Dui while parked ( not me thank the lord)

[middleman210]

Originally Posted by RoyM

There was an interesting case here in BC recently. A gentleman had (he claims) a couple of beers and rather than take a chance had his grandson who has a learner's permit drive. They were pulled over in a roadside check, grandpa was cited for being under the influence even though he was not driving and didn't blow over the limit. However the officer applied the same rules reasoning that he was essentially in charge of the vehicle in a supervisory role. He was fined, forfeited the vehicle for 30 days and is required to take a course. There is no law on the books regarding this situation but the AG won't step in. He is leaving it up to the courts but the gentleman is not in a financial position to take it on.

I know for a fact in Maryland this is the case we were even told by the driving instructor that until the young one has his license not to be in the front seat if we had a few. Driving instructor was a state trooper.

[Oldme]

Originally Posted by Mekanic

WOW I have a question.
Are they scoring shooting at 100% as well??
I was told they would NEVER do that because if you shot 100%

And then under all stress of a real shooting got lucky and shot a suspect between the eyes when we were taught to shoot center mass then it would be said you did it on purpose??

Good question.

On the range we taught to double tap center mass.

Our routine moved from various distances between 5 to 25 yards. Open and behind barricades, varions positions. All timed.

No 100% was not required there, only 90% if I remember correctly.

All in-class legal course work has to be a 100% score. That is why all the individual re-training and re-testing on each course section and the final exam.

It was also customized to each officer if any questions were missed.

The instructor had to make one general test for everyone. Then each student that missed any part of that test was was retrained and re-tested on that part, up to 3 times to get the100% on what he missed. All tests were approved on the highest
Academy/State levels.

Example: if Officer A missed 5 questions out of 100, he would be retrained and retested on that areas which the 5 questions were about.

If he then missed 2 questions, he was retrained and retested again on the areas he missed.

If he then missed 1 question, the was retrained and retested again on the area he missed.

That would make the three possible testings.
If he did not get a 100% on the retested areas, then he was out.
Out of the Academy and out of a job.

All tests are signed by the Officer and instructor.
The Officer can never say he was not trained.
That eliminated the deep pockets the lawyers went after, by eliminating vicarious liability.

"Vicarious Liability" are key words here.

Ref to the lawsuit with the Officer:
Depending on Departmental and City polices, the Officer may very well still be represented by City paid Attorneys and the Insurance Company the City has, to cover the lawsuit.
Usually they are afforded some to all help.

There are however NO guarantees, as it is up to the individual City and PD policies.

Also some areas have Police Unions, however some areas like Va., a union would be illegal. The union if any, would also assist the Officer. Also any Association of LEO (non union) may offer assistance.

As someone else said, it is never simple.

[jeryan59]

Originally Posted by Oldme

If anyone read the link in post 42 you will see that the Supreme Court stated that a person has the Right to Reasonable Privacy in their......tent.
A tent is hooked up to nothing.

I thought I would add a little insight to something that was said and that I have agreed with many times.

It was a question about why not let him sleep it off.

That was a normal practice until the late 1960's.
Either allow him to sleep it off in the backseat or
give him a ride home. Even into the 1970's I have
done just that and not arrest the person.

However things changed.

There became a mentality that we are not responsible
for our own actions and if we or someone else is hurt
it must be someone ease's responsibility.

At the same time it became a belief that there was such
a thing as a free lunch and free money.

Cities began seeing lawsuits for negligence.
Negligence as in failure to perform your duty.

If Officer Friendly allowed Bill to sleep it off ion his car
and Bill awoke then later drove the car and hit something, the lawyers sued Officer Friendly for negligence.

The same thing happened if Officer Friendly took Bill
home and he awoke and fell down his front steps.

Neither accident wold have happened of Bill had been arrested and placed in jail.

Now the lawyers knew that Officer Friendly did not have deep pockets. So they sue Officer Friendly for negligence, add in all Supervisors working that shift - as they should have told Officer Friendly to arrest Bill, the Training Officer for improper training of Officer Friendly, the PD because they hired, trained and retained Officer Friendly, the City because the PD is a part of City Government, the PD Academy because they certified
Officer Friendly and the State because they either run or certify the PD Academy.

The lawsuit has gotten big and the Damiano effect is starting.

The juries felt like an award for Bill hurt no one as it was City Money.
It was free, just like a free lunch.
Awards of $100,000-200,000 were not uncommon.
Pull up an inflation calculator and see what that is worth today!

Self insured cities were losing money, cities that were insured by an outside insurance company saw their rate rise. Taxes had to go up to cover the costs.

So changes had to be made.

PD's made policies that followed the Jury's ruling that if an Officer saw a violation and did not make an arrest, it was negligence.

The city now had a shield against lawsuits.
But the Damiano effect is still going.

PD Academy started an intense paper trail of all training.
The Officer had to sign that he had been trained on each
topic and signing his test papers. He was also re-trained
and re-tested on any area he failed to make a 100% test
score on until that 100% was met. Up to 3 times.
If he failed to meet 100% after the 3rd try he was out.

This protected the Academy, State, City, PD, PD Supervisors and PD Training Officer, but not Officer Friendly. He could never again say he was not trained.

The Citizens now wonder what happened to Officer Friendly and why he was replaced by Officer Hardnose.

Some still believe there is a free lunch and free money.

Well said!

I also agree with your previous posts, there is no absolute in the law as there are many circumstances that affect every legal situation. So as the intent of the law and the interpretation of the law will vary based on the particular circumstances.

Unfortunately, we have too many laws that had good intentions but due to societal pressures and funding issues, many laws are enforced based on the interpretation and circumstances from to many different interests.

[Oldme]

Originally Posted by jeryan59

Well said!

I also agree with your previous posts, there is no absolute in the law as there are many circumstances that affect every legal situation. So as the intent of the law and the interpretation of the law will vary based on the particular circumstances.

Unfortunately, we have too many laws that had good intentions but due to societal pressures and funding issues, many laws are enforced based on the interpretation and circumstances from to many different interests.

You are right.

Things that look so simple on the surface become complex very quickly.

A couple of years ago I was talking with an Investigator in Fl. and he used the popular saying of "it is what it is". I said maybe, but it is rarely what it appears.