Post by: roo_ster on July 08, 2008, 06:00:41 AM
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/07/05/dwi-arrest-at-00/
DWI Arrest at 0.0
Saturday, July 5th, 2008
Woman was a designated driver. Didnt have a drop to drink all night. She refused a roadside sobriety test because . . . well, because theyre utter bullshit (and unlike a blood or breath test, youre allowed to refuse the roadside test). Im sure its pure coincidence that her husband, who was in the car, is a DWI defense attorney, and had just beaten the cop in question in court.
In any case, after her arrest and incarceration, prosecutors were forced to quietly drop the charges when her blood test came back 0.0. Now, ask yourself how the officer writes the following about a stone sober woman:
Quote
Its interesting to read the affidavit that Officer Gonzalez wrote that night about Heather Squires, intending to ask the Motor Vehicles Division of ADOT to yank her license. (He never mailed it possibly because of the blood-test results.)
It describes bloodshot and watery eyes.
Flushed face.
Strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from breath.
It describes bloodshot and watery eyes.
Flushed face.
Strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from breath.
The New Times writer adds:
Quote
Honestly, I dont want to believe that Officer Gonzalez sought out the lawyer who beat him in court and then penalized his wife when shed done nothing wrong.
But a rogue cop is almost preferable to a system thats stacked against motorists who want nothing more than to get home at night. Those people might not be as sober as Heather Squires proved to be, but after one or two drinks, Im willing to bet that they dont have bloodshot eyes or reek of booze. Youre still going to read that in the police report.
But a rogue cop is almost preferable to a system thats stacked against motorists who want nothing more than to get home at night. Those people might not be as sober as Heather Squires proved to be, but after one or two drinks, Im willing to bet that they dont have bloodshot eyes or reek of booze. Youre still going to read that in the police report.
This isnt the first time pre-written, xeroxed or boilerplate DWI reports have come up. Not the first time someones been arrested at 0.0, either.
The Mesa Police Department is standing behind the officer.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 08, 2008, 06:02:26 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 08, 2008, 06:08:32 AM
Post by: El Tejon on July 08, 2008, 06:39:39 AM
0.0 BAC OWIs are not uncommon but we usually have pills, dope or huffing going on.
I anticipate a lawsuit over this alleged false arrest.
Post by: vaskidmark on July 08, 2008, 01:32:27 PM
What? We are having an OWI thread and no one tells me?
0.0 BAC OWIs are not uncommon but we usually have pills, dope or huffing going on.
I anticipate a lawsuit over this alleged false arrest.
0.0 BAC OWIs are not uncommon but we usually have pills, dope or huffing going on.
I anticipate a lawsuit over this alleged false arrest.
Spoken like a true tile crawler.
I do so enjoy when events that are on public record as having occurred are still referred to as "alleged."
As for the department standing behind Officer Gonzalez, I imagine that is the safest place to be considering all the brickbats and legal papers that are going to be thrown his way.
I have no knowledge of procedures in Officer Gonzalez's department, but locally once you hit the booking desk you get a cursory medical look-over with findings written down. Sure would be fun to see how fast the designated driver "recovered" from the state described in the affidavit.
stay safe.
skidmark
Post by: Grandpa Shooter on July 08, 2008, 08:20:45 PM
Post by: ilbob on July 09, 2008, 04:47:12 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 09, 2008, 05:23:51 AM
Post by: zahc on July 09, 2008, 05:44:56 AM
Post by: RoadKingLarry on July 09, 2008, 05:46:43 AM
I hope they can sue and bury the rogue cop.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 09, 2008, 05:48:41 AM
Post by: RoadKingLarry on July 09, 2008, 09:21:42 AM
Post by: roo_ster on July 09, 2008, 09:26:47 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on July 09, 2008, 10:51:03 AM
Texas being the state that tried to arrest people for public drunkenness INSIDE OF A BAR.
This kind of stuff happens in Texas a LOT. Basically, DUI/DWI laws here are exactly what the DA/Judge says they are.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 09, 2008, 11:00:05 AM
Post by: stevelyn on July 09, 2008, 02:05:26 PM
What? We are having an OWI thread and no one tells me?
0.0 BAC OWIs are not uncommon but we usually have pills, dope or huffing going on.
I anticipate a lawsuit over this alleged false arrest.
0.0 BAC OWIs are not uncommon but we usually have pills, dope or huffing going on.
I anticipate a lawsuit over this alleged false arrest.
Yeah, but you'd better be able to articulate document impaired driving and have it backed up with positive blood test results.
Post by: Tallpine on July 09, 2008, 03:59:24 PM
MADD has gotten a bit unhinged here in Texas. I think too many people who vote have no idea what the law says. Someone says "We have to get harder on drunk drivers" and they say "Yeah!". And then I keep hearing about guys with multiple DUI convictions who are still driving and I have to wonder what good it does.
About as much good as gun control
Post by: anygunanywhere on July 10, 2008, 04:27:33 AM
It's worse in Texas.
Texas being the state that tried to arrest people for public drunkenness INSIDE OF A BAR.
This kind of stuff happens in Texas a LOT. Basically, DUI/DWI laws here are exactly what the DA/Judge says they are.
Texas being the state that tried to arrest people for public drunkenness INSIDE OF A BAR.
This kind of stuff happens in Texas a LOT. Basically, DUI/DWI laws here are exactly what the DA/Judge says they are.
In Texas an individual can be arrested for DUI just on the opinion of the officer. You do not have to fail a field sobriety test. You do not have to blow into a field BACometer. If the LEO thinks you are impaired, on go the cuffs, off to the slammer.
In Texas you can refuse to take the tests legally but you automatically lose your license for 6 months on refusal to test, not DWI.
Some jurisdictions are exercising "No Refusal Weekends" like 4th of July. Judges are standing by with search warrants filled out that only need your name on them to have a cop draw your blood (in some instances).
Farewell 4th Amendment.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: Nitrogen on July 13, 2008, 08:24:55 AM
I hope someone well-to-do enough has this happen to them, and gets this law challenged and invalidated
Post by: Joe Demko on July 15, 2008, 10:34:18 AM
Post by: ilbob on July 15, 2008, 10:36:31 AM
Bloodshot and watery eyes? What, like...allergy?
or just the weasel words the courts have pretty much agreed is all it takes for LE to justify whatever it wants to do.
Post by: Balog on July 15, 2008, 10:57:37 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on July 15, 2008, 10:58:49 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 15, 2008, 12:31:27 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on July 16, 2008, 03:34:36 AM
I'm always amazed at how fascist Texas is. Registered glassware, raids on sex shops, and now pre-filled warrants? Why in the world are Texans so proud of that place?
I don't go to bars or sex shops, and don't drink and drive.
So it doesn't bother nearly as much as it should.