David Boston with a little DUI action (1 Viewer)

[Dreamer]

So you're right, he passed it with flying colors but the cop chose to arrest him anyway.

I don't see how anyone can watch that video and think that Boston didn't pass the test. He didn't obey all the instructions such as counting out loud, but he showed fine balance and proprioception, and his speech was not slurred.

He DIDN'T pass the test. He couldn't follow simple instructions, that's part of the test.

 

[el-gato-grande]

Team stands behind embattled Boston

In statement, Bucs support receiver who was charged with driving under the influence.

By STEPHEN F. HOLDER, St. Petersurg Times Staff Writer

Published August 26, 2007

Bucs Report: Training Camp

MIAMI - David Boston's fate ultimately will be decided by the legal system. But as for his employer, the Bucs appear convinced the receiver, arrested Thursday and charged with driving under the influence, will be exonerated.

Boston, 29, was found asleep at the steering wheel of his Range Rover, its engine running, at a Pinellas Park intersection. Awakened by police, he told them he was on his way from Orlando to a Tampa International Airport hotel and thought he was in Hillsborough County.

After looking into the matter the past few days, the Bucs released a statement from general manager Bruce Allen that showed wholehearted support of the embattled player.

"We have investigated the David Boston situation and feel that we have an understanding of the facts," the statement read. "At this time, we have seen no objective evidence to support the charges that were brought against him."

The statement was quite different from the sort the Bucs typically release when a player has legal trouble. Normally, the position of the franchise would be to support a player but to reserve judgment until all the facts are known. In this case, the Bucs seem unusually confident that charges will be dropped.

After his arrest, Boston took a Breathalyzer test that found no alcohol in his system. But police administered a urine test, presumably to check for illegal substances.

After the game, Boston refused to speak with reporters.

But on Saturday, his troubles seemed nonexistent. He didn't factor prominently in the 31-28 victory, but the one time he did touch the ball, he made something happen. In the second quarter, Boston took a handoff from Michael Pittman on a reverse and dashed 18 yards for a first down.

But as he continues his fight to resurrect his career after nearly two years away from the game, Boston didn't get much playing time. Many of his snaps went to Michael Clayton, though it's possible that was by design to allow the Bucs a chance to see the fourth-year receiver.

Still, Boston, who was cut by the Bucs just before the start of last season as he attempted a comeback from knee surgery, seems to have made enough plays in practices and games to have secured a place on the roster. The Bucs have several receivers jostling for positions, but Boston appears to be among those fighting for a starting job, not just a roster spot.

About the only thing that could derail him is a negative outcome to the DUI investigation.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I felt the cop was trying to setup Boston to fail.

When exactly? When he made Boston fall asleep in his car in the middle of traffic? When he forced Boston to disregard every single instruction he was given? When he tricked Boston into adopting a Superman pose? When he encouraged Boston to try and walk away instead of completing the test?

 

[mad sweeney]

Quick thoughts.1) Boston was acting like a jerk and was not compliant2) I dunno about him specifically, but wifey cannot complete a sentence or answer a direct question for at least 5 minutes after waking up from a deep sleep. I could imagine the cop questioning him right after waking up and him not really understanding what was going on until his head cleared which would explain his lack of being able to explain where he was.3) He seemed pretty lucid on the video, but I dunno the effects of every drug out there.4) Being denied a lawyer on tape looks badI once fell asleep in bumper to bumper traffic on the interestate in Massachussettes once. It was early in the morning, and I didn't sleep well the night before. No drugs. I fell asleep right on the interstate because of the monotony of waiting for traffic to move.

They don't have to let you call your lawyer. It's a non-issue.

So an officer of the law can forbid you from calling your lawyer? That IS an issue, if we claim to live in a free country. It is an example of what happens in fascist states. And your defending this as "just an inconvenience" misses the point: police should not be harrassing people and embarassing them and treating them disrespectfully as this cop did. Police have way too much authority in this "free" country if this is an example of normal "police work."

If the cop had pulled Boston over for slightly erratic drving and that field test was the only thingj used to determine his impairment then I would agree with you. Boston didn't seem too messed up though his balance was pretty bad and he couldn't follow such brainstumpers as "count your steps". But Boston was found passed out at a red light, with the car in drive, and thinking he was 40 minutes away from where he really was. Passing FSTs isn't just getting through the exercises but also HOW you get through them. I'm sorry, I just do not see the disrespect. When I have to explain simple things to people that work for me over and over I can start to take a condescending tone too. He called Boston sir or Mr Boston the whole time and offered modifications on the tests to account for his injuries. Boston was non combative but almost completely uncooperative. The cop treated Boston with kid gloves and was covering all his bases with his tests. If Boston had acted more cooperatively then the cop's tone and the outcome might have been different. But as it is I don't see how the cop was any kind of jerk, ### or overbearing fascist.I live near downtown LA, right near the infamous Rampart district. I am extremely critical of the cops and their actions. You might even call me a serious Lefty on a lot of issues of police control. I've seen "bad" traffic stops with chollos bent over the hood of the cop cars for traffic stops. But I feel if you are going to be critical of the police in our emerging police state, then you have to be objective and recognize when the cops are NOT being overly officious and fascist. And I just don't see it in this video. Any time a white cop and a black person are involved and th outcome goes against the black party there will be an uproar at some level but you have to learn to be objective about things.Now, I honestly hope that Boston was clean but I tend to doubt it with his reactions to taking the tests. If he's clean he should have nothing to worry about, the arrest will go away as if it never happened. But IMO, the cops had plenty of evidence from his state upon their arrival to his performance on the tests to arrest him for being impaired. So even if Boston comes back clean, I just honestly don't see how he can come back and say that the cop wasn't just doing his job. And if Boston comes back dirty, well then all you self appointed over zealous defenders of justice will have a little problem with your theories.

 

[switz]

Quick thoughts.

1) Boston was acting like a jerk and was not compliant

2) I dunno about him specifically, but wifey cannot complete a sentence or answer a direct question for at least 5 minutes after waking up from a deep sleep. I could imagine the cop questioning him right after waking up and him not really understanding what was going on until his head cleared which would explain his lack of being able to explain where he was.

3) He seemed pretty lucid on the video, but I dunno the effects of every drug out there.

4) Being denied a lawyer on tape looks bad

I once fell asleep in bumper to bumper traffic on the interestate in Massachussettes once. It was early in the morning, and I didn't sleep well the night before. No drugs. I fell asleep right on the interstate because of the monotony of waiting for traffic to move.

They don't have to let you call your lawyer. It's a non-issue.

So an officer of the law can forbid you from calling your lawyer? That IS an issue, if we claim to live in a free country. It is an example of what happens in fascist states. And your defending this as "just an inconvenience" misses the point: police should not be harrassing people and embarassing them and treating them disrespectfully as this cop did. Police have way too much authority in this "free" country if this is an example of normal "police work."

If the cop had pulled Boston over for slightly erratic drving and that field test was the only thingj used to determine his impairment then I would agree with you. Boston didn't seem too messed up though his balance was pretty bad and he couldn't follow such brainstumpers as "count your steps". But Boston was found passed out at a red light, with the car in drive, and thinking he was 40 minutes away from where he really was. Passing FSTs isn't just getting through the exercises but also HOW you get through them. I'm sorry, I just do not see the disrespect. When I have to explain simple things to people that work for me over and over I can start to take a condescending tone too. He called Boston sir or Mr Boston the whole time and offered modifications on the tests to account for his injuries. Boston was non combative but almost completely uncooperative. The cop treated Boston with kid gloves and was covering all his bases with his tests. If Boston had acted more cooperatively then the cop's tone and the outcome might have been different. But as it is I don't see how the cop was any kind of jerk, ### or overbearing fascist.

I live near downtown LA, right near the infamous Rampart district. I am extremely critical of the cops and their actions. You might even call me a serious Lefty on a lot of issues of police control. I've seen "bad" traffic stops with chollos bent over the hood of the cop cars for traffic stops. But I feel if you are going to be critical of the police in our emerging police state, then you have to be objective and recognize when the cops are NOT being overly officious and fascist. And I just don't see it in this video. Any time a white cop and a black person are involved and th outcome goes against the black party there will be an uproar at some level but you have to learn to be objective about things.

Now, I honestly hope that Boston was clean but I tend to doubt it with his reactions to taking the tests. If he's clean he should have nothing to worry about, the arrest will go away as if it never happened. But IMO, the cops had plenty of evidence from his state upon their arrival to his performance on the tests to arrest him for being impaired. So even if Boston comes back clean, I just honestly don't see how he can come back and say that the cop wasn't just doing his job. And if Boston comes back dirty, well then all you self appointed over zealous defenders of justice will have a little problem with your theories.

This is the second or third time I've seen this posted. Watch the video!!! He called him 'David' the whole time!

 

[JAA]

I felt the cop was trying to setup Boston to fail.

When exactly? When he made Boston fall asleep in his car in the middle of traffic? When he forced Boston to disregard every single instruction he was given? When he tricked Boston into adopting a Superman pose? When he encouraged Boston to try and walk away instead of completing the test?

When he decided that Boston was going to be arrested and still decided to give him a field sobriety test when Boston requested blood and/or a breathalizer

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

Quick thoughts.

1) Boston was acting like a jerk and was not compliant

How was Boston acting like a jerk? He expressed concerns about doing certain tests and explained his reasoning. The officer was unwilling to accept the explanation and move on to another test. Despite disagreeing with the officer Boston still "semi" cooperated.

2) I dunno about him specifically, but wifey cannot complete a sentence or answer a direct question for at least 5 minutes after waking up from a deep sleep. I could imagine the cop questioning him right after waking up and him not really understanding what was going on until his head cleared which would explain his lack of being able to explain where he was.

I can buy into the disorientation comment but suspect from Boston's history he was simply reluctant to provide information.

3) He seemed pretty lucid on the video, but I dunno the effects of every drug out there.

I am interested to see what the test results are.

4) Being denied a lawyer on tape looks bad I once fell asleep in bumper to bumper traffic on the interestate in Massachussettes once. It was early in the morning, and I didn't sleep well the night before. No drugs. I fell asleep right on the interstate because of the monotony of waiting for traffic to move.

I've driven night shifts and almost fell asleep while driving but never actually dozed off so I can't relate to that.They don't have to let you call your lawyer. It's a non-issue.

True - I won't go so far as to say it is a non-issue. It would not have been unheard of considering Boston had the tx and it was not like he was going somewhere or having the cop arrange to make the call for him.

So an officer of the law can forbid you from calling your lawyer? That IS an issue, if we claim to live in a free country. It is an example of what happens in fascist states. Allowing Boston to make the call would not be unheard of but it is still the exception to the rule. The cop has a job to do and it doesn't necessarily mean babysitting everyone who gets in a jam while they scramble to find an excuse or buy time.

And your defending this as "just an inconvenience" misses the point: police should not be harrassing people and embarassing them and treating them disrespectfully as this cop did. Police have way too much authority in this "free" country if this is an example of normal "police work."

Sounds like you have issues that are clouding your assessment. How is investigating someone asleep at the wheel at an intersection harassment? It appears the cop moved the interaction to a parking lot to avoid more embarassment than necessary and was very patient despite Boston's reluctance. Disagree with the cops approach, manner of conduct... but claiming he was harassing, embarassing or disrespectful to Boston (at least in a blatant manner) appears untenable from what is shown on the video.If the cop had pulled Boston over for slightly erratic drving and that field test was the only thingj used to determine his impairment then I would agree with you. Boston didn't seem too messed up though his balance was pretty bad and he couldn't follow such brainstumpers as "count your steps". But Boston was found passed out at a red light, with the car in drive, and thinking he was 40 minutes away from where he really was. Passing FSTs isn't just getting through the exercises but also HOW you get through them.

True - but it will also be taken into account that the cop continued to engage Boston in conversation during the test to the point he was almost hounding him about aspects of the test he thought were not being followed. What was the purpose of that rather than merely creating "mic" notes like he did during the heel to toe test?

I'm sorry, I just do not see the disrespect. When I have to explain simple things to people that work for me over and over I can start to take a condescending tone too. He called Boston sir or Mr Boston the whole time and offered modifications on the tests to account for his injuries. Boston was non combative but almost completely uncooperative. The cop treated Boston with kid gloves and was covering all his bases with his tests. If Boston had acted more cooperatively then the cop's tone and the outcome might have been different. But as it is I don't see how the cop was any kind of jerk, ### or overbearing fascist.

The disrespect comes in with the cops total disregard of Boston's explanation for not wanting to conduct certain field sobriety tests and claiming something to the effect that Boston had a legal duty to perform them (forget the actual wording now) - last I knew the PBT was the only requirement. Boston to the extent he became uncooperative was after his explanation was dismissed. The copy referred to him as David, Mr. Boston, a great athlete, football player (if I remember correctly) but did not want to go on record as revealing what he does for a living??? The cop said he did not think it was alcohol - pretty clear what he was thinking but other than the fact he was asleep at the wheel (not to be glossed over lightly) what did the tests reveal to support his conclusion? Seems he has prior knowledge of Boston's steroid issue and came to an conclusion and was looking for supporting evidence (which is fine) but Boston appears to have suspected as much and has no legal obligation to provide more than what he did.

I live near downtown LA, right near the infamous Rampart district. I am extremely critical of the cops and their actions. You might even call me a serious Lefty on a lot of issues of police control. I've seen "bad" traffic stops with chollos bent over the hood of the cop cars for traffic stops. But I feel if you are going to be critical of the police in our emerging police state, then you have to be objective and recognize when the cops are NOT being overly officious and fascist. And I just don't see it in this video. Any time a white cop and a black person are involved and th outcome goes against the black party there will be an uproar at some level but you have to learn to be objective about things.

And if this was a white unknown blue collar local I do not think there was enough shown by the video to support the cops belief there was drugs involved.

Now, I honestly hope that Boston was clean but I tend to doubt it with his reactions to taking the tests. If he's clean he should have nothing to worry about, the arrest will go away as if it never happened. But IMO, the cops had plenty of evidence from his state upon their arrival to his performance on the tests to arrest him for being impaired. So even if Boston comes back clean, I just honestly don't see how he can come back and say that the cop wasn't just doing his job. And if Boston comes back dirty, well then all you self appointed over zealous defenders of justice will have a little problem with your theories.

I am one who does hope that Boston is clean. I have not followed his come back to closely but he appears to have invested time and effort. If he is dirty it will be disappointing since like an earlier post Boston has been a fitness fanatic and other than performance enhancing steroids... I would not expect someone with that mindset to partake in your typical marijuana or other street drugs. It is not so much that I have a theory just concerns with the manner of how the traffic stop progressed.1. No doubt the cop was required to investigate

2. Disagree that the standardized field sobriety tests have to be conducted when a concern is raised about the persons ability to perform them to the cops or individuals satisfaction. The cop should have made note of his concerns and moved on. Seems the cops knowledge of who he was dealing with colored his perception - it doesn't really matter if the cop did not believe Boston - save that argument for the attorney.

3. Disagree with the ongoing conversation with Boston nagging him about what was not being done correctly during the leg raise test - the cop demonstrated he could preserve a record of his observations by making "mic" notes without actively attempting to engage Boston in a conversation.

4. The superman pose may not have been what the cop asked for but Boston never said it was - Boston was demonstrating that even though he had concerns about his ability to perform certain functions of the tests requested by the cop it was not due to his motor skills being diminished.

 

[az_prof]

This is yet another example of why we need locally elected Boards of Police, accountable to the people through an elective process. As a school board member, I am accountable to the people who are served by our schools. If I am not responsive to the community I hear about it and I will face opposition in the elections. It is my responsibility to make sure that our schools meet the expectations of the community.

I think it is fair to say that most people expect to be able to call a lawyer when they want. If what is being said is true, and that it is against the law to call a lawyer if a cop tells you that you can't, then that is something most of us would want changed. If I were on a Board of Police overseeing this cop I would make sure the Chief put a reprimand in his file and if he was following "policy" i would make sure that policy was changed. The problem is that you have Chiefs of Police in charge with no public oversight, except indirectly through the Mayor's office. Most city councils do not exert a whole lot of oversight over police policy and conduct and/or the city is so big that as long as this sort of thing doesn't happen to the rich people or the white people, they don't care.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

This is yet another example of why we need locally elected Boards of Police, accountable to the people through an elective process. As a school board member, I am accountable to the people who are served by our schools. If I am not responsive to the community I hear about it and I will face opposition in the elections. It is my responsibility to make sure that our schools meet the expectations of the community. I think it is fair to say that most people expect to be able to call a lawyer when they want. If what is being said is true, and that it is against the law to call a lawyer if a cop tells you that you can't, then that is something most of us would want changed. If I were on a Board of Police overseeing this cop I would make sure the Chief put a reprimand in his file and if he was following "policy" i would make sure that policy was changed. The problem is that you have Chiefs of Police in charge with no public oversight, except indirectly through the Mayor's office. Most city councils do not exert a whole lot of oversight over police policy and conduct and/or the city is so big that as long as this sort of thing doesn't happen to the rich people or the white people, they don't care.

Biased much? The police should not be run like a school board (maybe the school board should not be run like the school board but that is my own biase. ) subject to public whim every time something that strikes someones nerves arises. Guess what, if you break the law it is not at your convenience when you get to call your attorney - the cop had every right (and duty) to continue with his investigation rather than wait for Boston to contact his attorney, mother or psychic. Any public official that thinks otherwise should be held accountable for wasting the time of police. The right to counsel does not come into play at that stage of interaction between police and individuals.I suspect David Boston would fall into a catagory of being rich for whatever that is worth.

 

[mad sweeney]

Quick thoughts.

1) Boston was acting like a jerk and was not compliant

2) I dunno about him specifically, but wifey cannot complete a sentence or answer a direct question for at least 5 minutes after waking up from a deep sleep. I could imagine the cop questioning him right after waking up and him not really understanding what was going on until his head cleared which would explain his lack of being able to explain where he was.

3) He seemed pretty lucid on the video, but I dunno the effects of every drug out there.

4) Being denied a lawyer on tape looks bad

I once fell asleep in bumper to bumper traffic on the interestate in Massachussettes once. It was early in the morning, and I didn't sleep well the night before. No drugs. I fell asleep right on the interstate because of the monotony of waiting for traffic to move.

They don't have to let you call your lawyer. It's a non-issue.

So an officer of the law can forbid you from calling your lawyer? That IS an issue, if we claim to live in a free country. It is an example of what happens in fascist states. And your defending this as "just an inconvenience" misses the point: police should not be harrassing people and embarassing them and treating them disrespectfully as this cop did. Police have way too much authority in this "free" country if this is an example of normal "police work."

If the cop had pulled Boston over for slightly erratic drving and that field test was the only thingj used to determine his impairment then I would agree with you. Boston didn't seem too messed up though his balance was pretty bad and he couldn't follow such brainstumpers as "count your steps". But Boston was found passed out at a red light, with the car in drive, and thinking he was 40 minutes away from where he really was. Passing FSTs isn't just getting through the exercises but also HOW you get through them. I'm sorry, I just do not see the disrespect. When I have to explain simple things to people that work for me over and over I can start to take a condescending tone too. He called Boston sir or Mr Boston the whole time and offered modifications on the tests to account for his injuries. Boston was non combative but almost completely uncooperative. The cop treated Boston with kid gloves and was covering all his bases with his tests. If Boston had acted more cooperatively then the cop's tone and the outcome might have been different. But as it is I don't see how the cop was any kind of jerk, ### or overbearing fascist.

I live near downtown LA, right near the infamous Rampart district. I am extremely critical of the cops and their actions. You might even call me a serious Lefty on a lot of issues of police control. I've seen "bad" traffic stops with chollos bent over the hood of the cop cars for traffic stops. But I feel if you are going to be critical of the police in our emerging police state, then you have to be objective and recognize when the cops are NOT being overly officious and fascist. And I just don't see it in this video. Any time a white cop and a black person are involved and th outcome goes against the black party there will be an uproar at some level but you have to learn to be objective about things.

Now, I honestly hope that Boston was clean but I tend to doubt it with his reactions to taking the tests. If he's clean he should have nothing to worry about, the arrest will go away as if it never happened. But IMO, the cops had plenty of evidence from his state upon their arrival to his performance on the tests to arrest him for being impaired. So even if Boston comes back clean, I just honestly don't see how he can come back and say that the cop wasn't just doing his job. And if Boston comes back dirty, well then all you self appointed over zealous defenders of justice will have a little problem with your theories.

This is the second or third time I've seen this posted. Watch the video!!! He called him 'David' the whole time!

I may be a bit wrong then, but he definitely called him sir and Mr Boston several times. And is calling him by his first name disrespectful, rude, condescending or any of the other things people have said the officer was?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I felt the cop was trying to setup Boston to fail.

When exactly? When he made Boston fall asleep in his car in the middle of traffic? When he forced Boston to disregard every single instruction he was given? When he tricked Boston into adopting a Superman pose? When he encouraged Boston to try and walk away instead of completing the test?

When he decided that Boston was going to be arrested and still decided to give him a field sobriety test when Boston requested blood and/or a breathalizer

You and MT both seemed to feel that way, but I didn't get that impression at all. I think there was a CHANCE that Boston could have taken that test and the cop might have let him go. But, Boston gave him the song and dance about his knees, tried to avoid taking the test entirely, and then really couldn't quite do what was being asked of him.All I can say is that after having watched the video, I'm glad Boston did NOT drive away at that point, not because I hate Boston (I did break down and draft him very late in a FA draft in one league), but because I think there was a decent chance the guy was on something and I don't want him killing anyone. I just don't get how the cop did ANYTHING to set him up for failure. He asked him to do the same crap everyone else has to do when they get pulled over (or woken up in this case), and he did so with VERY clear instructions and even demonstrated a fair amount of patience with a guy who was giving him a hard time.As for the breathalizer, that's just a joke. It is/was fairly obvious the guys wasn't drunk, but that wasn't the point. He could have been high as a kite on crack and the breathalizer wouldn't tell you jack. Of COURSE Boston wanted to let it go at that. I don't honestly know about the blood test. Did Boston actually volunteer to go to the station and give a blood sample? Do the standard blood tests just test for alcohol, or do they check for other substances as well? Dunno. Either way, what does it matter if he took the field test or not if he was planning to go to the station. It's five minutes out of his life (and could have been less without the "my knees are too bad to stand on one leg" routine).

 

[*****]

Guess what, if you break the law it is not at your convenience when you get to call your attorney - the cop had every right (and duty) to continue with his investigation rather than wait for Boston to contact his attorney, mother or psychic. Any public official that thinks otherwise should be held accountable for wasting the time of police. The right to counsel does not come into play at that stage of interaction between police and individuals.

That is correct. The right to counsel is constitutional and is not based on local police policy. It only comes into play once the suspect is actually under arrest. Before that, the police have a right to question a suspect to establish the probable cause necessary to arrest a suspect. If a suspect could stall an investigation by invoking the right to counsel before they are arrested, this would interfere with the state's ability to investigate a crime. Imagine a drug dealer's look-out invoking the right to counsel to stall while his colleagues flush the evidence, etc.FWIW, it looks like Boston passed the sobriety tests (though he failed the irritated and frustrated suspect test). The State's Atty will probably decline to prosecute in the absence of a bad result on the urine/blood test. Even though he could not call his lawyer, the requirement of probable cause will likely prevent Boston from being prosecuted and the system works to protect Boston even though he could not call his lawyer while being asked to take the tests.Moreover, even if he fails the blood/urine tests, Boston has a good chance of getting off. They can't get the blood/urine tests without establishing probable cause--which is why the cop was insisting on taking the field sobriety tests despite Boston's willingness to do any other tests. Of course, the State Atty would argue that Boston volunteered for the urine/blood tests in which case the tests results might stick in any event.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

I may be a bit wrong then, but he definitely called him sir and Mr Boston several times. And is calling him by his first name disrespectful, rude, condescending or any of the other things people have said the officer was?

The reference as David, Mr. Boston... is not what was disrespectful. Ignoring what Boston had to say about reservations regarding certain field sobriety tests was something worth taking note of. There is no reason the officer could not move on to other tests. Even if the officer felt required to conduct the standardized tests why did he leave out the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and one that can also pick up drug use OTHER than alcohol if that is what he suspected?

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

This whole thing is very strange to me. Boston didn't appear impaired and seemed to become agitated very quickly. I took Boston's failure to obey the officer's instructions more as deliberate defiance rather than lack of comprehension. He didn't have the attitude that I would guess someone would have after being caught passed out with his car in drive. The team also immediately came out in support of him. In this day and age, I would think teams to be wary of supporting a player in a questionable situation. Is there any confirmation, other than the officer's report, that Boston was in fact asleep in the middle of the street?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

This is yet another example of why we need locally elected Boards of Police, accountable to the people through an elective process. As a school board member, I am accountable to the people who are served by our schools. If I am not responsive to the community I hear about it and I will face opposition in the elections. It is my responsibility to make sure that our schools meet the expectations of the community. I think it is fair to say that most people expect to be able to call a lawyer when they want. If what is being said is true, and that it is against the law to call a lawyer if a cop tells you that you can't, then that is something most of us would want changed. If I were on a Board of Police overseeing this cop I would make sure the Chief put a reprimand in his file and if he was following "policy" i would make sure that policy was changed. The problem is that you have Chiefs of Police in charge with no public oversight, except indirectly through the Mayor's office. Most city councils do not exert a whole lot of oversight over police policy and conduct and/or the city is so big that as long as this sort of thing doesn't happen to the rich people or the white people, they don't care.

Biased much? The police should not be run like a school board (maybe the school board should not be run like the school board but that is my own biase. ) subject to public whim every time something that strikes someones nerves arises. Guess what, if you break the law it is not at your convenience when you get to call your attorney - the cop had every right (and duty) to continue with his investigation rather than wait for Boston to contact his attorney, mother or psychic. Any public official that thinks otherwise should be held accountable for wasting the time of police. The right to counsel does not come into play at that stage of interaction between police and individuals.I suspect David Boston would fall into a catagory of being rich for whatever that is worth.

The whole lawyer thing just astounds me. How many seriously confused people are going to spout off about this? When in the immediate investigation of a potential crime or dangerous situation, the cops have every right and duty to control that situation. The cop didn't say Boston couldn't EVER call his lawyer, he said that it wasn't the time, and it wasn't. And NO, the "policy" doesn't need to be changed. Changing that "policy" (which is just common sense anyway), would result in chaos.When a cop tells you to put your hands up, you do it. If he tells you to drop your gun, you do it. If he tells you to lay down on the ground, you do it. You don't call your lawyer. When a cop tells you to take a FST, you either do it or you get arrested and go to the station. If in any case it turns out the cop was crazy and made demands of you that didn't make sense at the time, you seek justice for that.Lawyers serve a valuable purpose in our legal system, and Boston DOES have a right ot an attorney as guaranteed by the 6th, but that was not the time or place for a call to the lawyer.People also forget that 20 years ago we aren't even HAVING this discussion. Without a cell phone, was Boston supposed to be allowed to drive over to his lawyer's house to get advice before complying with the cop's orders? Heck, even today, does somebody WITHOUT a cell phone have fewer rights than someone WITH a cell phone?Folks, you need to THINK about what you are saying/asking for before judging this cop too harshly.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

You and MT both seemed to feel that way, but I didn't get that impression at all. I think there was a CHANCE that Boston could have taken that test and the cop might have let him go. But, Boston gave him the song and dance about his knees, tried to avoid taking the test entirely, and then really couldn't quite do what was being asked of him.

I would agree with you that there was a chance Boston could have taken the test but he expressed a specific concern and offered to perform other tests but the cop was unwilling to deviate from his routine or "standardized" tests. I suspect the better approach would have been for the officer to make a note of the reservations and his concerns and move on to another test - leave it for the attorneys or jury to interpret the tape and whether Boston was merely giving a song and dance rather than making it appear the officer was pushing Boston to perform a test he is not legally required to take to get the results he desired.

All I can say is that after having watched the video, I'm glad Boston did NOT drive away at that point, not because I hate Boston (I did break down and draft him very late in a FA draft in one league), but because I think there was a decent chance the guy was on something and I don't want him killing anyone. I just don't get how the cop did ANYTHING to set him up for failure. He asked him to do the same crap everyone else has to do when they get pulled over (or woken up in this case), and he did so with VERY clear instructions and even demonstrated a fair amount of patience with a guy who was giving him a hard time.

There is a chance Boston was on something but I do not think the test results support that conclusion. Boston may not have followed the instructions which would typically be an indication but given the context of this situation I think it is nullified by the fact that Boston attempted to move beyond those 2 tests to something else and the officer would not do so - Boston did the basic test because he was really given no alternative and did the bare minimum. I do not see Boston as being the one giving the hard time but merely reacting to a situation by minimizing his cooperation.

As for the breathalizer, that's just a joke. It is/was fairly obvious the guys wasn't drunk, but that wasn't the point. He could have been high as a kite on crack and the breathalizer wouldn't tell you jack. Of COURSE Boston wanted to let it go at that. I don't honestly know about the blood test. Did Boston actually volunteer to go to the station and give a blood sample? Do the standard blood tests just test for alcohol, or do they check for other substances as well? Dunno. Either way, what does it matter if he took the field test or not if he was planning to go to the station. It's five minutes out of his life (and could have been less without the "my knees are too bad to stand on one leg" routine).

Boston did volunteer breath and blood. The blood test is able to pick up more than just alcohol. I suspect Boston has had enough experience to question the direction the interaction with this officer was going to have a concern once his concerns were immediately dismissed.

 

[ivnabru]

This is yet another example of why we need locally elected Boards of Police, accountable to the people through an elective process. As a school board member, I am accountable to the people who are served by our schools. If I am not responsive to the community I hear about it and I will face opposition in the elections. It is my responsibility to make sure that our schools meet the expectations of the community.

I think it is fair to say that most people expect to be able to call a lawyer when they want. If what is being said is true, and that it is against the law to call a lawyer if a cop tells you that you can't, then that is something most of us would want changed. If I were on a Board of Police overseeing this cop I would make sure the Chief put a reprimand in his file and if he was following "policy" i would make sure that policy was changed. The problem is that you have Chiefs of Police in charge with no public oversight, except indirectly through the Mayor's office. Most city councils do not exert a whole lot of oversight over police policy and conduct and/or the city is so big that as long as this sort of thing doesn't happen to the rich people or the white people, they don't care.

Biased much? The police should not be run like a school board (maybe the school board should not be run like the school board but that is my own biase. ) subject to public whim every time something that strikes someones nerves arises.

Guess what, if you break the law it is not at your convenience when you get to call your attorney - the cop had every right (and duty) to continue with his investigation rather than wait for Boston to contact his attorney, mother or psychic. Any public official that thinks otherwise should be held accountable for wasting the time of police. The right to counsel does not come into play at that stage of interaction between police and individuals.

I suspect David Boston would fall into a catagory of being rich for whatever that is worth.

The whole lawyer thing just astounds me. How many seriously confused people are going to spout off about this? When in the immediate investigation of a potential crime or dangerous situation, the cops have every right and duty to control that situation. The cop didn't say Boston couldn't EVER call his lawyer, he said that it wasn't the time, and it wasn't. And NO, the "policy" doesn't need to be changed. Changing that "policy" (which is just common sense anyway), would result in chaos.When a cop tells you to put your hands up, you do it. If he tells you to drop your gun, you do it. If he tells you to lay down on the ground, you do it. You don't call your lawyer. When a cop tells you to take a FST, you either do it or you get arrested and go to the station. If in any case it turns out the cop was crazy and made demands of you that didn't make sense at the time, you seek justice for that.

Lawyers serve a valuable purpose in our legal system, and Boston DOES have a right ot an attorney as guaranteed by the 6th, but that was not the time or place for a call to the lawyer.

People also forget that 20 years ago we aren't even HAVING this discussion. Without a cell phone, was Boston supposed to be allowed to drive over to his lawyer's house to get advice before complying with the cop's orders? Heck, even today, does somebody WITHOUT a cell phone have fewer rights than someone WITH a cell phone?

Folks, you need to THINK about what you are saying/asking for before judging this cop too harshly.

I have a feeling the reason Boston wasn't allowed to call the lawyer is he would have been advised to refuse the FST. He was getting arrested anyway, and FSTs are impossible to look good on. They're just there for additional evidence in court. I mean Boston took that better than I could completely sober (other than not counting out loud) but how many posts have been here talking about how his balance looked off and the superman pose.That cop did his best to make sure Boston took that FST, because I guarantee if Boston knew he could refuse he would have. He was trying to skip the FST and the cop did his best to keep that from happening. It's standard police procedure to do that kind of thing so you can't fault the cop. They are just there to get the arrest and have enough evidence that they aren't embarrassed in court. They aren't there to protect your rights in that type of situation.

By the way Boston should have refused the breath test on the scene. Those things are very inaccurate. He'd have been smarter to wait until they got to the real breath tester at the police station.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

When he decided that Boston was going to be arrested and still decided to give him a field sobriety test when Boston requested blood and/or a breathalizer

You object to the cop following the law? Different strokes, I guess.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Folks, you need to THINK

C'mon now, let's not go crazy over one little incident.

 

[Da Masses]

I have a feeling the reason Boston wasn't allowed to call the lawyer is he would have been advised to refuse the FST. He was getting arrested anyway, and FSTs are impossible to look good on. They're just there for additional evidence in court. I mean Boston took that better than I could completely sober (other than not counting out loud) but how many posts have been here talking about how his balance looked off and the superman pose.

That cop did his best to make sure Boston took that FST, because I guarantee if Boston knew he could refuse he would have. He was trying to skip the FST and the cop did his best to keep that from happening. It's standard police procedure to do that kind of thing so you can't fault the cop. They are just there to get the arrest and have enough evidence that they aren't embarrassed in court. They aren't there to protect your rights in that type of situation.

By the way Boston should have refused the breath test on the scene. Those things are very inaccurate. He'd have been smarter to wait until they got to the real breath tester at the police station.

This is off-topic but yes, he should have refused to take the FST, and then the officer would had make a judgment call to see if there was enough "probable cause" to arrest him.

After looking at the film, he looks and sounds like he's on the bad side of a ketogenic diet, which would explain his behavior and confused state. And he would have probably failed a breath test on the scene, because of the ketones he would have been exhaling.

David Boston's diet

Found this and I'm not sure if he's still following this, but he isn't taking much in for carbs.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

People also forget that 20 years ago we aren't even HAVING this discussion. Without a cell phone, was Boston supposed to be allowed to drive over to his lawyer's house to get advice before complying with the cop's orders? Heck, even today, does somebody WITHOUT a cell phone have fewer rights than someone WITH a cell phone?

It doesn't matter if somebody has a cell phone. Whether I have a cell phone or not, I am allowed not to do the FST until after talking to a lawyer. The cop misled Boston when he implied that Boston could not call his lawyer before performing the FST. Whether Boston had a cell phone is irrelevant. Boston could have held out for a face-to-face meeting with his attorney if he'd wanted to. Doing the FST is voluntary; so since Boston didn't have to do it at all if he didn't want to, he certainly didn't have to do it before talking to his lawyer.

 

[fflnut]

People also forget that 20 years ago we aren't even HAVING this discussion. Without a cell phone, was Boston supposed to be allowed to drive over to his lawyer's house to get advice before complying with the cop's orders? Heck, even today, does somebody WITHOUT a cell phone have fewer rights than someone WITH a cell phone?

It doesn't matter if somebody has a cell phone. Whether I have a cell phone or not, I am allowed not to do the FST until after talking to a lawyer. The cop misled Boston when he implied that Boston could not call his lawyer before performing the FST. Whether Boston had a cell phone is irrelevant. Boston could have held out for a face-to-face meeting with his attorney if he'd wanted to. Doing the FST is voluntary; so since Boston didn't have to do it at all if he didn't want to, he certainly didn't have to do it before talking to his lawyer.

While I agree with you that the cell phone point doesn't matter, what does matter is that the FST is part of police procedure for this type of incident. You don't have the choice to consult an attorney before doing it. If you decide not to, then it's up to the officer to make a decision on whether to arrest you or not. If you decide not to and are arrested, then you can consult an attorney, but not before being cuffed, finger printed, booked, etc. Read the post above from Holy Schneikes, he's exactly right.As far as misleading Boston, it did sound like the officer said he had to do the tests. I was having a hard time making tha tpart out though, so I can't say with 100% confidence that was what was said. Usually they ask you to step to the back of the vehicle, ask if you have any physical problems, are on medication, etc. Then tell you that they'd like you to perform a FST. They don't say you have a choice, they ask you if you'd be willing to do that (which is essentially saying you have a choice), but definitely don't focus on the "are you willing to do that part".

Someone else said this, but the best thing to do in these situations is to not offer the police ANY evidence against you. Evidence can be in the form of FST, saying too much, etc. If you don't do any of that, then it's their word against yours and they're obligated to prove your guilty, not the other way around.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While I agree with you that the cell phone point doesn't matter, what does matter is that the FST is part of police procedure for this type of incident. You don't have the choice to consult an attorney before doing it.

My point is that you don't have to do the FST without being able to first consult your attorney. This follows logically from the fact that you don't have to do the FST at all.The cop seemed to mislead Boston on this point, which doesn't seem very gentlemanly.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

While I agree with you that the cell phone point doesn't matter, what does matter is that the FST is part of police procedure for this type of incident. You don't have the choice to consult an attorney before doing it.

My point is that you don't have to do the FST without being able to first consult your attorney. This follows logically from the fact that you don't have to do the FST at all.The cop seemed to mislead Boston on this point, which doesn't seem very gentlemanly.

This makes no sense Maurile. You can refuse the FST (in which case the law says you fail it IIRC) or you can take it. But I'm pretty sure you can't do anything that will effectively stall the exam until you sober up.

 

[az_prof]

People also forget that 20 years ago we aren't even HAVING this discussion. Without a cell phone, was Boston supposed to be allowed to drive over to his lawyer's house to get advice before complying with the cop's orders? Heck, even today, does somebody WITHOUT a cell phone have fewer rights than someone WITH a cell phone?

It doesn't matter if somebody has a cell phone. Whether I have a cell phone or not, I am allowed not to do the FST until after talking to a lawyer. The cop misled Boston when he implied that Boston could not call his lawyer before performing the FST. Whether Boston had a cell phone is irrelevant. Boston could have held out for a face-to-face meeting with his attorney if he'd wanted to. Doing the FST is voluntary; so since Boston didn't have to do it at all if he didn't want to, he certainly didn't have to do it before talking to his lawyer.

While I agree with you that the cell phone point doesn't matter, what does matter is that the FST is part of police procedure for this type of incident. You don't have the choice to consult an attorney before doing it. If you decide not to, then it's up to the officer to make a decision on whether to arrest you or not. If you decide not to and are arrested, then you can consult an attorney, but not before being cuffed, finger printed, booked, etc. Read the post above from Holy Schneikes, he's exactly right.

But he does have the right to call his lawyer. Cop didn't want him to bec lawyer would have said 'don't take the FST and don't say anything.' The cop could then arrest him. If calling the lawyer meant non-compliance then the cop has the right to arrest him, which he was planning to do all along. Why in god's name would be illegal to call anyone, a lawyer or otherwise, if you are a free person living in a free country and you are not under arrest? If you are under arrest, then you get one phone call. If that is the law in FL then it has civil rights violation written all over it.

 

[az_prof]

This is yet another example of why we need locally elected Boards of Police, accountable to the people through an elective process. As a school board member, I am accountable to the people who are served by our schools. If I am not responsive to the community I hear about it and I will face opposition in the elections. It is my responsibility to make sure that our schools meet the expectations of the community.

I think it is fair to say that most people expect to be able to call a lawyer when they want. If what is being said is true, and that it is against the law to call a lawyer if a cop tells you that you can't, then that is something most of us would want changed. If I were on a Board of Police overseeing this cop I would make sure the Chief put a reprimand in his file and if he was following "policy" i would make sure that policy was changed. The problem is that you have Chiefs of Police in charge with no public oversight, except indirectly through the Mayor's office. Most city councils do not exert a whole lot of oversight over police policy and conduct and/or the city is so big that as long as this sort of thing doesn't happen to the rich people or the white people, they don't care.

Biased much? The police should not be run like a school board (maybe the school board should not be run like the school board but that is my own biase. :( ) subject to public whim every time something that strikes someones nerves arises.

Guess what, if you break the law it is not at your convenience when you get to call your attorney - the cop had every right (and duty) to continue with his investigation rather than wait for Boston to contact his attorney, mother or psychic. Any public official that thinks otherwise should be held accountable for wasting the time of police. The right to counsel does not come into play at that stage of interaction between police and individuals.

I suspect David Boston would fall into a catagory of being rich for whatever that is worth.

The whole lawyer thing just astounds me. How many seriously confused people are going to spout off about this? When in the immediate investigation of a potential crime or dangerous situation, the cops have every right and duty to control that situation. The cop didn't say Boston couldn't EVER call his lawyer, he said that it wasn't the time, and it wasn't. And NO, the "policy" doesn't need to be changed. Changing that "policy" (which is just common sense anyway), would result in chaos.

Do you seriously propose that this was a potential crime investigation or a dangerous situation? There is one reason, and one reason only, the cop refused to let him call his attorney. He knew the attorney would tell him what the cop was hiding from him; that he didn't have to take the FST.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While I agree with you that the cell phone point doesn't matter, what does matter is that the FST is part of police procedure for this type of incident. You don't have the choice to consult an attorney before doing it.

My point is that you don't have to do the FST without being able to first consult your attorney. This follows logically from the fact that you don't have to do the FST at all.The cop seemed to mislead Boston on this point, which doesn't seem very gentlemanly.

This makes no sense Maurile. You can refuse the FST (in which case the law says you fail it IIRC) or you can take it. But I'm pretty sure you can't do anything that will effectively stall the exam until you sober up.

What I wrote makes perfect sense, but has nothing at all to do with stalling the exam or sobering up. If you don't have to take the test at all, then you don't have to take it without consulting an attorney. There's nothing to argue about there; it's logically provable.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

People also forget that 20 years ago we aren't even HAVING this discussion. Without a cell phone, was Boston supposed to be allowed to drive over to his lawyer's house to get advice before complying with the cop's orders? Heck, even today, does somebody WITHOUT a cell phone have fewer rights than someone WITH a cell phone?

It doesn't matter if somebody has a cell phone. Whether I have a cell phone or not, I am allowed not to do the FST until after talking to a lawyer. The cop misled Boston when he implied that Boston could not call his lawyer before performing the FST. Whether Boston had a cell phone is irrelevant. Boston could have held out for a face-to-face meeting with his attorney if he'd wanted to. Doing the FST is voluntary; so since Boston didn't have to do it at all if he didn't want to, he certainly didn't have to do it before talking to his lawyer.

While I agree with you that the cell phone point doesn't matter, what does matter is that the FST is part of police procedure for this type of incident. You don't have the choice to consult an attorney before doing it. If you decide not to, then it's up to the officer to make a decision on whether to arrest you or not. If you decide not to and are arrested, then you can consult an attorney, but not before being cuffed, finger printed, booked, etc. Read the post above from Holy Schneikes, he's exactly right.

But he does have the right to call his lawyer.

He has a right to call his lawyer after he's booked. He does not have to do the FST before then (or after then). The cop made it seem like he did have to do the FST before then.

 

[mad sweeney]

This is yet another example of why we need locally elected Boards of Police, accountable to the people through an elective process. As a school board member, I am accountable to the people who are served by our schools. If I am not responsive to the community I hear about it and I will face opposition in the elections. It is my responsibility to make sure that our schools meet the expectations of the community.

I think it is fair to say that most people expect to be able to call a lawyer when they want. If what is being said is true, and that it is against the law to call a lawyer if a cop tells you that you can't, then that is something most of us would want changed. If I were on a Board of Police overseeing this cop I would make sure the Chief put a reprimand in his file and if he was following "policy" i would make sure that policy was changed. The problem is that you have Chiefs of Police in charge with no public oversight, except indirectly through the Mayor's office. Most city councils do not exert a whole lot of oversight over police policy and conduct and/or the city is so big that as long as this sort of thing doesn't happen to the rich people or the white people, they don't care.

Biased much? The police should not be run like a school board (maybe the school board should not be run like the school board but that is my own biase. ) subject to public whim every time something that strikes someones nerves arises.

Guess what, if you break the law it is not at your convenience when you get to call your attorney - the cop had every right (and duty) to continue with his investigation rather than wait for Boston to contact his attorney, mother or psychic. Any public official that thinks otherwise should be held accountable for wasting the time of police. The right to counsel does not come into play at that stage of interaction between police and individuals.

I suspect David Boston would fall into a catagory of being rich for whatever that is worth.

The whole lawyer thing just astounds me. How many seriously confused people are going to spout off about this? When in the immediate investigation of a potential crime or dangerous situation, the cops have every right and duty to control that situation. The cop didn't say Boston couldn't EVER call his lawyer, he said that it wasn't the time, and it wasn't. And NO, the "policy" doesn't need to be changed. Changing that "policy" (which is just common sense anyway), would result in chaos.

Do you seriously propose that this was a potential crime investigation

or a dangerous situation? There is one reason, and one reason only, the cop refused to let him call his attorney. He knew the attorney would tell him what the cop was hiding from him; that he didn't have to take the FST.

A man was passed out in his car in the middle of traffic and completely disoriented with no idea where he was. It was a very clear investigation into the state of impairment of the driver.If he refused the FST then the cop slaps the cuffs on him and takes him in. He already had enough to do that. The initial report also mentioned that's Boston's eyes were jittery and bouncy, combined with the other factors it was absolutely a crime investigation.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

Do you seriously propose that this was a potential crime investigation or a dangerous situation? There is one reason, and one reason only, the cop refused to let him call his attorney. He knew the attorney would tell him what the cop was hiding from him; that he didn't have to take the FST.

Do you seriously propose that this was not a crime investigation? People falling asleep at the wheel in traffic that common an occurance where you are that it doesn't amount to probable cause to investigate as a dangerous situation? Does it really matter the police officers motive to not allow Boston to do something he did not have to let him do? Guess what - the cop does not have to help criminals build their defense. Shocking isn't it? I like the earlier comment about the officer not being gentlemanly. It may be an accurate statement but I don't want gentlemen out there I want law enforcement.

 

[Aerial Assault]

People also forget that 20 years ago we aren't even HAVING this discussion. Without a cell phone, was Boston supposed to be allowed to drive over to his lawyer's house to get advice before complying with the cop's orders? Heck, even today, does somebody WITHOUT a cell phone have fewer rights than someone WITH a cell phone?

It doesn't matter if somebody has a cell phone. Whether I have a cell phone or not, I am allowed not to do the FST until after talking to a lawyer. The cop misled Boston when he implied that Boston could not call his lawyer before performing the FST. Whether Boston had a cell phone is irrelevant. Boston could have held out for a face-to-face meeting with his attorney if he'd wanted to. Doing the FST is voluntary; so since Boston didn't have to do it at all if he didn't want to, he certainly didn't have to do it before talking to his lawyer.

While I agree with you that the cell phone point doesn't matter, what does matter is that the FST is part of police procedure for this type of incident. You don't have the choice to consult an attorney before doing it. If you decide not to, then it's up to the officer to make a decision on whether to arrest you or not. If you decide not to and are arrested, then you can consult an attorney, but not before being cuffed, finger printed, booked, etc. Read the post above from Holy Schneikes, he's exactly right.

But he does have the right to call his lawyer.

He has a right to call his lawyer after he's booked. He does not have to do the FST before then (or after then). The cop made it seem like he did have to do the FST before then.

Yes, a thousand times yes . . . MT, you're just dead wrong on this. Sorry.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

A man was passed out in his car in the middle of traffic and completely disoriented with no idea where he was. It was a very clear investigation into the state of impairment of the driver.If he refused the FST then the cop slaps the cuffs on him and takes him in. He already had enough to do that. The initial report also mentioned that's Boston's eyes were jittery and bouncy, combined with the other factors it was absolutely a crime investigation.

The jittery and bouncy eyes indicate the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was given. Any explanation why that was not on the video? Don't expect to be able to see the eyes but showing the test was done at least supports the cop considering the 3 tests as gospel. I though it was a good idea the cop commenting that Boston was not looking at his foot because it would otherwise appear as though he was from the video (again you can't see the eyes to confirm so his comment without being refuted by Boston does provide some support that it was accurate.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

But he does have the right to call his lawyer.

I think MT made this clear in his posts. That right does not come into play until after the investigation/arrest

Cop didn't want him to bec lawyer would have said 'don't take the FST and don't say anything.'

True - go figure the officer wanted more evidence - that sounds like he was trying to do his job.

The cop could then arrest him.

Another statement that is correct.

If calling the lawyer meant non-compliance then the cop has the right to arrest him, which he was planning to do all along.

The cop had probable cause based on the traffic stop. Barring additional evidence that would refute the suspected cause for him falling asleep then of course the cop would have planned on making an arrest.

Why in god's name would be illegal to call anyone, a lawyer or otherwise, if you are a free person living in a free country and you are not under arrest?

Who said the telephone call would be illegal? Is it really your argument that ANY restrictions placed on an individual under investigation for a crime while that investigation is being conducted makes the action that is restricted illegal? (Wow, I know there has got to be a clearer way to make that last statement than what I just typed )

If you are under arrest, then you get one phone call.

You've watched enough court tv to get another statement right.

If that is the law in FL then it has civil rights violation written all over it.

But then you try to apply it and just hurt yourself in the attempt.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

did have to do the FST before then.

Yes, a thousand times yes . . . MT, you're just dead wrong on this. Sorry.

I am not clear on what you think MT got wrong AA. The right to call his attorney does attach after the arrest. So technically you are right, it normally would occur prior to the booking process. I think you are interpreting MT more literally than he intended.

It did sound as though the cop was claiming Boston had to perform the FST's he was requesting. That is not true but there is nothing wrong with the cop providing false information to get a suspect to think otherwise. I guess I would equate it to an undercover cop - should that cop have to tell the truth about who he is... It is an investigative tool. Ungentlemanly? Definitely but again that is why I don't want a bunch of gentlemen patrolling our streets.

 

[Tom Baker]

A good cop does the following: Assess the situation, determine whether or not Boston is a threat to society, act accordingly. Bottom line: if there's something in that video to suggest that Boston is any kind of a threat to the larger society, I certainly don't see it. Give him a traffic ticket, if it's warranted, but this whole drug-war driven police-state mentality that many cops have now has greatly contributed to the feeling of resentment that many have towards the police.

The police motto is supposed to be "Protect and Serve," not "Bully and Harrass."

 

[mad sweeney]

A man was passed out in his car in the middle of traffic and completely disoriented with no idea where he was. It was a very clear investigation into the state of impairment of the driver.

If he refused the FST then the cop slaps the cuffs on him and takes him in. He already had enough to do that. The initial report also mentioned that's Boston's eyes were jittery and bouncy, combined with the other factors it was absolutely a crime investigation.

The jittery and bouncy eyes indicate the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was given. Any explanation why that was not on the video? Don't expect to be able to see the eyes but showing the test was done at least supports the cop considering the 3 tests as gospel. I though it was a good idea the cop commenting that Boston was not looking at his foot because it would otherwise appear as though he was from the video (again you can't see the eyes to confirm so his comment without being refuted by Boston does provide some support that it was accurate.

I got the impression from the article that it was an observation and not a part of a sobriety test. Lemme go get the quote...

A drunkenness-recognition expert was called to the scene and conducted a field sobriety test, then escorted Boston to jail. A so-called DRE exam goes beyond the field sobriety test and includes a check of a driver's muscle tone and pupils, Forseth said.

At the scene, his eyes were bouncing back and forth and jerking, Forseth said. When officers told him he was in Pinellas Park, he responded, "Where is Pinellas Park?" Forseth said. "He believed he was somewhere in Hillsborough County.

"I didn't catch this the first time or two I read it but the officer was a specialist, DRE. Not just a fst administered by the responding officer. So the cop on video was called in specifically to examine Boston. I would have to imagine he was trained in, and followed the protocol for any such situation.

This also means that a decent amount of time passed between when Boston was awakened by the officers responding to a call of a car with a passed out driver and when the 15 minute video we see passed. A number of observations made by the officers on the scene could also be used in the decision to arrest him.

 

[a_rackowski]

This is really sounding like LSD, at least from my memory of my party days.

Does anyone know if LSD would show up in a drug test?

 

[mad sweeney]

A good cop does the following: Assess the situation, determine whether or not Boston is a threat to society, act accordingly. Bottom line: if there's something in that video to suggest that Boston is any kind of a threat to the larger society, I certainly don't see it. Give him a traffic ticket, if it's warranted, but this whole drug-war driven police-state mentality that many cops have now has greatly contributed to the feeling of resentment that many have towards the police.The police motto is supposed to be "Protect and Serve," not "Bully and Harrass."

According to the report, the cops assessed the situation and called in an expert. Passed out in a car with no idea where you are is certainly enough for a cop to, at the minimum, stop you from driving away again. What's to stop you from passing out at the next light, only this time your foot doesn't stay on the brake? People have resented the police since forever. Save the leftist rhetoric (of which I believe in) for when it's warranted. I wouldn't think it was safe to send him off on his own no matter if he was high or just exhausted. But putting him behind the wheel of a car again would be just plain stupid.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

A good cop does the following: Assess the situation, determine whether or not Boston is a threat to society, act accordingly. Bottom line: if there's something in that video to suggest that Boston is any kind of a threat to the larger society, I certainly don't see it. Give him a traffic ticket, if it's warranted, but this whole drug-war driven police-state mentality that many cops have now has greatly contributed to the feeling of resentment that many have towards the police.The police motto is supposed to be "Protect and Serve," not "Bully and Harrass."

The thing is the investigation neither started or ended with the video tape.If someone falls asleep at a traffic light and is observed by a police officer I hope everyone can agree an investigation is required.It now sounds as though there was additional evidence that was not on the tape or is not able to be seen from the video (example would be the comment about not looking at his foot while doing the foot raised test).There was nothing to indicate the officer was harassing Boston. I'll be the first to admit I'm second guessing the officer as well but more along the lines of making this a part of a training experience for the officer to respond better in the future. I must admit my impression was this was an older/experienced officer but maybe that is not the case considering they had to have someone else come to perform the HGN test.

 

[Christo]

That cop sounds like a dork. Of course DB is a dork also for not wanting to walk the line because of a sprained ankle and prior knee surgeries.....HOWEVER he did say "I'll do whatever you want me to"....why didn't he give him the breathelizer right away?2:10 MarkB: I'm not doing anythingCop: Your not doing ANYTHING! (high whiney voice)Cop: I know I smell alcoholThen give him the breath test/blood test whatever. Why go on for another 10 minutes?Cop=tool

He said he didn't smell alcohol.

 

[Otis]

This is really sounding like LSD, at least from my memory of my party days. Does anyone know if LSD would show up in a drug test?

Makes perfect sense. Given my experience with acid, I'm pretty sure the first thing you want to do after you get out of practice on a Thursday evening around 7pm, before jumping in your car, is drop a few tabs.Lots of great expert speculation up in here

 

[fflnut]

This is really sounding like LSD, at least from my memory of my party days. Does anyone know if LSD would show up in a drug test?

Makes perfect sense. Given my experience with acid, I'm pretty sure the first thing you want to do after you get out of practice on a Thursday evening around 7pm, before jumping in your car, is drop a few tabs.Lots of great expert speculation up in here

HA, hilarious. And given my experience with it, it generally makes me sleepy. Driving alone is the best time to take some though, for sure. Sometimes I take a few doses before heading into the office in the morning.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

The jittery and bouncy eyes indicate the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was given. Any explanation why that was not on the video? Don't expect to be able to see the eyes but showing the test was done at least supports the cop considering the 3 tests as gospel. I though it was a good idea the cop commenting that Boston was not looking at his foot because it would otherwise appear as though he was from the video (again you can't see the eyes to confirm so his comment without being refuted by Boston does provide some support that it was accurate.

I got the impression from the article that it was an observation and not a part of a sobriety test. Lemme go get the quote...

A drunkenness-recognition expert was called to the scene and conducted a field sobriety test, then escorted Boston to jail. A so-called DRE exam goes beyond the field sobriety test and includes a check of a driver's muscle tone and pupils, Forseth said.

At the scene, his eyes were bouncing back and forth and jerking, Forseth said. When officers told him he was in Pinellas Park, he responded, "Where is Pinellas Park?" Forseth said. "He believed he was somewhere in Hillsborough County.

"I didn't catch this the first time or two I read it but the officer was a specialist, DRE. Not just a fst administered by the responding officer. So the cop on video was called in specifically to examine Boston. I would have to imagine he was trained in, and followed the protocol for any such situation.

This also means that a decent amount of time passed between when Boston was awakened by the officers responding to a call of a car with a passed out driver and when the 15 minute video we see passed. A number of observations made by the officers on the scene could also be used in the decision to arrest him.

I would not immediately conclude there was a passage of a significant amount of time. I would suspect the "DRE" is a training officer on the department who was also on patrol and responded to the stop after it was made.The bouncing and jerking is a description of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. This is 1 of the 3 standardized field sobriety tests. If someone else had to do the test for the officer that made the stop it usually means that officer is new and has not received the training yet. Back when the test was first used it was not uncommon for only a few officers being trained but now it is common and even small departments have all their officers trained to give the test.

If the officer on the video was the training officer I think there needs additional training for the trainer. Just because other tests are not standardized does not mean there is not value to giving them in situations like this one where the suspect states a valid reason and even shows the scars from the operations. Granted the officer's assessment may be correct that Boston normally would be able to perform the test but because he is not required to I suspect a jury seeing the video would nullify the evidence of Boston not being able to follow each direction by the fact that he tried to avoid the test, offered to do any other test (which the officer failed to conduct) and did the bare minimum because he was presented with a do it or be arrested situation.

 

[Christo]

For everyone defending Boston, why would he lie to the cop? About everything. And why did he want to call his lawyer? If he wasn't doing anything wrong he should believe he could pass a FST with no problem. The guy is a professional athlete, I think he should excel at physical tests, while sober. The bottom line is he lied about where he was, where he was going and what he was doing. Why?Guilty people lie, and DB has a history that suggests something else was going on. And the "Superman" pose clinches it, because straight people just don't do that.

Think about it. You're a professional athlete with a history of problems and you're making a comeback. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that Boston really does have a legit reason. Big jump for some of you, but just look at it from that perspective. Let's say he either fell asleep or that he was on some medication or something, but NOT drugs and NOT alcohol. He realizes that he was just woken up at a red light and this cop thinks he's under the influence. He knows he's not under the influence, is able to speak clearly and coherently, and tells the cop "hey, I'm more than willing to cooperate....give me a blood test, give me a breathalyzer, I'll do whatever test you want". He also let's the cop know beforehand he hurt his ankle in TC, knowing that one little slip and he could be in trouble. The cop says, "yes, there's other tests". DB says good and he's willing to do any other test. Then the cop proceeds right back to the line after DB said he's willing to do any other test. At THAT point, DB thinks "man, why is this cop still persisting here. He really thinks I'm impaired" and wants to call his lawyer to make sure that nothing funny is going on and this gets handled correctly. The cop then proceeds to tell him he can't call his lawyer either. That is the point where you can tell DB is frustrated and annoyed and starts acting stupid (which is very stupid on his part). But if you watch the video for a 2nd time after having seen it the first time, you can tell from the very beginning that DB was actually very cooperative and was willing to submit to any testing to prove he wasn't on anything. Those are not the actions of someone that's on any type of drug. You don't start volunteering to take any blood or urine while you're high.

Then why LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING?Guilty people lie, innocent people don't have to.

You have no idea about what its like to be black in this country do you?

I know it doesn't give you a free pass to lie to the cops.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

That ....why didn't he give him the breathelizer right away?Cop: I know I smell alcoholThen give him the breath test/blood test whatever. Why go on for another 10 minutes?

He said he didn't smell alcohol.

The cop told Boston on the video he did not think it was alcohol. That being the case a preliminary breath test at the scene or a breathalyzer/DataMaster test back at the station would not be of any assistance.The cop had to request a blood (or maybe a urine test but I think that is more limited) test to reveal if other controlled substances were in his system.

 

[Christo]

I'm curious as to why he submitted an urine sample??? If he passed the field sobriety test AND the breath test why would he do this if he had something to hide? They can't force you to give a sample and as far as I know refusing one unlike a breath test is not an admission of guilt.

Cuz he was high!

he passed the sobriety test. Who knows what weird reason he was passed out where he was. could have been exhausted, and just pulled over for a nap. Woke up disoriented. Could have been with another woman/hooker and not wanna say? who knows.But he PASSED the sobriety test. SOBER people fail these often (I've seen them administered to 20 judges and cops at noon on a FRiday at a DUI conference and most of them failed. That he passed just means he has better physical control than most ... (pure speculation but makes sense), But that he actually passed all tests AND took a test (knowing the implications and what he has taken) I am bettingit will come up clean.

But I'd LOVE to know what really happened...

my two cents

He failed the very first one-in two ways. Before he started to walk the cop told him to keep his hands at his side and go toe-to-heel. He didn't keep his arms at his side because he used them to keep his balance. And the cop stated that their were gaps between his heel and toe.

 

[Christo]

Quick thoughts.1) Boston was acting like a jerk and was not compliant2) I dunno about him specifically, but wifey cannot complete a sentence or answer a direct question for at least 5 minutes after waking up from a deep sleep. I could imagine the cop questioning him right after waking up and him not really understanding what was going on until his head cleared which would explain his lack of being able to explain where he was.3) He seemed pretty lucid on the video, but I dunno the effects of every drug out there.4) Being denied a lawyer on tape looks badI once fell asleep in bumper to bumper traffic on the interestate in Massachussettes once. It was early in the morning, and I didn't sleep well the night before. No drugs. I fell asleep right on the interstate because of the monotony of waiting for traffic to move.

They don't have to let you call your lawyer. It's a non-issue.

What's he gonna do, snatch the phone from him?

Maybe, but he could definitely tack on an obstruction charge or failure to comply or even resisting arrest depending on how things turned out. He could arrest him for that right then and there.

Okay well if a cop ever tries to snatch a phone from me, he'd just get his ### beat. End of story.

 

[Christo]

David Boston could have been very nervous.. Not becuase he was on any illegal substance...

How many of us would do well ( with no notice ) and not fidgit if you new that what you do in the next 15 minutes could mean the difference between making 40k per year or 1,000,000.00 per year. Your next 15 minutes could cost you millions of dollars..

I would be very nervous and fidgity and not be able to follow the cops instructions to the T. and ask the cop to repeat himself just to make sure I understood correctly.

I would like to see a retired person pass this test.. knowing that most cant shouldnt they be arrested or at least banned from driving?

Failing the field sobriety is not really a big deal if you're sober. It's very inconvenient to get arrested for it, true, but they don't charge you for failing a field sobriety test. They charge you for DUI, the proof is the breathalyzer and blood/urine tests. The field tests are a part of the probable cause to "search" your body for drugs. If his blood is clean they won't charge him with anything. nada, nothing and other than being inconvenienced it won't affect his job status at all. It's not the next 15 minutes that will cost him his job, it's the past 24 hours. He might not have thought of that at the time, sure he'd be nervous. He very well might have thought about his career derailed by an arrest, but in truth as long as he is clean there is nothing more than inconvenience. You go to the station and do the blood/urine tests (which is what he wanted to do anyways) and whistle on your way out with no charges.

If they were going to take him down to the station and give him breath/blood/urine tests whether or not he passed the field sobriety test, then why give him the field sobriety test? If the field sobriety test can't form the basis for bringing charges, then what's the point?That's why I think people are reacting negatively to this cop. He shouldn't have wasted everyone's time with the FST if it couldn't help or hurt either party one way or the other.

I had a similar experience with a cop who was going to tow my car because I didn't have the registration sticker updated. I had paid the registration fee and done everything else, but the smog test for some reason wasn't showing up in the state's computer system so they hadn't sent me the sticker. (I didn't follow up on it like I should have, but that's a separate issue.) When the cop was arranging to have my car towed, we were literally three blocks from where I had my smog test done. So I asked him if it would help if I walked down there and got proof of it (like a receipt) from the place's computer system showing that I had done the test and passed. The cop said yes, I should please do that. So I went there, got the proof and even brought the guy who had done the test back with me in person. The cop said it didn't matter -- if it wasn't in the state's computer system he had to tow me. So he towed me.

The fact that he towed me isn't what irritated me. What irritated me is that, if going to get proof of the smog test wasn't going to matter, then why did he have me do it? Looks like the same situation with Boston's field test. Boston could do any field test thrown at him and it obviously wouldn't have mattered. He was going to be brought into the station anyway. So what was the point?

They need to first demonstrate "probable cause" before bringing a subject in for blood/urine tests. Thus, the requirement of field tests.

The field test did not give them probably cause.

Sure it did. He failed the very first one.

 

[Christo]

David Boston could have been very nervous.. Not becuase he was on any illegal substance...

How many of us would do well ( with no notice ) and not fidgit if you new that what you do in the next 15 minutes could mean the difference between making 40k per year or 1,000,000.00 per year. Your next 15 minutes could cost you millions of dollars..

I would be very nervous and fidgity and not be able to follow the cops instructions to the T. and ask the cop to repeat himself just to make sure I understood correctly.

I would like to see a retired person pass this test.. knowing that most cant shouldnt they be arrested or at least banned from driving?

Failing the field sobriety is not really a big deal if you're sober. It's very inconvenient to get arrested for it, true, but they don't charge you for failing a field sobriety test. They charge you for DUI, the proof is the breathalyzer and blood/urine tests. The field tests are a part of the probable cause to "search" your body for drugs. If his blood is clean they won't charge him with anything. nada, nothing and other than being inconvenienced it won't affect his job status at all. It's not the next 15 minutes that will cost him his job, it's the past 24 hours. He might not have thought of that at the time, sure he'd be nervous. He very well might have thought about his career derailed by an arrest, but in truth as long as he is clean there is nothing more than inconvenience. You go to the station and do the blood/urine tests (which is what he wanted to do anyways) and whistle on your way out with no charges.

If they were going to take him down to the station and give him breath/blood/urine tests whether or not he passed the field sobriety test, then why give him the field sobriety test? If the field sobriety test can't form the basis for bringing charges, then what's the point?That's why I think people are reacting negatively to this cop. He shouldn't have wasted everyone's time with the FST if it couldn't help or hurt either party one way or the other.

I had a similar experience with a cop who was going to tow my car because I didn't have the registration sticker updated. I had paid the registration fee and done everything else, but the smog test for some reason wasn't showing up in the state's computer system so they hadn't sent me the sticker. (I didn't follow up on it like I should have, but that's a separate issue.) When the cop was arranging to have my car towed, we were literally three blocks from where I had my smog test done. So I asked him if it would help if I walked down there and got proof of it (like a receipt) from the place's computer system showing that I had done the test and passed. The cop said yes, I should please do that. So I went there, got the proof and even brought the guy who had done the test back with me in person. The cop said it didn't matter -- if it wasn't in the state's computer system he had to tow me. So he towed me.

The fact that he towed me isn't what irritated me. What irritated me is that, if going to get proof of the smog test wasn't going to matter, then why did he have me do it? Looks like the same situation with Boston's field test. Boston could do any field test thrown at him and it obviously wouldn't have mattered. He was going to be brought into the station anyway. So what was the point?

They need to first demonstrate "probable cause" before bringing a subject in for blood/urine tests. Thus, the requirement of field tests.

The field test did not give them probably cause.

His reluctance to take it, his inability to follow simple instructions and his wobbly balance were PC. Oh, and he was passed out in drive in the middle of the street and didn't know where he was. But other than that, you're right, no PC.

Let me repeat this with the hopes that you get it this time:The field test did not give them probable cause.

Sure it did.

 

[Christo]

So you're right, he passed it with flying colors but the cop chose to arrest him anyway.

That does seem to be the problem. The cop could have arrested Boston based on the fact that Boston fell asleep in traffic. That's probable cause right there. When the cop decided to give Boston a field sobriety test, the implication is that if Boston passes the test, he should not be arrested. If he was going to be arrested even if he passed the test, then why give the test? Why not just arrest him and take him down to the station?

Who cares?