1098 users online (238 members and 860 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,160

    And Now, In Our Local News. .

    ----- That's all I can say about this judge .

    http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs...GNEWS/70831015

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by FLMom View Post
    ----- That's all I can say about this judge .

    http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs...GNEWS/70831015
    Well, if the technology is unreliable, it's good a judge had the guts to throw it out.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Well, if the technology is unreliable, it's good a judge had the guts to throw it out.
    I agree with you Nova. If there is no procedure in place and there are questions regarding the BAC levels as a result of that..then this is the right thing to do.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,021
    is all I can say about this Judge.
    I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,160
    My frustration is the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" thought process.

    I'm picturing some obviously drunk driver who is going to get off just because he can throw out the idea that he blew too hard. Unless it's a DUI checkpoint, you've been pulled over because someone noticed your driving was impaired. To be able to balk at the use of a machine just because "it ain't fair" is plain wrong to me.

    Whether you blow for five seconds or twenty, the fact remains that if you blow over .08 in Florida, you're driving under the influence. I'm sorry, but to me "it's not fair" is a lame copout for a drunk driver. It's not the validity of the machine that they're contesting, it's that some cops make suspect blow longer than others. To me, that's a big "so what". Drunk is drunk.

    JMHO. . . .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,021
    Quote Originally Posted by FLMom View Post
    My frustration is the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" thought process.

    I'm picturing some obviously drunk driver who is going to get off just because he can throw out the idea that he blew too hard. Unless it's a DUI checkpoint, you've been pulled over because someone noticed your driving was impaired. To be able to balk at the use of a machine just because "it ain't fair" is plain wrong to me.

    Whether you blow for five seconds or twenty, the fact remains that if you blow over .08 in Florida, you're driving under the influence. I'm sorry, but to me "it's not fair" is a lame copout for a drunk driver. It's not the validity of the machine that they're contesting, it's that some cops make suspect blow longer than others. To me, that's a big "so what". Drunk is drunk.

    JMHO. . . .
    I hear you, FLMOM, and I'm certainly no fan of loaded drivers running amok on our roads, believe you me.

    But the tests MUST be consistent and not flawed and fair to all who take them. This is a cornerstone of our justice system and if some drunks have to fall through the system to get it fixed, then so be it.

    The alternative is too dreadful to consider, quite frankly, and I applaud any Judge who has the stones to realize and act on this in the face of the negative publicity he is sure to receive.
    I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,160
    Quote Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
    I hear you, FLMOM, and I'm certainly no fan of loaded drivers running amok on our roads, believe you me.

    But the tests MUST be consistent and not flawed and fair to all who take them. This is a cornerstone of our justice system and if some drunks have to fall through the system to get it fixed, then so be it.

    The alternative is too dreadful to consider, quite frankly, and I applaud any Judge who has the stones to realize and act on this in the face of the negative publicity he is sure to receive.
    I see where you're coming from, and I agree to the extent that LE should now have a seminar to make sure everyone is on the right page. That being said, to let some ******* driver off the hook because he blew a .08 after five seconds and the guy next to him blew a .09 after ten seconds-- either way you cut it, both guys weren't fit to be behind the wheel.

    Judges have wide discretion in most cases. If both our suspects mentioned above failed the field sobriety tests, then there's a reason he's a judge and he could have found someone guilty despite the breath test. My frustration is the narrowness of his decision and discretion. To make changes so that things are done properly in the future?---absolutely. To refuse to consider any and all other evidence in the case?---I think that's wrong. Right or wrong, there's always a grey area and that's what judges get discretion to consider. I just think it was the wrong way to go about this.

    I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, SCM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,021
    Quote Originally Posted by FLMom View Post
    I see where you're coming from, and I agree to the extent that LE should now have a seminar to make sure everyone is on the right page. That being said, to let some ******* driver off the hook because he blew a .08 after five seconds and the guy next to him blew a .09 after ten seconds-- either way you cut it, both guys weren't fit to be behind the wheel.

    Judges have wide discretion in most cases. If both our suspects mentioned above failed the field sobriety tests, then there's a reason he's a judge and he could have found someone guilty despite the breath test. My frustration is the narrowness of his decision and discretion. To make changes so that things are done properly in the future?---absolutely. To refuse to consider any and all other evidence in the case?---I think that's wrong. Right or wrong, there's always a grey area and that's what judges get discretion to consider. I just think it was the wrong way to go about this.

    I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, SCM.
    I hear and respect you, FLMom!
    I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    Posts
    7,376
    I agree that an unreliable test should be questioned, but it is a nightmare to think that every DUI case that rested on a breathalyzer could be thrown out. The consequences could be devastating. Repeat offenders could have their licenses reinstated or get out of jail, even though they have no business being behind the wheel. How many deaths will be on this judges hands?

    If someone is truly shocked that they blew the test, I would think they'd request a blood test. Now maybe they were near the edge, and they weren't sure, and I have a harder time feeling sorry for those people. If they're not sure, they shouldn't be driving. But if they had only had one drink with dinner and were truly unimpaired, you'd think there would be tons of complaints and requests for a BAC.

    I think they should do more extensive testing on the equipment before any kind of ruling like this. In the meantime, can officers be given the little finger poke things that diabetics use? I'll bet the drunks would be totally POed if they had to have that every time. They'd be lining up to blow into the tube!!!