On February 20, 2013, after interfering with an arrest, Mr. Paul was arrested by Officer Marsha Dennehey, a thirteen-year veteran police officer of the Ann Arbor Police Department. (R. at 1, 6, and 14). Officer Dennehey has experience in identifying and handling drunk drivers because Ann Arbor is a college town and “heavily target[s] drunk drivers.” (R. at 14). She is also trained in recognizing and avoiding excessive force, as she chose to take training seminars on it almost every year it has been offered. (R. at 31).
Mr. Paul was a passenger in the car with his three children, his two daughters (who “were pretty wasted… [one] throwing back Jack and Cokes all night long… [while the other had about six beers that night, which is about five
…show more content…
(R. at 15). The driver “patently refused and started yelling” at Officer Dennehey, screaming things such as, “I don’t have to blow into that. You can’t make me take any test!” and “Fine! We’ll see who’s drunk.” (R. at 9 and 15). Officer Dennehey arrested the driver. (R. at 15). As she explained, “[r]efusing to take a breathalyzer is immediate grounds for arrest.” (R. at 15). Officer Dennehey told the driver that he was arrested for driving while intoxicated and continued following “standard procedure,” including frisking the arrestee “to make sure that [the person does] not have weapons hidden on their person. (R. at …show more content…
at 25). Under a minute after the first Taser use, the Taser was used again while Mr. Paul was “noncompliant” with his arrest, allowing Officer Dennehey to struggle with him to get his wrist in the handcuffs (R. at 16 and 24). Officer Dennehey warned Mr. Paul, repeatedly telling him before handcuffing him, “Don’t move!” (R. 16). Mr. Paul says he “blurted out… ‘I can’t do this!’” and was heard shouting “to the two passengers still in the vehicle, ‘…Someone get her away from me!’” (R. at 16). The driver claimed he yelled at Office Dennehey, “Watch his shoulder,” but, at the time, he admits his sisters were “still crying and yelling” along with shrieking. (R. at 11). There were as many as four people at the scene yelling at Officer Dennehey all at once, including Mr. Paul himself, as she tried to arrest him. (R. at 11 and 16). Despite this, Mr. Paul admitted that, at that moment, nobody had expressed to the officer any excuse or reason as to why he was not complying with Officer Dennehey during handcuffing. (R. at 5 and
The author begins his article with a story of how his own son, as a teenager, spent time in the police barracks: the author’s son, despite being “reasonable” and understanding (after the fact), was cited for reckless driving--something that is the antithesis of being “reasonable.”
In the first incident, Clayton Harris’s truck was pulled over by Officer Wheetley because it had an expired license plate. When Wheetley approached the vehicle the suspect
took steps back and fired taser darts. The next part to occur was recorded by a bystander. The
Upon arrival Mansfield PD Officer's were on the scene and had suspect in custody. I spoke Mckay Briggs, Andrey B/M, DOB 09/07/1984, who said that after his step daughter Lovender, Ashlin DOB 06/01/2012 dance recital his mother in law Kent, Ruby DOB 05/27/1960 tried going to the stage to see Ashlin and he told her that she couldn't. Mckay Briggs said that the dance company said that only one care giver per child was allowed on stage. Mckay Briggs said that he got in front of his mother in law trying to prevent her from going on stage. Mckay Briggs said that Kent went around him and continued going on stage and again he stepped in front of her to try and prevent her from going on stage. Mckay Briggs said that the third time he got him front of Kent she pulled a taser out of her purse and begin trying to tase him. Mckay Briggs said that Kent touched him twice with the taser, but was not shocked by the taser. I spoke with Kent who said that she pulled out her taser because she felt threatened. Kent said that she never had to use the taser therefore she didn,t know how to work it. Kent said that she tried tasing Mckay Briggs, but she never made contact with him. Kent said that she was only trying to present her grand
Problems arise when police use their discretionary powers when they take into custody drunk drivers. According to http://faculty.ncwc. edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm, there are three types of police officers that will make driving under the influence (D.U.I.) arrests. These are "(1) rate busters; (2) moralists, or drunk-haters; and (3) bounty hunters, who wish to collect the overtime pay." Then there are those officers that do not make the necessary arrests because they are lazy; have an opinion that D.U.I. 's are not a severe problem; or have a lack of faith of the arrest in general. (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm)
At DUI checkpoints, law enforcement officers may also ask drivers to perform chemical testing, such as breath, blood or urine tests. Many people are confused about their rights regarding this type of testing. In general, a driver who has not been arrested has the right to refuse preliminary breath tests. If he or she has not consumed any alcohol, however, then it may be in his or her best interests to agree to these
The officer had enough in this case to make an arrest. Because Bernard refused to take a breath test, he was charged with 2 counts of test refusal. In my opinion, everything in this case was in accordance with the law with the except of the additional refusal charge. I believe a Driving Under Influence and a lying to a police officer charge should had been added to this case. The Supreme Court agreed with the charges.
On Thursday, June 23rd, 2016 at approximately 2315 hrs while driving a Midland Police vehicle and wearing a standard issued MPD uniform Officer Jimenez was dispatched to 4201 Harlowe Dr. in reference to a Burglary of a Habitation. MPD Dispatch advised Officer Jimenez that complainant wanted to report that someone broke into his house and took several electronic items without his effective consent.
Also one must look into some of the misunderstandings about defending a suspect who is accused of drunk driving. One of the main misapprehensions of being accused of driving while under the influence is an excessive margin of the people accused of driving while under the influence are guilty. In the majority of Dui cases like these, just a breath exam is used, not a blood examination, which is much more exact than just a breath exam. Yet still in the majority of cases the lack of effort and an even less amount of argument goes into cases which only involve a breath exam. This face can be because of the method is in state approved and a massive amount of law enforcement agency are obligated for the jurisdiction which is used by the agencies. According to a study that has been done on field sobriety tests, they are not given similarly time after time. Showing that most officers are conducting field sobriety test in the wrong/inconsistence manners. The field sobriety tests are normally assumed to be inconclusive for the reasons as the suspect/accused could have any known/unknown medical conduction that the officers could mostly likely mistake. For example, bloodshot eyes while driving and under the influence, but due to ones medical conduction could actually be caused by contact lenses irritation or allergies. Finally to concluded these misunderstandings on the No-Refusal law, that it is/could be a more effective way to have fewer unlawfully convictions only due to the required blood draw for a more accurate and effective reading of blood alcohol level instead of the breath test or other field sobriety test the officers might conduct. In a recent article in “russellfrostlaw” it states that, “Law enforcement officers across the state claim that the program
Once Matt was at the Juneau Police Department, he was asked to do a breathalyzer test for the Data Master. The officer said he observed Matt for 15 minutes then took a breathalyzer test. Matt didn’t blow consistently, to the test failed. Matt was again observed for another 15 minutes before doing another breathalyzer test and once again, he didn’t do it properly. Matt was observed for another 15 minutes before they tried the test again and his alcohol level showed 150.
The Court found that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to Miranda warnings regardless of the severity of the offense. However, we refuse to adopt McCarty’s argument every detained motorist must be advised of his rights. Questioning at a traffic stop is different from stationhouse interrogation and is more in line with a Terry stop. Nothing in the record indicates McCarty should have been given Miranda warnings prior to being placed under arrest.
New legislation regarding drunk driving is constantly being drawn up, debated, and passed in the United States. Many states are working to make the penalties for drunk driving much harsher, especially for repeat offenders (Xavier). Currently, in every state, the minimum punishment for convicted drunk drivers involves the automatic loss of their licenses for a period of time determined by the state (Xavier). An offender’s driver’s license should be automatically suspended or revoked after a drunk driving conviction and do away with the possibility of an implied consent hearing. An implied consent hearing is an administrative hearing conducted by an administrative law judge to determine if the suspension legal under all applicable statutes. By law, a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for driving under the influence. Just by driving a motor vehicle, the motorist has consented to giving a sample.
The role of the law enforcers is provided in the Implied Consent Law that allows the police officers to require drivers to submit to alcohol tests upon request. The law requires that a driver agrees to the alcoholic tests within their blood upon taking the action of driving along the roads within the borders of the U.S. Illegal Per Se Law on the other hand guards on the application of Blood Alcohol Concentration of drivers (Bergman and Berman-Barrett, 2013). The BAC levels are set at 0.08 percent with drivers operating under a percentage equal to or over the prescribed percentage liable to a criminal offence of DUI upon discovery. Upon suspecting a driver as drunk, a law enforcement agency makes the driver stop the vehicle and the immediately subjects the driver to a sobriety test. The test may occur through taking the samples of the drivers’ blood and subjecting them to a test or requesting the driver to undergo a breath test. The police officer often asks the suspected driver to perform various tasks with the intention of assessing the existence of impairment on the driver based on both physical and cognitive abilities. One such example of a sobriety test that a police officer may request a driver to undertake is walking a straight line or requesting the person to recite the alphabetical letters from the end. Furthermore, a police officer may
Officer Buffington did a great job at identifying an article that was taken from a church during a burglary. Officer Buffington asissted Detictive Reece with searching a building for more evidence. A few more items were found which may be involved in other burglaries, which were seized. Officer Buffington processed the evidence to further assist Detective Reece.
The motorist in the video Top 3 Sobriety Tests No. 2 aroused the officer's suspicion when her car was veering between lanes the highway. When stopped, the motorist seemed uncertain of what she was doing and where she was. "I don't know," she replied when asked how much she had to drink. She was barely able to put the car in park and seemed more concerned about tying her shoelaces than the test or her serious situation. Questions which often arise when determining if someone is driving under the influence are: "Does the person answer the officer's question or exhibit a stream of consciousness talking that bears no relation to the question? Does the person appear to be disheveled or unable to stay alert?" (Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen 2010: 122). The woman in the video exhibited all of these 'red flag' signs. However, the officer's use of the field sobriety tests indicates that even when intoxication may seem 'obvious' it is still necessary to establish DUI with objective sources of information. The ability of the driver to perform the tests assigned