What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

Missa said:
We all know the "legal limit" but it really doesn't exist, we are just told it does so we go out and have ONE beer or glass of wine, we think were ok because we are under the legal limit and then get arrested and charged.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of this where the charges were upheld?

Missa said:
The issue here is no one is informed about the law so they make a decision based on the lies they were told and then break the law without deciding to.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you think people are being tricked into breaking the law in order to provide the municipality with revenue? Seems to me that prosecuting a drunk driving case would cost as much as any fines that are collected, especially if the person has to spend some time in jail. The revenue generator in my county is not drunk driving, it's speeding. Much easier, most people plea bargain by mail and pay the fine.
 
Everskyward said:
Do you have an example of this where the charges were upheld?

Are you saying that you think people are being tricked into breaking the law in order to provide the municipality with revenue? Seems to me that prosecuting a drunk driving case would cost as much as any fines that are collected, especially if the person has to spend some time in jail. The revenue generator in my county is not drunk driving, it's speeding. Much easier, most people plea bargain by mail and pay the fine.
Click to expand...

Whether the charges are upheld or not, you are out thousands of dollars.
 
for some reason this thread reminded me of this hilarious picture:

23430025.jpg
 
Missa said:
But a good start would be to not give officers a finical incentive to arrest a person for a DUI. (just give them a raise and be done with it) That way we can be certain they work for us not for the money. Go back to "protect and serve" instead of generate revenue.
Click to expand...

You know the first few times I read this accusation, I just giggled at the uninformed and wondered where all my extra paychecks over the years went. But after about the 5th time of reading this hogwash, it's getting down right offensive. It is ILLEGAL for any agency to compensate officers based on quotas OF ANY KIND. Which is what seems to be implied here. In all my years as a cop, I have NEVER been told my raises were tied to how many arrests I made, let alone how many DWI/DUI arrests I did or did not make. If there is any agency paying cops based on how many arrests they make of any kind, then people shouldn't be ranting and raving about it here, they should be ranting and raving about it on the floor of their state government houses, or at the offices of their Attorney General.

I won't argue that convictions have resulted in nothing but revenue streams for States, and a lot of cops will be right there beside you screaming about it (this one included), but cops do not directly benefit from the fines and in very few circumstances do they indirectly benefit by getting better equipment or more cops on the streets. And we have ZERO say in what happens after the handcuffs get put on. I can assure you, when you're being asked to perform a field sobriety test, the last thing on the mind of that officer is whether his/her decision to arrest will result in .02 worth of any fine or not. And to be perfectly honest, of all the DWI related grant/state money I've ever seen given to a agency in my 20+ years, NONE of it was based on how many DWI arrests the agency made, it was ALL based on the percentage of reduction in alcohol related traffic accidents an agency had over a given period of time.
 
Yes, and cops never lie under oath (witnessed it personally). Nor do they force their way into a residence without a warrant. Nor do they do anything wrong, ever...

Excuse me while I puke at the "innocence."
 
EdFred said:
Yes, and cops never lie under oath (witnessed it personally). Nor do they force their way into a residence without a warrant. Nor do they do anything wrong, ever...

Excuse me while I puke at the "innocence."
Click to expand...

And neither do lawyers, pilots, bus drivers or school teachers etc. If you find one lying under oath or breaking a law, feel free to prosecute with them with my blessing...any of them, just don't lump me in with the stereotypes.
 
EdFred said:
Yes, and cops never lie under oath (witnessed it personally). Nor do they force their way into a residence without a warrant. Nor do they do anything wrong, ever...

Excuse me while I puke at the "innocence."
Click to expand...
Yes, there are some dishonest cops out there. I've seen it myself when a state trooper suddenly changed his definition of "inside lane" to mean that lane closest to him even though it was the far right lane in the direction of travel. The citation he wrote included his notes on the back of "inside lane."

However, that's the exception and not the rule. While there is rampant corruption in some larger cities, to paint all cops with that image is simply wrong.

You might as well paint me as one of those rich, privileged pilots who shouldn't deserve to fly airplanes as I please.
 
ausrere said:
And neither do lawyers, pilots, bus drivers or school teachers etc. If you find one lying under oath or breaking a law, feel free to prosecute with them with my blessing...any of them, just don't lump me in with the stereotypes.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked a bus driver or pilot couldn't force their way into a residence, intimidate, and then come back later with a warrant and arrest someone, after they used the information obtained in the first illegal entry. Oh, and good luck prosecuting them when the two that show up cover each other's backs.
 
I think there is a loss on the distinction between it being legal to have a drink and drive home versus a drink then flying...

Sec. 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft --
(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
(2) While under the influence of alcohol;
(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or (4) While having .04 percent by weight or more alcohol in the blood.
Click to expand...
No wiggle room on that one.
 
KennyFlys said:
I think there is a loss on the distinction between it being legal to have a drink and drive home versus a drink then flying...
Click to expand...
No, I think everyone understands that. It's just that some people (not me) are saying that just because you might have a drink and drive home that it logically follows that you will have a drink and fly.
 
There is, in fact, a legal limit, and being pulled over below it can result in a DWI arrest, but only if the police officer suspects that you're "influenced." I can't imagine a police officer arresting someone because of mouth wash, or because they had a beer or 2 and were perfectly sober. When you go to court, for free, I might add, you can explain away any physical disabilities to the judge and they will not uphold the arrest.

Short of seeing evidence that police officers are compensated for arrests or that anyone has actually been convicted for a mouth wash or 1 beer offense, I'm just not buying it. We had a few people here in New Mexico that were convicted on under .08 BAC, but they were absolutely ****faced, each one of them, and there was no excuse for them to be driving.

One undeniable fact? Implied Consent. Fail to take the breathalyzer and you are arrested for DWI. Sorry, Mark, but I think thinks have changed since you were a police officer, because they can and very often DO uphold arrests and convict people for implied consent violations, and its a minimum suspension of a year, usually.

But Missa, I don't know what made you such an angry person regarding police officers keeping the streets clear of drunks, but whatever it was, I can't compete with that and appeal to your logical side until whatever causes it calms down.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
No, I think everyone understands that. It's just that some people (not me) are saying that just because you might have a drink and drive home that it logically follows that you will have a drink and fly.
Click to expand...
I think that's pretty much the FAA's thinking if you substitute "are more likely to" for "will" above.
 
SkyHog said:
One undeniable fact? Implied Consent. Fail to take the breathalyzer and you are arrested for DWI.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly the law. "Implied consent" means that all persons driving on the roads are assumed to have consented to a blood alcohol test (i.e., to give blood/urine) upon reasonable suspicion of DUI. I do not believe that by itself, refusing to take a breathalyzer constitutes such reasonable suspicion. However, since it is my understanding they need at least reasonable suspicion in order to give you the breathalyzer in the first place, the next step after that is likely to be arrest for DUI and a demand for blood/urine for the BAC test, which you cannot legally refuse. If you refuse to submit to that BAC despite your previous implied consent, you have violated the consent law (but not necessarily the DUI law) However, violation of the implied consent law will cost you your driving license for some period and a required self-initiated report to the FAA.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think that's pretty much the FAA's thinking if you substitute "are more likely to" for "will" above.
Click to expand...
"More likely to" is probably right. But how much more likely? I don't think that just because the new wording might stop some offenders, that it is right to punish other people who may unjustly be caught up in the whole mess. Of course what I think doesn't count for anything. I'm just throwing that out there.
 
I don't think anyone believes that LEOs get kickbacks from the citations they issue. On the other hand, while the LEOs on this board do not have quotas for issued citations either implied or enforced, I have personally known LEOs who did. Nearby communities use speed traps and traffic enforcement for revenue generation (as does my University), and it would not surprise me if DUIs were considered likewise. Certainly the checkpoints where they stop everyone to check for sobriety smack of such, not to mention skirting the US constitution.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's not exactly the law. "Implied consent" means that all persons driving on the roads are assumed to have consented to a blood alcohol test (i.e., to give blood/urine) upon reasonable suspicion of DUI. I do not believe that by itself, refusing to take a breathalyzer constitutes such reasonable suspicion. However, since it is my understanding they need at least reasonable suspicion in order to give you the breathalyzer in the first place, the next step after that is likely to be arrest for DUI and a demand for blood/urine for the BAC test, which you cannot legally refuse. If you refuse to submit to that BAC despite your previous implied consent, you have violated the consent law (but not necessarily the DUI law) However, violation of the implied consent law will cost you your driving license for some period and a required self-initiated report to the FAA.
Click to expand...

It depends on the state...and I think some of this might be case law. In some states--if you refuse the breathalyzer you're done and convicted under implied consent. Other states allow you to refuse the breathalyzer in exchange for a urine / blood test.
 
steingar said:
I don't think anyone believes that LEOs get kickbacks from the citations they issue. On the other hand, while the LEOs on this board do not have quotas for issued citations either implied or enforced, I have personally known LEOs who did. Nearby communities use speed traps and traffic enforcement for revenue generation (as does my University), and it would not surprise me if DUIs were considered likewise. Certainly the checkpoints where they stop everyone to check for sobriety smack of such, not to mention skirting the US constitution.
Click to expand...

I do! They're called "performance bonuses" for exceeding standards, which are not "exactly" quotas.

Now, they've got to make good cases, otherwise they fail to meet OTHER performance standards, so it's not a clear case of "bust everybody to make your boat payment". It just smells a bit.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's not exactly the law. "Implied consent" means that all persons driving on the roads are assumed to have consented to a blood alcohol test (i.e., to give blood/urine) upon reasonable suspicion of DUI. I do not believe that by itself, refusing to take a breathalyzer constitutes such reasonable suspicion. However, since it is my understanding they need at least reasonable suspicion in order to give you the breathalyzer in the first place, the next step after that is likely to be arrest for DUI and a demand for blood/urine for the BAC test, which you cannot legally refuse. If you refuse to submit to that BAC despite your previous implied consent, you have violated the consent law (but not necessarily the DUI law) However, violation of the implied consent law will cost you your driving license for some period and a required self-initiated report to the FAA.
Click to expand...

I found this interesting view, from a DUI defense attorney website on the legality and arguments surrounding implied consent.
http://www.dui1.com/Dui_Lawyers_Driving19.htm

DUI lawyers strive to remind courts that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, "the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Although valid arguments have been raised regarding this right in DUI cases, such arguments have been repeatedly rejected.
Click to expand...
An interesting read to be sure.

Also I recall, but cannot find the post, someone raising the issue of implied consent on one's licensed state and how it applies in another state. Here is a blurb on that idea.

While implied consent laws vary by state, your implied consent applies to the state in which you were arrested, not the state where you got your license. That is, if you have a license in a state with no implied consent laws, and you are arrested in a state that does have implied consent laws, you are subject to that state’s implied consent laws.
Click to expand...
http://www.1800duilaws.com/article/implied_consent.asp
 
jesse said:
It depends on the state...and I think some of this might be case law. In some states--if you refuse the breathalyzer you're done and convicted under implied consent. Other states allow you to refuse the breathalyzer in exchange for a urine / blood test.
Click to expand...
I don't know of any state where the "implied consent" statute is not a separate charge from the DUI statute. If you refuse, you're pretty much toast on violating the implied consent law (unless you can show they did not have cause to make the demand -- and that's not an easy thing to do) and then you can still be convicted on the DUI charge without the BAC test if they have sufficient other evidence of DUI to convince the court beyond a reaonable doubt. IOW, by refusing, you just turned one charge into two.
 
smigaldi said:
I found this interesting view, from a DUI defense attorney website on the legality and arguments surrounding implied consent.
http://www.dui1.com/Dui_Lawyers_Driving19.htm
Click to expand...
Pretty much reads like DUI lawyers would like the implied consent laws to be unconstitutional, but every court in the land says they aren't. Kinda like the folks who disagree with the FAA about flight into known icing -- you can argue all you want about the unfairness of it all, but you'll lose in court if they catch you.
 
smigaldi said:
I failed a drug test because of poppy seed bagels. But when I talked with the doc he told me he could tell from the trace level in my blood that it was baked goods that caused the failure.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the judge:mad3:
 
smigaldi said:
I failed a drug test because of poppy seed bagels. But when I talked with the doc he told me he could tell from the trace level in my blood that it was baked goods that caused the failure.
Click to expand...

Wow! You were able to find a functioning brain cell at your employer after a positive? I didn't think such was possible with "zero tolerance."

Good on ya!

As far as I remember I *might* have had one drug test on hiring. It was a long time ago. We don't have retests without cause.
 
Ron Levy said:
We don't know that with any certainty -- that question is still under adjudication.
That we do know.
Ms. Wagstaff's driving license was issued in Florida, not Wisconsin. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, we don't know whether she knew what the law is in Wisconsin, so her legal consent was almost certainly only implied, not explicit.
Thanks for the "appears" -- this, too, is a question yet to be answered by the court.
Click to expand...

Florida has express consent as well, I can't think of a state that doesn't, I think it's actually a requirement for Federal Highway money, much like seat belt laws.
 
smigaldi said:
Luckily it was just random work place testing. But it was a close enough call that I stopped eating poppy seed bagel. Well for 10 years then about a week ago i had to have one. I love those things.
Click to expand...

Poppy seed muffins are even worse.
 
tonycondon said:
for some reason this thread reminded me of this hilarious picture:
Click to expand...

Given the facial expressions and general appearance of most of the women in that picture, I'd take that statement as an incentive to drink.
 
Implied consent is considered constitutional because driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Conditions may be set for use of that privilege provided they are not based existing rights enumerated in the Constitution.
 
Ron Levy said:
Which is exactly why the FAA changed the wording. They have concluded that people who play chicken with the DUI laws to the point of getting arrested will do the same in airplanes, and it is well-proven that piloting is less forgiving of alcohol than driving.
Click to expand...

SOME will, but to make a blanket statement that all will is BS. I do not "play chicken" with DUI laws, however as a former law enforcement officer with heavy training in arresting drunks I KNOW that average alcohol metabolism rate, and KNOW that one beer will not make me DUI, nor unfit to drive. YET I will NOT get anywhere NEAR a plane to be fly it if I have had a drink anytime in the last 24 hours.

You see I CAN make such distinctions, as can many here I believe.
 
Everskyward said:
Do you have an example of this where the charges were upheld?
Click to expand...

I have done it. The levels just give you a prima facia case. If I detected alcohol, and could articulate that your driving was erratic and a danger, I could nail you for DUI even under the legal limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top