What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

David Boston with a little DUI action (1 Viewer)

cyric29 said:
You don't have the right to call your attorney for a FST! Period. When you sign the line on your license you give Implied Consent to submit to FSTs if the officer has probable cause. Waking up in the middle of the street and thinking you're half an hour away from where you is pretty good PC to give him a test.
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.
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.
you are as bad as mad sweeney.... :shrug:
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. :lmao:
They slapped the cuffs on him ANYWAY. He was brought to the police station and charged with DUI.
Uh, and...?
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?
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.
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)?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I was talking about the debate over whether or not you can have a lawyer at an FST, admitting that I may be wrong about that but that many people are if I am. Then I said that if Boston had refused to take the test, which he can do, that they would have arrested him right then and there. I don't see what your bolded section there has anything to do with what I've said.
 
Ugh. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your original response, who knows. You stated:

"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"

Your statement that they would have slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test seems to imply that if he wouldn't have cooperated, they would have arrested him, and that it would have been a different outcome than what happened. They had all the evidence they needed to arrest him anyway WITHOUT the FST and it's a given that they would have arrested him if he refused. If you meant something different, then I'm not sure why you even made that statement as if it was just a possibility. My point with my response was that:

A) He refuses the FST and gets arrested.

B) He takes the FST and gets arrested.

These were the only 2 options that could have taken place and the police knew this from the get-go. As such, DB tried to refuse and was made to think he still had to take it. That was my point. If your quote above meant something else or was just stating the complete obvious, then forgive my misunderstanding. If not, I'd like to know what you were trying to say because it's not very clear to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was talking about the debate over whether or not you can have a lawyer at an FST, admitting that I may be wrong about that but that many people are if I am.
There is a big difference between "You have the right to do the FST and to have your lawyer present for it," and "You have the right not to do the FST if your lawyer is not present for it." The second one is true, and follows directly from the fact that you have a right not to do the FST at all.Boston had every right not to do the FST until after he was able to speak to his lawyer. The cop seemed to imply otherwise. I don't know to what extent cops are allowed to lie about stuff like that. I know they are allowed to lie to suspects about lots of stuff, but I don't know if they are supposed to lie about whether a suspect can refuse to take the FST before contacting a lawyer.
 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.

 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire. NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.
:ninja:
 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.
Opinions differ, no need to start calling people names. If your bolded statement is true then how can you denounce people who interpret the results differently?

People can interpret situations differently without being stupid, racist or cop related. At least we don't contradict ourselves in our own post.

 
Ugh. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your original response, who knows. You stated:

"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"

Your statement that they would have slapped the cuffs on him if he refused the test seems to imply that if he wouldn't have cooperated, they would have arrested him, and that it would have been a different outcome than what happened. They had all the evidence they needed to arrest him anyway WITHOUT the FST and it's a given that they would have arrested him if he refused. If you meant something different, then I'm not sure why you even made that statement as if it was just a possibility. My point with my response was that:

A) He refuses the FST and gets arrested.

B) He takes the FST and gets arrested.

These were the only 2 options that could have taken place and the police knew this from the get-go. As such, DB tried to refuse and was made to think he still had to take it. That was my point. If your quote above meant something else or was just stating the complete obvious, then forgive my misunderstanding. If not, I'd like to know what you were trying to say because it's not very clear to me.
Dude, I was owning up to being wrong about a few things and stting my opinion that if he had refused to take the fst they would've taken him in right then for tests. Whatever you think I implied is all in your head. I have no idea what other outcome you're talking about.
 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.
Opinions differ, no need to start calling people names. If your bolded statement is true then how can you denounce people who interpret the results differently?

People can interpret situations differently without being stupid, racist or cop related. At least we don't contradict ourselves in our own post.
Maybe you don't understand what subjective means, but there's no way to say if DB passed or failed the test. So if you think he failed OR passed, then you are seriously missing more than a couple of brain cells. Reading comprehension can go a long ways....
 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.
Opinions differ, no need to start calling people names. If your bolded statement is true then how can you denounce people who interpret the results differently? If the test is designed for people to fail, and over half of us would fail it sober, and Boston had extenuating cricumstances to make him fail it, how is it a stretch for anyone to think he failed it? Since according to you, almost nobody can pass?

People can interpret situations differently without being stupid, racist or cop related. At least we don't contradict ourselves in our own post.
 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

"I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.
Opinions differ, no need to start calling people names. If your bolded statement is true then how can you denounce people who interpret the results differently?

People can interpret situations differently without being stupid, racist or cop related. At least we don't contradict ourselves in our own post.
Maybe you don't understand what subjective means, but there's no way to say if DB passed or failed the test. So if you think he failed OR passed, then you are seriously missing more than a couple of brain cells. Reading comprehension can go a long ways....
"Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers." I'm pretty sure my reading comprehension on that is up. Perhaps you should've put the OR in your initial statement instead of calling people names for their interpretation of something you later claim can't be determined. Either way, I'm confident in knowing who's the stupid one here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

"I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.
Opinions differ, no need to start calling people names. If your bolded statement is true then how can you denounce people who interpret the results differently?

People can interpret situations differently without being stupid, racist or cop related. At least we don't contradict ourselves in our own post.
Maybe you don't understand what subjective means, but there's no way to say if DB passed or failed the test. So if you think he failed OR passed, then you are seriously missing more than a couple of brain cells. Reading comprehension can go a long ways....
"Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers." I'm pretty sure my reading comprehension on that is up. Perhaps you should've put the OR in your initial statement instead of calling people names for their interpretation of something you later claim can't be determined. Either way, I'm confident in knowing who's the stupid one here.
I don't need to include the "or" in the original statement. Nothing in my post contradicted. You are making absolutely zero sense right now.... let me know when you can point out a contradictory statement.Perhaps you should go back to school.... either way, I know who's trying to compete with the officer for the world's worst logic championship.

 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

"I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.
Opinions differ, no need to start calling people names. If your bolded statement is true then how can you denounce people who interpret the results differently?

People can interpret situations differently without being stupid, racist or cop related. At least we don't contradict ourselves in our own post.
Maybe you don't understand what subjective means, but there's no way to say if DB passed or failed the test. So if you think he failed OR passed, then you are seriously missing more than a couple of brain cells. Reading comprehension can go a long ways....
"Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers." I'm pretty sure my reading comprehension on that is up. Perhaps you should've put the OR in your initial statement instead of calling people names for their interpretation of something you later claim can't be determined. Either way, I'm confident in knowing who's the stupid one here.
I don't need to include the "or" in the original statement. Nothing in my post contradicted. You are making absolutely zero sense right now.... let me know when you can point out a contradictory statement.Perhaps you should go back to school.... either way, I know who's trying to compete with the officer for the world's worst logic championship.
Your entire second paragraph is all about how impossible or at least highly improbable it is to pass a FST. Yet in spite of all this you think anyone who thinks he failed is a racist, etc... If it's so hard to pass even sober, then I think that a few more people than the ones you listed might consider that he appeared to fail the test.I think the guy who needs to go back to school is the one who calls people names to try and prove a point. I learned not to do that in 2nd grade.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Claiming something does not make it true so I would require more than someone making a claim as to what their occupation is/was.Driving is a privilege and you give up certain rights you would otherwise have to retain that license. Just like the implied consent w/ the PBT your rights can be curtailed during a traffic stop - granted everything has to be within reason... The officer does not have to let you call anyone while he is conducting an investigation. What would be more interesting is if someone went ahead and made the call. I would tend to be in more agreement that the officer is treading on thin ice if he takes steps to physically prevent you without placing you under arrest first.You have the right to refuse anything - even the PBT. There are repercussions however. One repercussion would be forcing the officer to make a decision whether he has enough evidence to arrest you or not. Once you are arrested then Miranda rights and the right to an attorney come into play.
 
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.
If only I had read the next post before my last response. I like Otis's response better.The cop was misleading but do people have an issue with that as well? I think I mentioned this several pages back when I equated an undercover officer lying... Misinformation is a valid investigation technique.

 
Those who think DB failed the FST and/or the cop WASN'T a grade-A ######## are clearly: stupid, racist, and/or related to police officers.

Guilty as charged... I think I would fall under the related to police officer but I've been called much worse.

FST are a complete joke. They are SUBJECTIVE. There's no way to grade a FST objectively. It depends totally on the person and there's no real science behind it. I'd bet my house that 80% of this forum can't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and arms by their side for over 10 seconds without wobbling. THAT'S WITHOUT PRESSURE. Imagine if you were woken up by police sirens and have adrenaline pumping through your veins.... there's no way you would be able to stand still. FSTs are basically designed so even sober people fail.

Sounds like someone who may have been burned by FST's. First off you are not graded - if this were to go to trial the questioning probably would not be did David pass/fail but would describe how he performed the test and emphasize what parts of the test were not performed according to directions. Standing on 1 leg with your eyes closed is a new one - I think it is more common for those to be 2 separate tests (or parts of 2 separate tests). Your typical juror would be able to perform the tests when sober. Being woken up like you described may impact the test but the fact that in this case it isn't your bed that your waking up from plays a role that you appear to be willing to overlook.

It's also a joke that the officer makes Boston take a NON-standard FST that can't even be used in court. Then he proceeds to insult Boston about his university... "Oh, that's even more impressive that you can play football without a degree!" Oh, and don't forget that the officer KNEW he wasn't drunk, he KNEW it was "something else." Jeez, why doesn't Florida hire some more of these super-cops that can detect alcohol/drugs instantly? It could save the state some serious cash. If he KNEW it was something else, the officer should have taken Boston up on his offer for a urine/blood test.

What was the non-standard test you are referring to? Alphabet? Is it your position only standardized tests are admissible at trial? What is that based upon? The officer made an assumption that was incorrect - I think it was pretty clear on the video he was embarrassed - hardly appeared as though he was trying to insult him. Couldn't you look at the video and make the determination that it was not alcohol? I've seen (maybe even been 1 or 2 times) enough drunks to have an idea that was not the concern. The officer DID take him up on his offer.

One line pretty much sums up the whole officer: "David, you are an athlete. You can do things normal people can't do. You can do things I can't do. But today, I can do something you can't do."

He pretty much waited his whole life to deliver a line like that. That's the most ######ed statement in the world and shows that the officer has no logic skills whatsoever.

I disagree with your interpretation but it may be the crux of an underlying problem. Because the officer knew who Boston was I suspect he did treat him differently.

I seriously hope the officers in his department give him crap until he's forced to move/quit/or retire.

Why? Whether he was right or wrong he remained patient and polite throughout the entire exchange. The aspects that I have questioned go to issues that can be addressed with training.

NOTE: I'm not saying Boston WASN'T on something, I'm saying that the officer was way out of line.

How? I had a hard time clearly understanding what he said regarding what was required by law at the beginning but even if he got it wrong - he is not a lawyer. Insisting the standardized tests appears to be more policy or training driven - this is an example of the training that could be addressed. Not waiting for an attorney is just common sense - no cop would waste that kind of time while on the road (or parking lot)
 
veto87 said:
what a waste of a thread.... does anyone actually have any new news on this ?
Thanks for contributing. There won't be new "news" until the final results are received and I would suspect there might be better ways of learning about it than sorting through these many pages.I like the diversion this thread has provided as I am between drafts and we are over a week away from the start of the season. But to each their own but if that is your honest opinion why bring in back up?
 
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.
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:

Do I have the constitutional right to speak to an attorney before I have to take a field sobriety test?

Your right to an attorney or to advice of counsel does not attach until you are formally arrested or placed in custody. If at any time during the officer's stop you believe you need an attorney, it is always good policy to ask for an attorney. Listen to what the officer says in response to your request for an attorney, as this response could be very important if he misrepresents the law to you.
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.
People have the right to defend this cop but he isn't the smoothest of characters. Within the first 2 minutes of the video the cop does two things that might come back to haunt him. (a) he opens the door to Boston's resistance by saying that he will let him know what he wants him to do and he encourages Boston to let him know if he wants him to change something. Boston let him know and the cop persisted down the same path regardless.

(b) he specifically tells Boston that "you don't have the right to call your attorney right now David."

This isn't an opinion-based arguement here. It is either in the state law or it is not. As said before, if this the cop is being truthful then by law he doesn't have the right to call his attorney. End of issue. If it is not the law then the cop misrepresented the law and the investigation is therefore "unlawful".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
After Boston blew a triple zero on a breath test for alcohol, he gave a sample of his urine, the report said. A test for evidence of 10 drugs showed no evidence of any of them, the report said.

The forensic laboratory is expected to test Boston's urine for a wider range of drugs, Capt. Sanfield Forseth said. "You're not going to find anything in my urine," Boston told police Friday, according to the report.

I did`nt read anywhere in this thread that his urin was already tested at the arrest and was negative.

 
After Boston blew a triple zero on a breath test for alcohol, he gave a sample of his urine, the report said. A test for evidence of 10 drugs showed no evidence of any of them, the report said.The forensic laboratory is expected to test Boston's urine for a wider range of drugs, Capt. Sanfield Forseth said. "You're not going to find anything in my urine," Boston told police Friday, according to the report. I did`nt read anywhere in this thread that his urin was already tested at the arrest and was negative.
:sadbanana:
 
After Boston blew a triple zero on a breath test for alcohol, he gave a sample of his urine, the report said. A test for evidence of 10 drugs showed no evidence of any of them, the report said.

The forensic laboratory is expected to test Boston's urine for a wider range of drugs, Capt. Sanfield Forseth said. "You're not going to find anything in my urine," Boston told police Friday, according to the report.

I did`nt read anywhere in this thread that his urin was already tested at the arrest and was negative.
Switz already posted this info on previous page here
 
Looks like a lot of people in here owe that cop an apology :)

Boston tested positive for GHBPINELLAS PARK – Buccaneers wide receiver David Boston was under the influence of GHB when found asleep behind the wheel of his SUV last month, police say.Boston was arrested and charged with misdemeanor DUI on Aug. 23, pending the results of a urinalysis. The test results came back last week and Pinellas Park police said the DUI charge would stand. But police refused to disclose the substance that Boston was alleged to have taken, saying the case was still being investigated. Pinellas Park police on Monday released the results of those tests, confirmed by two separate labs, indicating that Boston had 870 micrograms per milliliter of GHB in his urine. Police spokesman Sandy Forseth said using two labs is department protocol."That's a lot of GHB," said Sarah Kerrigan. Kerrigan, a forensic toxicologist, is director of the forensic science program at Sam Houston State University in Huntsvile, Texas. Kerrigan has a PhD. in chemistry in the field of drugs of abuse testing. "That's consistent with someone who's taken the drug."GHB occurs naturally in the body, she said, and defense lawyers tend to attribute positive test results to the body's normal chemistry. But, Boston's reading is "not natural," Kerrigan said.Kerrigan cautioned against making conclusions about any impairment from the concentration of the drug. GHB takes eight to 10 hours to leave the system after it's ingested, which leaves a large window during which Boston might have taken the drug. And different concentrations could appear depending on the amount of fluid Boston excreted. A determination of impairment, she said, would have to come from other evidence, such as the results of field sobriety tests.GHB, or gamma hydroxybutyrate, has been abused in the U.S. since about 1990 for its euphoric, sedative, and anabolic (body building) effects. It is a central nervous system depressant that was widely available over-the-counter in health food stores during the 1980s and until 1992. It was purchased largely by body builders to aid in fat reduction and muscle building. In lower doses, GHB causes drowsiness, dizziness, nausea and visual disturbances. Street names include "liquid ecstasy," "soap," "easy lay," "vita-G," and "Georgia home boy."Boston has declared his innocence, saying in a statement last week, “I have done nothing wrong. I was not impaired.”Boston's attorney, Ronald Hanes, could not be reached for comment. NFL vice president of public relations, Greg Aiello, said, “The matter is under review. It falls under the substance abuse policy.”According to the NFL’s policy for substance abuse for violations of law: “A player will normally be subject to discipline up to and including suspension without pay for four regular and/or post-season games for a first violation of the law related to substances of abuse other than alcohol and for six regular and/or post-season games for a second violation of the law related to substances of abuse other than alcohol. A player’s treatment history may be considered by the Commissioner in determining the appropriate degree of discipline. The suspension period may be extended if medically necessary, and, if extended, may involve mandatory treatment if required by the Medical Director.”Pinellas Park police officers were summoned Aug. 23 by a man who called 911 to report a red Range Rover being driven erratically. The 911 caller was behind the Range Rover going south on 49th Street N."He appears to be drunker than hell. He's all over the road," the man reported. The two arrived at the Park Boulevard traffic light about 38 seconds into the 4-minute, 42-second 911 call. "I think he's going to sit through this light," the caller said. "We've gone through a cycle and he just sat there....He's not moving. I'm just wondering if maybe there's something wrong with him because he's not moving at all....Maybe he wasn't drunk. Maybe there's something else going on....I think maybe something's happened because he doesn't appear to be moving at all."When officers arrived, they found Boston slumped over the steering wheel. They roused him, got him out of the Range Rover. They suspected he might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol because his eyes were fluttering, consistent with a conditiion known as nystagmus.The police had Boston perform field sobriety tests. Then he was taken into custody and given a Breathalyzer test, which came back negative. An officer known as a drug recognition expert tried to test Boston. He said he was innocent and refused the tests, which was his right. Officers then took a urine sample.Boston pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors in 2002 after he tested positive for cocaine and marijuana found during a traffic stop.While with the Dolphins, he was suspended for four games in 2004 for violating the league's steroid policy. Boston, who had a season-ending knee injury at the time, denied taking an anabolic steroid but his appeal was denied. He was charged with simple assault in Burlington, Vt., later that month, and eventually pleaded no contest to striking a ticket agent at the airport. This is Boston's second stint with the Bucs. He was cut before the start of last season.Boston isn't the only Buc player whose actions are being scrutinized by the league. Tight end Jerramy Stevenswas found guility of DWI last week by an Arizona jury. Where does the matter stand with the NFL? "It's under review," said Aiello. According to the league's policy on alcohol-related offenses, "The Commissioner will review and may impose a fine, suspension, or other appropriate discipline if a player is convicted of or admits to a violation of the law... relating to the use of alcohol."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top