Pilot arrested for DUI blows .00

Tarheelpilot said:
Speaking as a former cop I’ll just say that talking to the police will either hurt or help. Not talking to the police will either hurt you or help.

You’ll find out which one is true after you decide.
Click to expand...

It’s a two-way street. My favorite LEO question, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Speaking as a former cop I’ll just say that talking to the police will either hurt or help. Not talking to the police will either hurt you or help.

You’ll find out which one is true after you decide.
Click to expand...
Being a compliant mute might or might not increase your chances of arrest, but it won't increase your chances of conviction. The same can't be said for blabbering.
 
Lindberg said:
Being a compliant mute might or might not increase your chances of arrest, but it won't increase your chances of conviction. The same can't be said for blabbering.
Click to expand...
Sometimes all that’s required for your life to be f’ed with a capitol F is the arrest.

No matter what the circumstances or your choice in how to handle the event, any involuntary interaction with a LEO is high risk.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Speaking as a former cop I’ll just say that talking to the police will either hurt or help. Not talking to the police will either hurt you or help.

You’ll find out which one is true after you decide.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the downside is greater than the upside. And you can always decide to talk later, maybe after getting legal advice, but you can't decide to untalk if you already have.
 
TCABM said:
It’s a two-way street. My favorite LEO question, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
Click to expand...

"To ask for a contribution to the Police Benevolent Association?" (While pulling out a wad of cash.)
 
Half Fast said:
It seems to me that the downside is greater than the upside. And you can always decide to talk later, maybe after getting legal advice, but you can't decide to untalk if you already have.
Click to expand...
True.

All I’m saying is there is nothing but grey when it comes to these type of interactions. Generally I lean towards less is better with regards to talking to a LEO. Every situation is different. Sometimes I’m a chatty Cathy. Other times not so much. Just depends. There is not an always right answer. There are scenarios where a compliant and open stance yields a great benefit. Other times that same approach is detrimental.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
There is not an always right answer. There are scenarios where a compliant and open stance yields a great benefit. Other times that same approach is detrimental.
Click to expand...

True. When I've been pulled over for speeding, I'm as compliant and open as I can be, and I'm sure it has helped me get a warning a few times. Here in FL we're not required to show our CCW permit during a traffic stop, but I always do and cops have said things like, "That's not necessary but it's appreciated" and it seems like the tension eases a bit and it makes things friendlier.

OTOH, if I'm ever asked by a cop why there's a corpse in my front yard and why I'm holding a warm .38, I think I'll just keep quiet....
 
TCABM said:
It’s a two-way street. My favorite LEO question, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
Click to expand...
When I had the Vette I had this one ready:

You saw this sweet ass car and just *had* to know who was driving it.

Never got the chance as I never got lit up while driving it.

Now it's "I hope one of us knows."

Actually I can't even answer the question because I'm required by law to "immediately" disclose I'm carrying. Of course the law doesn't define immediately.
 
EdFred said:
…Actually I can't even answer the question because I'm required by law to "immediately" disclose I'm carrying. Of course the law doesn't define immediately.
Click to expand...
Texas requires LTC holders to provide their LTC anytime an LEO demands ID if the license holder is carrying. Several years ago, the penalty for failing to do so was removed. Kind of made sense to get rid of the penalty because there’s multiple statutes under which a person can legally carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise.
 
EdFred said:
Actually I can't even answer the question because I'm required by law to "immediately" disclose I'm carrying.
Click to expand...

Varies by state, but it's usually best to disclose. Handing them your card seems to work better than shouting "I have a gun!" :)

Now that FL and TX and many other states have eliminated the requirement for a CCW permit, this may become more interesting. Cops should assume everyone is armed anyway, so is it really necessary to require disclosure?
 
Half Fast said:
Varies by state, but it's usually best to disclose. Handing them your card seems to work better than shouting "I have a gun!" :)

Now that FL and TX and many other states have eliminated the requirement for a CCW permit, this may become more interesting. Cops should assume everyone is armed anyway, so is it really necessary to require disclosure?
Click to expand...
The one time I found myself in a situation where I needed to identify myself as CCW to an officer, he just shrugged and said, "Isn't everyone?"
 
midwestpa24 said:
The one time I found myself in a situation where I needed to identify myself as CCW to an officer, he just shrugged and said, "Isn't everyone?"
Click to expand...

Pretty much that way here in Polk County, FL. Most folks are very polite....
 
Half Fast said:
Varies by state, but it's usually best to disclose. Handing them your card seems to work better than shouting "I have a gun!" :)

Now that FL and TX and many other states have eliminated the requirement for a CCW permit, this may become more interesting. Cops should assume everyone is armed anyway, so is it really necessary to require disclosure?
Click to expand...
Well in Michigan we can't just hand them the card, we have to verbally let them know. We still have the permit requirement, though I wouldn't be surprised if the crazy ***** in the governor's house tries to make it so no one can have one.
 
Half Fast said:
…TX … eliminated the requirement for a CCW permit…
Click to expand...
Specific to Texas only, the LTC benefits the license holder by providing a variety of “Does Not Apply”, defenses or exceptions to prosecution, a narrower range of prohibited places, and fast pass access to certain places, like the state capitol.

Some of those benefits extend via reciprocity agreements as well, and the permitless carry statute is not limited by residency status.
 
TCABM said:
Specific to Texas only, the LTC benefits the license holder by providing a variety of “Does Not Apply”, defenses or exceptions to prosecution, a narrower range of prohibited places, and fast pass access to certain places, like the state capitol.

Some of those benefits extend via reciprocity agreements as well, and the permitless carry statute is not limited by residency status.
Click to expand...

Similar here. The permit also waives the waiting period on gun purchases.
 
EdFred said:
Well in Michigan we can't just hand them the card, we have to verbally let them know. We still have the permit requirement, though I wouldn't be surprised if the crazy ***** in the governor's house tries to make it so no one can have one.
Click to expand...

Weren’t you planning to o flee Michigan?
 
unsafervguy said:
if they demand a second test after a 0.0 on their equipment they are treading on an forth amendment suit. they have no RAS, let alone probable cause for a second test. the police state at its best. just google loveland police abuse and see how bad that department is.
Click to expand...
Sure they have RAS. Your behavior is consistent with impairment by prohibited substances including alcohol drugs or combination.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The one time I found myself in a situation where I needed to identify myself as CCW to an officer, he just shrugged and said, "Isn't everyone?"
Click to expand...
Last fall I was chatting with a buddy who works for his county Sheriff’s department. I can’t remember the details of a stop he made, I think it was pretty benign and probably wasn’t even going to result in a warning. The driver said he was carrying, my buddy said, “That’s cool, as long as you don’t touch yours, I won’t touch mine.”
 
Clip4 said:
You guys might want to read the implied consent law in your state. The officer may administer tests. In most states that includes as many tests as the officer wants including several breath tests urine and blood.
Click to expand...
it varies. In PA you can refuse a breath test and demand a blood test. breath tests are generally not admissable, but can be used as probable cause to force an arrest and mandatory blood draw. so in some states it's better to refuse the breath test and go right for the blood draw... that will force the LEO to decide if he has enough for a DUI/DWI arrest
 
Half Fast said:
Weren’t you planning to o flee Michigan?
Click to expand...
Still am. But the retirement accounts are not there yet. And finding work making what I make with my lack of on paper qualifications won't happen.
 
TCABM said:
It’s a two-way street. My favorite LEO question, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
Click to expand...
My response the few times I have been asked this is, "No, but I bet you are about to tell me."

Followed by their question, "Where are you coming from and where are you headed."

Me, "(pointing behind me) from there, (pointing ahead of me) that way".

It's none of their business where I have been or where I am going. I don't drink at all and if I got pulled over for dui there is no way I am doing a field sobriety test. You want to draw blood, draw it, that is implied consent but I am not a performing monkey and a field sobriety test is never going to help your case only hurt you.

ETA: not a lawyer and not law advice
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Generally I lean towards less is better with regards to talking to a LEO. Every situation is different. Sometimes I’m a chatty Cathy. Other times not so much. Just depends.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you get pulled over alot LOL:crazy::crazy::crazy:
 
EdFred said:
That doesn't really work as some employers are requiring transcripts/degrees to be sent directly from the institution to them. Or they verify directly.
Click to expand...

You took me seriously? Hmmmmm.....

In any case, they include institutional envelopes to use for mailing transcripts. You just have to go to that town to mail it so as to get the correct postmark.

Or pick a college that no longer exists.
 
Blew a .00 in Germany. I was the DD and the Polizei pulled us over. First time I blew I about broke the breathalyzer. “Sir you blow too hard.” The second time he read off .00 and my reply with an attitude was “yeah, I already told you I haven’t had anything to drink tonight.”

I’m all about getting drunks off the road. I fly enough victims of drunks and watch enough YT vids of DUIs to know it’s a serious problem. But, if there’s no suspicion or probable cause, don’t waste their time.
 
Velocity173 said:
Blew a .00 in Germany. I was the DD and the Polizei pulled us over. First time I blew I about broke the breathalyzer. “Sir you blow too hard.” The second time he read off .00 and my reply with an attitude was “yeah, I already told you I haven’t had anything to drink tonight.”

I’m all about getting drunks off the road. I fly enough victims of drunks and watch enough YT vids of DUIs to know it’s a serious problem. But, if there’s no suspicion or probable cause, don’t waste their time.
Click to expand...
The last time I was pulled by an over zealous cop I asked for a pre arrest test. That requires a ride down to the state maintained testing equipment at the jail, a formal test administration and a ride back to my car after getting the 0.000 result.

The guy was more than a little miffed that he had invested almost two hours on a fruitless hunt for a drunk. Not my problem. I made sure there was no arrest record to report to the alcohol gestapo.

He should have paid more attention to his training in the DWI detection and investigation class.
 
I had a similar experience as above when I was in college. I went out to a bar around 9:00pm to meet some friends and listen to a band. I was not drinking that evening and was asked by one friend to drive him to his house as his car would not start. By this time it was a little past midnight at this well known late night honkey-tonk on the edge of town. When we pulled out of the parking lot we noticed a state trooper parked facing the highway on the opposite side of the road. He pulled out behind me and followed a short distance behind. My friend and I joked about the trooper missing a DUI collar since it was obvious he was waiting for an intoxicated customer to depart from the bar, and usually at this time of night, any car would be a target. After following us about one half mile he lit me up. He asked the usual questions about how many drinks did I have?, did you know you were swerving from lane to lane?, etc.. He obviously was miffed when I said I was actually being a DD for my friend, have not been drinking, and easily passed the FST. Not satisfied, he brought me into the local cop shop for a breathalyzer test....which I passed 3 consecutive times. He gave me a bogus ticket for improper lane usage and said I was lucky I didn't get a wreckless and careless! He would not give me a ride back to my vehicle and I had to make other arrangements (this was back in the early '80's, pre cell phone...so a major hassle). The thing is, I saw him when I entered the highway and was darned sure to exhibit my best driving behavior since I knew he was looking for drunk drivers (in a target rich environment). I wish there was dashcam back then because I would have gone to court on that one so that would have been presented as evidence. What the nice officer did not know was that I knew several of the local PD that were present and told me, once the trooper departed, that he was a known A-hole and that the judge is aware of it also. I did contact the judge who said he would handle it if I sent his clerk the citation; I did and he did. I, a bit later in life, had the state police superintendent as a patient with whom I had developed a very good relationship. I related my story from my youth and he actually remembered the officer well and stated he did not last but a few years and was discharged. The superintendent, then just retired, gave me his card and said while still on the job he was limited on favors he could grant but now, since retired, he could pull many more strings. He said, "If you get in any legal bind having to do with the police, I will be very upset if my number is not the first one called; I have connections you could not imagine". I still have his card as a memento although he is long deceased. I'm glad I never had to use it.
 
Last edited:
Confused about why there is a hard on here for this guy getting the business. He blow a 0.0, demonstrably not under the influence in any way. Do we really need to make this guy's life harder than it needs to be just to somehow robotically demonstrate some obtuse obsession with teetotalling? Guy wasn't guilty even if he made a dumb decision to perhaps not be overly cooperative.
 
robin ardoin said:
The superintendent, then just retired, gave me his card and said while still on the job he was limited on favors he could grant but now, since retired, he could pull many more strings. He said, "If you get in any legal bind having to do with the police, I will be very upset if my number is not the first one called; I have connections you could not imagine".
Click to expand...

Oh, I could use one of those......

1717642393839.png
 
squincher said:
I believe he was cleared after the blood results came back.

You are right about the roadside tests. If you are in fact impaired you are probably already done by the time the officer asks you to perform the tests. The only variable, at least in my state, is whether you lose your license for 30 days for testing over the limit, or a year for refusing chemical tests. Either way, you are likely looking at the same plea deal.

With this guy having civil cases pending against two different agencies, I'm wondering if he isn't putting on an act to get himself arrested when he isn't impaired so he can sue. He has awfully bad luck, otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, this is actually a case of retaliation. They were keeping their eye on him. Some of these smaller town departments are extremely corrupt. And the two cops who arrested him both had "awards" For their high DWI/DUI arrests.
It's a complete racket.
 
Sundancer said:
I saw that a while back - my take is he was impaired, he knew it, and he delayed as much as possible. It doesn't have to be alcohol that causes the impairment. I understand that's why some departments ask for the acrobatic field sobriety tests before asking for the driver to blow - to show probable cause the driver was likely impaired by some substance, even it wasn't alcohol. A blood alcohol test over the limit is great evidence, but they do get convictions for DUI without chemical tests for drugs - I guess if a cop's the body cam and his testimony shows a driver to be obviously impaired the driver's lawyer will get them to plead out.
Click to expand...
No he was stone cold sober. That's why this case is a big deal... and now he has a second one in the neighboring town. In this second one they charged him with child abuse because his son was in the car.
Some of these departments are extremely corrupt, or they at least have some very bad seeds... And they run these DUI rackets.
You can be completely sober nowadays, and end up arrested for DUI, spend thousands of dollars, have your license suspended while waiting months & months for the bloodwork to prove your innocence
.. and lose your job.
All while you were completely sober and some corrupt cop is trying to get a DUI "award" in his department... And he deemed you "impaired" for ZERO reason
 
Carter said:
No, this is actually a case of retaliation. They were keeping their eye on him. Some of these smaller town departments are extremely corrupt. And the two cops who arrested him both had "awards" For their high DWI/DUI arrests.
It's a complete racket.
Click to expand...

Neither of them is exactly "small," and with a combined population approaching 250K I doubt they have a lot of time to single out guy because he wasn't drunk when he was arrested. I'd think they would be better at retaliation, if that's what they were up to.
Carter said:
No he was stone cold sober. That's why this case is a big deal... and now he has a second one in the neighboring town. In this second one they charged him with child abuse because his son was in the car.
Some of these departments are extremely corrupt, or they at least have some very bad seeds... And they run these DUI rackets.
You can be completely sober nowadays, and end up arrested for DUI, spend thousands of dollars, have your license suspended while waiting months & months for the bloodwork to prove your innocence
.. and lose your job.
All while you were completely sober and some corrupt cop is trying to get a DUI "award" in his department... And he deemed you "impaired" for ZERO reason
Click to expand...

If the police do the blood draw, you aren't charged until the results come back. That means you aren't spending thousands, and your license isn't suspended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top