister here has managed to get some very powerful laws anacted recently. In fact between his Garda Act and Terrorism Act he is Irelands Hitler he has so much power now.

In the Garda Act he took sole control of our force and with the terrorism Act just about eveything anti government could be construed as a crime.

Personally I am happy with the drink driving laws here but he has his own arrogant views on whats needed and whats not which is why he will be ousted in the next election provided he hasnt made himself an official dictator by then.

[TXCharlie]

Stuff like that is why we kicked you guys off the island 200+ years ago

[FishTail]

the minister here has managed to get some very powerful laws anacted recently. In fact between his Garda Act and Terrorism Act he is Irelands Hitler he has so much power now.

In the Garda Act he took sole control of our force and with the terrorism Act just about eveything anti government could be construed as a crime.

Tony Blair and his Home Secretary have done much the same in the UK. At the moment they're trying to pass a law which will allow them to amend, repeal or introduce any law they want, without the consent of Parliament. Now that's dictatorial!

[Garda]

Stuff like that is why we kicked you guys off the island 200+ years ago

I agree Long, he hasnt got that far yet and he wont either. He probable could if he lost the arrogance and actually played the PR game a bit more but as it is he allows everyone to see his motives. Tony is more PR polished.