King Biggie Cube
Footballguy
yo you all will see that kbc is in the know. mah boy is innocent!
hes talkin to mah boy al now fo sho.
hes talkin to mah boy al now fo sho.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
David Boston with a little DUI action (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FavreCo
- Start date
Tirnan
Footballguy
Sorry, it took me a couple days to get back to this thread. The BS flag was thrown for FSTs being largely about (aka as I called it the primary purpose) getting the suspect to incriminate himself. I jumped to the conclusion that FSTs were just a shell game to you. My apologies. I disagree with your premise though, the tests will give you all the probable cause you need. As I stated all my experience (and it was only a year and a half) was on a federal installation. I do agree that tests results can be skewed in the eyes of the officer performing them. For us at least, we had to document every deviation and ended up losing very few cases in court. I still need to go watch that video and try to determine as an outside viewer if anything seems really off base in the testing.Um, why so quick to play the "BS!" card, chief? I said it was a "large part of the point," which is not the same as "their primary purpose." Not to doubt your law enforcement experience, but if you don't understand that FSTs are largely for show and mean whatever the officer wants them to mean, then . . . well . . . I guess I have to doubt your experience.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
Getting the suspect to incriminate himself/herself (gotta go EEO hereSorry, it took me a couple days to get back to this thread. The BS flag was thrown for FSTs being largely about (aka as I called it the primary purpose) getting the suspect to incriminate himself. I jumped to the conclusion that FSTs were just a shell game to you. My apologies. I disagree with your premise though, the tests will give you all the probable cause you need. As I stated all my experience (and it was only a year and a half) was on a federal installation. I do agree that tests results can be skewed in the eyes of the officer performing them. For us at least, we had to document every deviation and ended up losing very few cases in court. I still need to go watch that video and try to determine as an outside viewer if anything seems really off base in the testing.Um, why so quick to play the "BS!" card, chief? I said it was a "large part of the point," which is not the same as "their primary purpose." Not to doubt your law enforcement experience, but if you don't understand that FSTs are largely for show and mean whatever the officer wants them to mean, then . . . well . . . I guess I have to doubt your experience.
) is certainly one of the benefits, from the law enforcement perspective, of FSTs. The rest of it is mostly just cover, and I think you and I are actually saying close to the same thing. As you said, the tests give you all the probable cause you need - - because no one passes them, ever. The only way you get released if an officer performs FSTs is if the cop didn't really find what s/he was looking for (i.e., the smell of alcohol on the breath is gone or was never there in the first place, an incident of weaving late at night is accompanied by no evidence of impairment, etc.) and is just doing it to scare you and justify the stop - - but that's very rare. Trust me, as a lawyer that has defended DUI cases (although I don't do it anymore) - - the best advice is to refuse FSTs altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some of us actually have jobs that take precedence over message board banter.You aren't free to do as you please when you are stopped for suspicion of any crime, let alone a DUI. As a general rule, there is no right to an attorney until you have submitted to (or refused) blood, breath or urine testing. In some states, there is a right to consult with counsel upon being arrested or before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing. Your right to speak to an attorney doesn't kick in until you've been arrested.
Routilla
Footballguy
I cannot find squat but I am still hopeful that DB is going to be my sleeper Top 15 WR.
maxwell1295
Footballguy
Somebody just dropped Greg Jennings in one of my leagues. I think I'm gonna pick him up and drop Boston in the process...
The Man Who Met Andy Griffith
Footballguy
Keith Lewis
Footballguy
Redding
Footballguy
bollocks28
Footballguy
Gotta say the video looks good for Boston. Yeah he's a little pissy but he seems to handle the tests fairly well. Also, could the cop have been any more patronizing?
Assuming the blood test doesn't show anything I'm pretty sure he can score a lawyer that would get him off.
Assuming the blood test doesn't show anything I'm pretty sure he can score a lawyer that would get him off.
Kirby
Footballguy
Sweet! Why didn't someone post this earlier?
switz
Footballguy
DUI Test Results In Boston Case Could Come By Thursday
Interesting points in the article.First, so far nothing on 10 drugs tested for. Yet they're still pressing (apparently this is not normal procedure.)
Second, the police report now contains a different reason for Boston being there than the original reason police stated to the news - travelling from Celebration to the Airport.
Third, this has happened to Boston before. Maybe he does have narcolepsy or something as of yet undiagnosed.
Fourth, the team still stands behind him.
switz
Footballguy
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
Question. WTF does it mean what a team conducts their own investigation? It doesn't make any sense to me when I hear it. Maybe they are getting some info off the record from those in the know?
Yitbos69
Footballguy
So your only right before being arrested is to refuse any testing in a situation like this(possible DUI)?Some of us actually have jobs that take precedence over message board banter.You aren't free to do as you please when you are stopped for suspicion of any crime, let alone a DUI. As a general rule, there is no right to an attorney until you have submitted to (or refused) blood, breath or urine testing. In some states, there is a right to consult with counsel upon being arrested or before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing. Your right to speak to an attorney doesn't kick in until you've been arrested.
Or maybe they asked him for a urine sample and their lab found nothing in it. That would end the story as far as they are concerned. (The NFL uses far more sophisticated techniques then most city police departments). The Tampa Bay police are grasping at straws.
Lock Daddy
Footballguy
Here's another angle of the Boston field sobriety test:
You also have the right to remain silent, which Boston obviously didn't have the ability to do.So your only right before being arrested is to refuse any testing in a situation like this(possible DUI)?
cyric29
Footballguy
You should actually look up the law before spouting off nonsence. No state requires a person to submit to a FST. It is not implied on your license. Implied Consent ...LMAOAnd just for a bit more information, talk to any lawyer specializing in traffic offenses, without a doubt they will tell you that even if you decide to submit to a FST, you have every right to request that a lawyer be present for it.
cyric29
Footballguy
Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about...none at all.
No, you don't. A field sobriety test is exactly that, a test done done by the officer in the field to determine whether he's going to arrest you. While you have the right to refuse to take the test, you do not have the right to request that a lawyer be present for it.cyric29 said:
Frank Black
Footballguy
As an attorney for the attorney general's office and a former criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that an individual DOES have the right to have an attorney present during a field sobriety test.
In your opinion, is there any chance this could vary from to state to state? Just trying to get my head around the polar stances being tossed around on this point.
cyric29
Footballguy
Finally someone who actually understand the law.
Christo - you may be right, I'm not an attorney. But this poster just told you what he did for a living. he doesn't need a link. It is about time you tell us what your qualifications are to be making the definitive statements (without links) you are making. Please understand, I am not at all sure of the answer, but it just makes no sense to me that a police officer can deny me the ability to call an attorney on his say so. If he hasn't arrested me, I am free to do what I need to do (those actions may result in my arrest though, such as trying to leave the scene) and once I am arrested I am entitled to talk to an attorney. Are you a prosecutor or a defense attorney? The other poster states he is.
cyric29
Footballguy
you are as bad as mad sweeney....
Otis
Footballguy
Also a lawyer here, and yes, these are state laws we are dealing with, so they may vary from state to state. I can't say whether the laws differ on these issues though.
Otis
Footballguy
I think the trouble is this -- Christo is right that your right to representation does not kick in until you are arrested. THAT SAID, and the reason for my postings above, is that, until you are arrested, you are technically a free person. So if you decide you want to tell the cop to screw off, open your cell phone, and call your lawyer, you certainly can. Now, will the officer let you? Maybe not. Maybe at that point he decides, to cuff you and put you in the back seat of the car. But you are not in custody at that point, and so you should technically be able to do whatever you want, even if, as a practical matter, the cop was going to be a jerk and make sure that you don't speak to your lawyer about any of this.The cop here was definitely misleading.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
Last edited by a moderator:
cyric29
Footballguy
I was partially wrong on the issue about the right to representation during an FST, it varies from state to state. Some states allow you to call immediately for counsel during FST, others not until you are asked to take a chemical or urine test.From the reading I've been doing though it looks as though there have and maybe more challenges to this, as the entire procedure falls under detainment and questioning...so have to see what happens in the future. I'm 100% in favor of this, FST's are IMO, a physical interogation used by the police to incriminate a suspect.I think the trouble is this -- Christo is right that your right to representation does not kick in until you are arrested. THAT SAID, and the reason for my postings above, is that, until you are arrested, you are technically a free person. So if you decide you want to tell the cop to screw off, open your cell phone, and call your lawyer, you certainly can. Now, will the officer let you? Maybe not. Maybe at that point he decides, to cuff you and put you in the back seat of the car. But you are not in custody at that point, and so you should technically be able to do whatever you want, even if, as a practical matter, the cop was going to be a jerk and make sure that you don't speak to your lawyer about any of this.The cop here was definitely misleading.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
On the issue of FST's themselves. No, there isn't any consequences for refusing them nor are they required by any state as a condition of recieving a drivers license. This where I think the officer went over the line and might have be looking at a reprimand. DB seems to assert he doesn't want to take the test and the officer states plainly it's required by law. IMO, he's crossed the line of legal deception allowed for by the police at this point....
I find it somewhat amusing that the officer in the video is a so-called expert in FST exams. Exactly how does one become an expert in a designed-fail exam, that in testing of sober people there is a failure rate between 40-60%.
Finally, not sure how many of you have been interogated or questioned by an officer and then had a chance to look at the report after, but they take as much artistic license as Steven King. Particularly in regards to this case, after seeing the officer lie about the "required FST", I'd be taking anything he reported with a large amount of salt.
Frank Black
Footballguy
It could indeed vary from state to state as many laws do. However, IMO this issue involves the right against being forced to self-incriminate. A suspect usually has the right to counsel when self-incrimination is involved.
Frank Black
Footballguy
This sounds about right.I was partially wrong on the issue about the right to representation during an FST, it varies from state to state. Some states allow you to call immediately for counsel during FST, others not until you are asked to take a chemical or urine test.From the reading I've been doing though it looks as though there have and maybe more challenges to this, as the entire procedure falls under detainment and questioning...so have to see what happens in the future. I'm 100% in favor of this, FST's are IMO, a physical interogation used by the police to incriminate a suspect.I think the trouble is this -- Christo is right that your right to representation does not kick in until you are arrested. THAT SAID, and the reason for my postings above, is that, until you are arrested, you are technically a free person. So if you decide you want to tell the cop to screw off, open your cell phone, and call your lawyer, you certainly can. Now, will the officer let you? Maybe not. Maybe at that point he decides, to cuff you and put you in the back seat of the car. But you are not in custody at that point, and so you should technically be able to do whatever you want, even if, as a practical matter, the cop was going to be a jerk and make sure that you don't speak to your lawyer about any of this.The cop here was definitely misleading.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
If there actually is a legal right to have an attorney present at a field sobriety test it should be pretty easy to for some of those espousing that position to provide a link.I did a quick Google seach and this popped up on the first page:
LinkI'm sure if there was a right to have a lawyer present at a FST this guy would know about it.
Furthermore, it just doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint. What attorney is going to go out in the middle of the night to watch an FST? Even if they would, how many people actually know an attorney let alone have the juice to talk an attorney into coming out? If it actually were a right, you can bet the defense bar would be screaming about all of the FSTs that occur without them being present.
If I'm as bad as you say I am, it should be pretty easy for you to prove me incorrect.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
switz
Footballguy
#464
mad sweeney
Footballguy
If I'm as bad as you say I am, it should be pretty easy for you to prove me incorrect.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I got the implied consent law wrong, it's failure to take a breathalyzer and/or blood test, not the FST. And there seems to be plenty of differing opinion about the lawyer, but I think they would've slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test. Other than that, my opinion that the FST was not passed with flying colors and that the cops was not a jerk are shared by plenty of people.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
Sweat Hog
Footballguy
Where's that little old lady from Airplane to be the board's "Jive" interpreter.Peace out Slim SHady!
gianmarco
Footballguy
They slapped the cuffs on him ANYWAY. He was brought to the police station and charged with DUI.I got the implied consent law wrong, it's failure to take a breathalyzer and/or blood test, not the FST. And there seems to be plenty of differing opinion about the lawyer, but I think they would've slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test. Other than that, my opinion that the FST was not passed with flying colors and that the cops was not a jerk are shared by plenty of people.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
all this for a 15th round WR that will be your first waiver wire cut
man
man
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Uh, and...?They slapped the cuffs on him ANYWAY. He was brought to the police station and charged with DUI.I got the implied consent law wrong, it's failure to take a breathalyzer and/or blood test, not the FST. And there seems to be plenty of differing opinion about the lawyer, but I think they would've slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test. Other than that, my opinion that the FST was not passed with flying colors and that the cops was not a jerk are shared by plenty of people.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
gianmarco
Footballguy
Read the bolded statement in your quote. You're making it sound as if something different would have happened if he refused the FST. It wouldn't have been, it was the exact same ending. David DID try and refuse the FST and was told he still needed to do it. What are you not understanding?Uh, and...?They slapped the cuffs on him ANYWAY. He was brought to the police station and charged with DUI.I got the implied consent law wrong, it's failure to take a breathalyzer and/or blood test, not the FST. And there seems to be plenty of differing opinion about the lawyer, but I think they would've slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test. Other than that, my opinion that the FST was not passed with flying colors and that the cops was not a jerk are shared by plenty of people.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
This is one of those threads that will be bumped well into December, no matter what the outcome. I for one welcome it.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
No, I made it sound like they would've arrested him if he refused, based on the evidence they already had. How can you interpret that statement any differently.Read the bolded statement in your quote. You're making it sound as if something different would have happened if he refused the FST. It wouldn't have been, it was the exact same ending. David DID try and refuse the FST and was told he still needed to do it. What are you not understanding?Uh, and...?They slapped the cuffs on him ANYWAY. He was brought to the police station and charged with DUI.I got the implied consent law wrong, it's failure to take a breathalyzer and/or blood test, not the FST. And there seems to be plenty of differing opinion about the lawyer, but I think they would've slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test. Other than that, my opinion that the FST was not passed with flying colors and that the cops was not a jerk are shared by plenty of people.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
gianmarco
Footballguy
Exactly. And he was arrested ANYWAY, even though he participated in the FST. So how is refusing the FST a bad thing there (which is what he tried unsuccessfully to do)?No, I made it sound like they would've arrested him if he refused, based on the evidence they already had. How can you interpret that statement any differently.Read the bolded statement in your quote. You're making it sound as if something different would have happened if he refused the FST. It wouldn't have been, it was the exact same ending. David DID try and refuse the FST and was told he still needed to do it. What are you not understanding?Uh, and...?They slapped the cuffs on him ANYWAY. He was brought to the police station and charged with DUI.I got the implied consent law wrong, it's failure to take a breathalyzer and/or blood test, not the FST. And there seems to be plenty of differing opinion about the lawyer, but I think they would've slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test. Other than that, my opinion that the FST was not passed with flying colors and that the cops was not a jerk are shared by plenty of people.you are as bad as mad sweeney....
