David Boston with a little DUI action (1 Viewer)

[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.

You ever heard of the sixth ammendment?

Sure. How is it relevant here?

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

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.

I do believe the race card for lying is an excuse but there are many reasons other than race for people to be reluctant to give police information. (Example: Sir, do you know how fast you were going? How many of us have been in that situation and how many told the officer exactly what speed you were driving BEFORE we hit the brakes and looked at the spedometer?) If we are willing to bend the truth (or lie by omission) for something like a speeding ticket it isn't hard to believe someone is willing to lie (if he wasn't simply confused) for a more serious offense.

 

[mad sweeney]

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.

Here's a timeline:Boston pulls up to a red light, passes out

Someone calls the cops and reports a car running in the middle of the street

First officers arrive

Officers assess the situation and call for the DRE

DRE officer arrives

Video starts

There is plenty of time in between the stages for observations to be made. We have no idea how much time elapsed between any of the stages.

There's nothing in the article to suggest that the bouncy, jerky eyes were part of the Nystagmus test. It only says that they were bouncy "at the scene", which could be from a test administered by the cops, or his eyes could have been crazy just while looking and talking to the officer. Forseth was the DRE on video and with his thoroughness, I would expect him to say that it was part of a test in his explanation and/or get the evidence of performing the test on video along with the rest of the tests.

I don't know what his knee had to do with his inability to count his steps. The balance could be explained by the knee a little, but as far as I know a surgically repaired knee does not affect speech. His injury was ok enough to go into a superman pose, it would seem that just raising the foot is a lot simpler.

If not wanting to do a test is a legal excuse to fail a test, then we wouldn't have any DUI convictions. "Your honor, my client didn't want to take the test so we ask that you throw out the FST and any evidence gathered after as a result of said clients said failure."

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

Here's a timeline:

Boston pulls up to a red light, passes out

Someone calls the cops and reports a car running in the middle of the street

First officers arrive

Officers assess the situation and call for the DRE

DRE officer arrives

Video starts

Did someone call in a complaint? This conversation has gone on long enough I no longer remember that being stated when I read the article. I am not contesting what you're saying just don't remember (is it alcohol, drug or age induced for me?) and you could add into that sequence that at some point they took the time to walk across the street into a parking lot as well.

There is plenty of time in between the stages for observations to be made. We have no idea how much time elapsed between any of the stages.

You are correct, I would expect observations were made from the beginning that would come into play.

There's nothing in the article to suggest that the bouncy, jerky eyes were part of the Nystagmus test. It only says that they were bouncy "at the scene", which could be from a test administered by the cops, or his eyes could have been crazy just while looking and talking to the officer. Forseth was the DRE on video and with his thoroughness, I would expect him to say that it was part of a test in his explanation and/or get the evidence of performing the test on video along with the rest of the tests.

The terms are common in relation to a HGN test and I suspect DRE is a glorified title for a training officer. Yes the officers report would include reference to the test - I was wondering why it was not part of the video. Again I do not believe you would have been able see the nystagmus, bouncing or jerkiness on the video just that the test was given and how Boston was able to (or not) hold his head steady while it was being given.

I don't know what his knee had to do with his inability to count his steps. The balance could be explained by the knee a little, but as far as I know a surgically repaired knee does not affect speech. His injury was ok enough to go into a superman pose, it would seem that just raising the foot is a lot simpler.

I think there is a mix up here. His knee does not affect his ability to count his steps. His concerns about conducting specific tests being ignored because of his knees has a direct impact on his willingness to cooperate when basically required to proceed with those tests. It appeared clear to me he was doing the minimum - even when asked about looking at his feet it wasn't as though Boston suddenly moved his head to comply, Even when the officer hounded him about the counting he did not immediately begin counting but as I'm typing my recollections of the video are dimming (da-- is s--ks getting old - that is my excuse and I'm sticking to it until you provide me the opportunity to conduct FST's to prove otherwise)

If not wanting to do a test is a legal excuse to fail a test, then we wouldn't have any DUI convictions. "Your honor, my client didn't want to take the test so we ask that you throw out the FST and any evidence gathered after as a result of said clients said failure."

Stating a valid reason for not giving the test and then being required to do so would not impact DUI convictions if the officers respond appropriately. The video would show how steady Boston was and the jury would be able to make a determination if it was just a tactic. Move from the standard 3 tests to others that do not involve the legs. Why give the suspect a valid argument regarding the officers observations by not doing any tests but the ones where an issue was raised?

 

[mad sweeney]

Here's a timeline:

Boston pulls up to a red light, passes out

Someone calls the cops and reports a car running in the middle of the street

First officers arrive

Officers assess the situation and call for the DRE

DRE officer arrives

Video starts

Did someone call in a complaint? This conversation has gone on long enough I no longer remember that being stated when I read the article. I am not contesting what you're saying just don't remember (is it alcohol, drug or age induced for me?) and you could add into that sequence that at some point they took the time to walk across the street into a parking lot as well.

I've lost track of where the article is, but yes a call was made.

There is plenty of time in between the stages for observations to be made. We have no idea how much time elapsed between any of the stages.

You are correct, I would expect observations were made from the beginning that would come into play.

There's nothing in the article to suggest that the bouncy, jerky eyes were part of the Nystagmus test. It only says that they were bouncy "at the scene", which could be from a test administered by the cops, or his eyes could have been crazy just while looking and talking to the officer. Forseth was the DRE on video and with his thoroughness, I would expect him to say that it was part of a test in his explanation and/or get the evidence of performing the test on video along with the rest of the tests.

The terms are common in relation to a HGN test and I suspect DRE is a glorified title for a training officer. Yes the officers report would include reference to the test - I was wondering why it was not part of the video. Again I do not believe you would have been able see the nystagmus, bouncing or jerkiness on the video just that the test was given and how Boston was able to (or not) hold his head steady while it was being given.

Glorified titles are there to lend credence to testimony. And those are the reasons I felt that the observation of his eyes was not based on an official test, but made during the 15+ minuted the cop was talking with him.

I don't know what his knee had to do with his inability to count his steps. The balance could be explained by the knee a little, but as far as I know a surgically repaired knee does not affect speech. His injury was ok enough to go into a superman pose, it would seem that just raising the foot is a lot simpler.

I think there is a mix up here. His knee does not affect his ability to count his steps. His concerns about conducting specific tests being ignored because of his knees has a direct impact on his willingness to cooperate when basically required to proceed with those tests. It appeared clear to me he was doing the minimum - even when asked about looking at his feet it wasn't as though Boston suddenly moved his head to comply, Even when the officer hounded him about the counting he did not immediately begin counting but as I'm typing my recollections of the video are dimming (da-- is s--ks getting old - that is my excuse and I'm sticking to it until you provide me the opportunity to conduct FST's to prove otherwise)

They were not being ignored. The officer clearly said he would take that into account and that Boston could perform the tests on his better knee and that he could stop if it was becoming painful. If he feels good enough to do a superman, it can't be too much of an inconvenience for him. And whether he was doing the minimum because he was miffed or because he was drunk have the same affect, an officer that has reason to believe you're impaired.

If not wanting to do a test is a legal excuse to fail a test, then we wouldn't have any DUI convictions. "Your honor, my client didn't want to take the test so we ask that you throw out the FST and any evidence gathered after as a result of said clients said failure."

Stating a valid reason for not giving the test and then being required to do so would not impact DUI convictions if the officers respond appropriately. The video would show how steady Boston was and the jury would be able to make a determination if it was just a tactic. Move from the standard 3 tests to others that do not involve the legs. Why give the suspect a valid argument regarding the officers observations by not doing any tests but the ones where an issue was raised?

If Boston hadn't gone into the superman pose, maybe I could accept this excuse. But putting up a stink about it and then doing something like that invalidates Boston's concerns.

 

[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

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.

Oh yeah. Before the Monday morning meeting is the best time. Good trip.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Boston looked sober and lucid to me.

 

[norton17]

Athletes do stuff dumber than getting a DUI all the time..the big question here will be

"Does Tampa Bay cut Boston if he's found guilty?"

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

If Boston hadn't gone into the superman pose, maybe I could accept this excuse. But putting up a stink about it and then doing something like that invalidates Boston's concerns.

I would have to disagree with you. Look at the size of Boston. I do not believe his concern was simply balance which is what the superman pose demonstrated for the officer was not his concern. Boston is big and having the operations adds to the concern of standing for prolonged periods wit the feet heel to toe and walking in that manner. I can state for entirely different reasons (my old ### is also a tad overweight) that standing and walking in that manner changes the strain on your legs. I've banged up my knees over the years and am much more aware of the aches and pains than when I was Boston's age - I would suspect a couple of knee operations could be a pretty good equalizer though. Whether Boston was right or not it seems he had a similar opinion.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

"Does Tampa Bay cut Boston if he's found guilty?"

I think TB would. If someone can clarify for me I would appreciate it but I don't remember to many stories coming out over the last several years about their players getting into legal trouble. With the team coming out and supporting Boston like it has I would think if they find out they were duped he would be gone just like last year only he would not get an invite back next season. If Boston can successfully make a comeback it would be a feel good story for the team but I do not think they expect him to return to the Pro-Bowl form of his hey day under the best of circumstances.

 

[Supercool]

I would just like to know why it's taking so long to get the results of the test.

 

[Otis]

Now imagine he's David Boston.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

Now imagine he's David Boston.

And it was a great movie as well.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

I would just like to know why it's taking so long to get the results of the test.

I suspect the results will get back quicker on this one than a regular joe off the street but the blood is usually drawn and then sent to the crime lab for analysis rather than at the hospital where the blood was taken and there is usually a backlog at the lab.

 

[Otis]

I would just like to know why it's taking so long to get the results of the test.

I suspect the results will get back quicker on this one than a regular joe off the street but the blood is usually drawn and then sent to the crime lab for analysis rather than at the hospital where the blood was taken and there is usually a backlog at the lab.

I thought they took a urine sample and not a blood test.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

I thought they took a urine sample and not a blood test.

I don't remember that - Boston was willing to take any other test and may have mentioned it. I think the blood can be tested for more types of drugs than urine but I may be off the mark on that one.Even if it is urine I think the procedure is usually the same and it would get sent out for testing.

 

[pgreenfan]

I thought they took a urine sample and not a blood test.

I don't remember that - Boston was willing to take any other test and may have mentioned it. I think the blood can be tested for more types of drugs than urine but I may be off the mark on that one.Even if it is urine I think the procedure is usually the same and it would get sent out for testing.

Urine tests at the local level would initially be a simple drop stick test I would think. They have drop sticks for THC, cocaine, opiates, and meth I know.

 

[Willowdoc]

I would just like to know why it's taking so long to get the results of the test.

I suspect the results will get back quicker on this one than a regular joe off the street but the blood is usually drawn and then sent to the crime lab for analysis rather than at the hospital where the blood was taken and there is usually a backlog at the lab.

I thought they took a urine sample and not a blood test.

They did take a urine test, not a blood test. Urine tests are better at testing for metabolites, blood better for alcohol. We used to get our urine tests for tox screens done in 4 hours. They are also cheaper than blood tests. My guess is that the Bucs got their tests back (being in the program means the Bucs can ask him to do a test at anytime) then they made their positive statement about his innocence. The NFL also probably uses MUCH better and more accurate labs than local police forces.

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

Urine tests at the local level would initially be a simple drop stick test I would think. They have drop sticks for THC, cocaine, opiates, and meth I know.

You are correct about the existence of stick tests for various drugs but I am not aware of any police departments that perform such tests themselves. Coming from a small community that may be something larger metropolitan areas do. I believe the labs conduct double testing and that may be the 2nd test that they use for comparison purposes.

 

[Skanker]

 

[Redding]

.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

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.

Yes, and at the point you can "prove it", it is totally irellavent. You are wordsmithing here and I suspect you know it.You have two choices, take the test or don't. Lawers don't really play into it. Yes, the cops CONSISTENTLY underemphasize the choice aspect of that. It's standard prodcedure I believe. If cops really emphasized the fact that you don't have to take it, very few people would. It IS a little screwy, but I don't thik THIS cop did anything out of the ordinary in that regard.

 

[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.

Do you seriously propose that this was a potential crime investigation or a dangerous situation?

Absolutely 100% on both counts. Do you have any idea how many people die as a result of driving under the influence? It doesn't get much more dangerous than that. It was ALSO a crime investigation.And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

 

[gianmarco]

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.

Yes, and at the point you can "prove it", it is totally irellavent. You are wordsmithing here and I suspect you know it.You have two choices, take the test or don't. Lawers don't really play into it. Yes, the cops CONSISTENTLY underemphasize the choice aspect of that. It's standard prodcedure I believe. If cops really emphasized the fact that you don't have to take it, very few people would. It IS a little screwy, but I don't thik THIS cop did anything out of the ordinary in that regard.

You don't? So you don't think the fact that Boston specifically stated before any tests started that he hurt his ankle in TC and would prefer to do ANY other test but was still pushed to do so was justified? When the officer persisted, Boston STILL asked to give up blood or urine or perform another test, and the officer said "yeah, there are other tests, but again, let's start here. I saw you walk across the parking lot just fine". I saw Boston try to opt out of that specific field test twice and ended up still having to perform it. Yes, I know he doesn't get to pick and choose which tests he can perform, and yes, I know the officer could have arrested him if he did decide to not do the FST if the officer thought he was impaired. But, as far as I know, he still has the right to refuse the FST and he tried to exercise that right without success.If Boston does indeed have the right to refuse the FST, well then, it seems to me that he attempted to exercise that right (more than once) and we all know he still ended up having to do the FST. By the way, he didn't ask to call his lawyer until he did try to refuse the FST and was still being asked to perform it. I don't think that was unreasonable at all as he was right in thinking he could refuse the test and didn't seem like he was being allowed to. If I were him in his position, I'd probably ask to speak with my attorney as well to confirm.

That's my main problem with this police officer. And I think that's the main issue that is going to ultimately get him cleared more than any other aspect of this arrest or that tape (provided he has a clean urine)

 

[Redding]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

 

[Redding]

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.

Yes, and at the point you can "prove it", it is totally irellavent. You are wordsmithing here and I suspect you know it.You have two choices, take the test or don't. Lawers don't really play into it. Yes, the cops CONSISTENTLY underemphasize the choice aspect of that. It's standard prodcedure I believe. If cops really emphasized the fact that you don't have to take it, very few people would. It IS a little screwy, but I don't thik THIS cop did anything out of the ordinary in that regard.

Oh. So the cop's actions were "a little screwy," but because cops do this sort of thing all the time, it's perfectly acceptableGot it.

 

[DWidmar]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

I disagree. The cops would not let me call a friend if I was in the middle of a field sobriety test. Hey guys, lets put this on hold, I need to call a friend for some advice. Essentially he would be calling the lawyer as a friend because, as you said, he wasn't under arrest. People just can't call lawyers in the middle of the investigation. There is a time and a place for that and at the crime scene / investigation site is not one of them. I do agree with the fact that they can't force him to take the test. He would essentially give up his right to prove innocence by refuting the test, and most states will automatically suspend your license if you refuse a test. I also believe you are found guilty if you refuse a test in some states. He should have just kept refusing to take the tests because he didn't want to not because of the BS story of his balance with his rebuilt knees. The cop sees Boston pushing for a starting job, running, jumping, cutting and being tackled on those knees yet he cant do a field sobriety test. Pobably pissed the cop off that he was full of it.

 

[Otis]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

I disagree. The cops would not let me call a friend if I was in the middle of a field sobriety test. Hey guys, lets put this on hold, I need to call a friend for some advice. Essentially he would be calling the lawyer as a friend because, as you said, he wasn't under arrest. People just can't call lawyers in the middle of the investigation. There is a time and a place for that and at the crime scene / investigation site is not one of them.

If the cop hasn't arrested him, then he's a free man. I don't see why he can't make a phone call then.

 

[DWidmar]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

I disagree. The cops would not let me call a friend if I was in the middle of a field sobriety test. Hey guys, lets put this on hold, I need to call a friend for some advice. Essentially he would be calling the lawyer as a friend because, as you said, he wasn't under arrest. People just can't call lawyers in the middle of the investigation. There is a time and a place for that and at the crime scene / investigation site is not one of them.

If the cop hasn't arrested him, then he's a free man. I don't see why he can't make a phone call then.

Because he is the middle of an investigation on him. If you leaving a store, and a cop grabbed you for suspicion of shoplifting, do you think he would allow you to make a phone call prior to him determining if you committed a crime or not. No way would he let you make a call.

 

[CrossEyed]

So when do the results come back?

 

[Christo]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

I disagree. The cops would not let me call a friend if I was in the middle of a field sobriety test. Hey guys, lets put this on hold, I need to call a friend for some advice. Essentially he would be calling the lawyer as a friend because, as you said, he wasn't under arrest. People just can't call lawyers in the middle of the investigation. There is a time and a place for that and at the crime scene / investigation site is not one of them.

If the cop hasn't arrested him, then he's a free man. I don't see why he can't make a phone call then.

You know very well that isn't true.

 

[PhD]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

I disagree. The cops would not let me call a friend if I was in the middle of a field sobriety test. Hey guys, lets put this on hold, I need to call a friend for some advice. Essentially he would be calling the lawyer as a friend because, as you said, he wasn't under arrest. People just can't call lawyers in the middle of the investigation. There is a time and a place for that and at the crime scene / investigation site is not one of them. I do agree with the fact that they can't force him to take the test. He would essentially give up his right to prove innocence by refuting the test, and most states will automatically suspend your license if you refuse a test. I also believe you are found guilty if you refuse a test in some states. He should have just kept refusing to take the tests because he didn't want to not because of the BS story of his balance with his rebuilt knees. The cop sees Boston pushing for a starting job, running, jumping, cutting and being tackled on those knees yet he cant do a field sobriety test. Pobably pissed the cop off that he was full of it.

Bottom line is that the cop tells him that he does NOT have the right to make a call to his lawyer. I don't know if that is true or not but if it IS true then this point is a non-issue. If it is NOT true then it's an unlawful investigation. Of all the parts that got me in the video is the period when they are talking about Boston's college education.

(1) the cop seems flustered and he stumbles and stutters when talking about college. Does that mean that HE is on something or is he just worried about making a mistake on video which may run him the risk of losing his career? Welcome to Boston's world.

(2) and what is that BS about protecting his privacy while using his name at least once and then letting the video become public domain on the internet?

(sorry if these thoughts have already been mentioned in the pages and pages of this thread.)

 

[ready5]

for all of you hammering away on the notion that "he lied therefore he's guilty", watch out for the fallacy of the argument from silence (and all its variations). even if we assume that he purposefully lied, there are plenty of non-incriminatory reasons for why he may have done so.

 

[Otis]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

I disagree. The cops would not let me call a friend if I was in the middle of a field sobriety test. Hey guys, lets put this on hold, I need to call a friend for some advice. Essentially he would be calling the lawyer as a friend because, as you said, he wasn't under arrest. People just can't call lawyers in the middle of the investigation. There is a time and a place for that and at the crime scene / investigation site is not one of them.

If the cop hasn't arrested him, then he's a free man. I don't see why he can't make a phone call then.

You know very well that isn't true.

I don't. Why isn't it?

 

[Wilbur Wood]

So when do the results come back?

As soon as local law enforcement gets the results that they are looking for.

 

[switz]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

 

[stevegamer]

So when do the results come back?

As soon as local law enforcement gets the results that they are looking for.

 

[Otis]

A quick Google search led me to this page with a bunch of New Hampshire case law snippets on FSTs and traffic stops:

Link

I don't have time to read them all, but two interesting factors that seem to come into play in these situations (at least under NH law) are (1) whether the officer mislead the individual into believing that he had to take a FST and/or otherwise comply, and (2) whether the individual indicated to the officer that there is some reason (such as physical disability or other impairment) that a FST is not fair.

As to (1), I think it's arguable that this officer coerced him into doing it when he clearly indicated he did not want to and clearly indicated he wanted to speak to his lawyer first, and, as to (2), Boston clearly explained he had concerns about his physical condition (in fact, it almost seems to me, having read this case law, that perhaps he was aware of this too -- as though he was instructed to explain his injuries if he is ever stopped and asked to take a FST).

I'm no criminal lawyer and this isn't case law from the relevant jurisdiction, but it's interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same factors came into play in this case.

 

[Otis]

From another site:

4. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ROADSIDE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS...

DON'T CONSENT TO ROADSIDE GYMNASTICS AND ALPHABET GAMES!

You have the right to decline eye coordination ( horizontal gaze nystagmus ) tests, balance and performance ( one leg stand, walk and turn ) tests, and should politely decline to recite the alphabet backwards or in any other sequence. You are not legally required to count numbers, touch your nose, stare at a pen or pencil, or hop on one foot.

Reliability and accuracy of field sobriety tests, or sfst's, are considered dubious and notwithstanding in a court of law. Submitting to roadside acrobatic exercises will not help you avoid arrest or challenge your DUI case. Always decline in a manner that is respectful and noncombative. You might state "I prefer not to, thank you".

http://sandiegodwi.com/dui-legal-rights.html

 

[mad sweeney]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

Breathalyzers do not detect drugs, thus they called for a drug recognition expert to check for drugs. It's all in the reply you quoted.

 

[Otis]

More:

If I am arrested and brought to the police station, should I do any of the sobriety tests in front of a video camera, which includes a Breathalyzer and answering more questions?

First, inform the officer, and all officers you come into contact with, that you want to remain silent and not incriminate yourself until you can contact an attorney and have a private consultation with him regarding the things the officers will ask you and ask you to do. Remind the officers that you are neither refusing nor agreeing to cooperate, but that your decision to do the tests and answer the questions depends upon the advice you receive from your attorney.

Sometimes you may be told "you can't have a lawyer yet". This may or may not be a valid statement depending on the conditions of your case, but, you won't know that until you are allowed to speak with a lawyer. The best thing to do is to remain very polite but still firm in your desire to speak to an attorney.

When the police let you the use the telephone, immediately use it and call any attorney you know. If you do not know one, look in the yellow pages to find one. An important piece of information is that most law offices forward their calls after business hours, so you could very well get connected to an attorney at his or her home.

http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/new-yor...rk-dwi-faq.html

 

[Otis]

If the cop hasn't arrested him, then he's a free man. I don't see why he can't make a phone call then.

You know very well that isn't true.

I don't. Why isn't it?

Bump.

 

[Woz]

And as has been stated a kazillion times, there is NO legal requirement for the cop to allow Boston to call his attorney at that time. It's just a fact, and it makes sense.

The cop also can't legally PREVENT him from doing so. He wasn't under arrest.The cop also can't FORCE him to take the test. The cop mislead Boston into believing he had to, even after Boston said he did not wanted to and tried to consult his attorney.

I disagree. The cops would not let me call a friend if I was in the middle of a field sobriety test. Hey guys, lets put this on hold, I need to call a friend for some advice. Essentially he would be calling the lawyer as a friend because, as you said, he wasn't under arrest. People just can't call lawyers in the middle of the investigation. There is a time and a place for that and at the crime scene / investigation site is not one of them.

If the cop hasn't arrested him, then he's a free man. I don't see why he can't make a phone call then.

You know very well that isn't true.

I don't. Why isn't it?

I don't know either. The officer specifically said to him he was in custody and therefore can't leave, so at that point his sixth and fifth amendments rights to an attorney and to not incriminate himself kick in. The officer likely already had the probable cause to arrest Boston and give him the urine test by simply stating "Boston was asleep in the car and when I spoke to Boston his speeched was blurred and his eyes were bloodshot." A good defense lawyer here should be able to get the results of the roadside tests omitted, but that really doesn't do him any good anyways and it never looks like Boston admits so this whole argument is moot.

 

[gianmarco]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

Breathalyzers do not detect drugs, thus they called for a drug recognition expert to check for drugs. It's all in the reply you quoted.

Way to miss the point. What was the need for THREE of them? Is that standard procedure?

 

[CrossEyed]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

Breathalyzers do not detect drugs, thus they called for a drug recognition expert to check for drugs. It's all in the reply you quoted.

Way to miss the point. What was the need for THREE of them? Is that standard procedure?

You never heard, "Third time's a charm."?

 

[Otis]

When at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

Breathalyzers do not detect drugs, thus they called for a drug recognition expert to check for drugs. It's all in the reply you quoted.

Way to miss the point. What was the need for THREE of them? Is that standard procedure?

You never heard, "Third time's a charm."?

Wait a minute, this isn't a breathalyzer test at all!

 

[switz]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

Breathalyzers do not detect drugs, thus they called for a drug recognition expert to check for drugs. It's all in the reply you quoted.

My point was why administer three? Regardless, they were looking to arrest him, otherwise they would have let him call his lawyer, etc.

 

[mad sweeney]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

Breathalyzers do not detect drugs, thus they called for a drug recognition expert to check for drugs. It's all in the reply you quoted.

My point was why administer three? Regardless, they were looking to arrest him, otherwise they would have let him call his lawyer, etc.

All for just seemingly being impaired while passed out in the middle of traffic with no idea where he was. Oh the inhumanity. They should've just woken him up and let him go driving off since he was driving so well up to that point.

 

[Tom Baker]

Just read this:

According to the arrest report, Boston was asleep in his Range Rover with the engine running at a major intersection in Pinellas Park when police arrived and awakened him around 7:30 p.m. Though Boston passed three Breathalyzer tests, a drug recognition expert called to the scene determined Boston was impaired enough to be taken into custody.

Tell me they weren't just looking for a reason to arrest him. He passed THREE tests at the scene prior to the FST.

Breathalyzers do not detect drugs, thus they called for a drug recognition expert to check for drugs. It's all in the reply you quoted.

My point was why administer three? Regardless, they were looking to arrest him, otherwise they would have let him call his lawyer, etc.

All for just seemingly being impaired while passed out in the middle of traffic with no idea where he was. Oh the inhumanity. They should've just woken him up and let him go driving off since he was driving so well up to that point.

Isn't that what they ultimately did, after they charged him with the DUI?