It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tennessee State Rep. Gets DUI case tossed out

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
So this article got my attention because (just being honest) if it were anybody else this stop would've been totally good.

An officer observed a vehicle straddling lanes (an infraction in both places I've worked) and spun around to effect a traffic stop. The officer states once he approached the vehicle he observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, etc (the pretty standard tell-tale signs of impaired driving) and started performing DUI tests. At that point the driver refused to continue and submit to further testing. Once he was at the jail, the representative told his wife to let some higher-up in the sheriff's office know that he (the rep) was "in his (the friend) jail."

Lo and behold a couple months later, the judge for the cases throws it out, saying that lane straddling wasn't enough evidence for the officer to have stopped the representative. I think we can all agree that were this just about anybody else, it would've been plenty of reason, no?

This same rep caught some heat about his residency when he was running but yet somehow came up smelling like roses then, too.

Curious, that.

Forgot the link, sorry. www.tennessean.com...
edit on 29-7-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Cases like this piss me off. These scum bags getting re-elected pisses me off even more!

S&F



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: Shamrock6

Cases like this piss me off. These scum bags getting re-elected pisses me off even more!

S&F


Yes, why do people reelect these types. Beyond my understanding.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

Sad thing is I think this is his first term. He managed to get a motion to remove him from the ballot dismissed. Then managed to get a lawsuit filed by citizens contesting his residency dismissed.

And now has gotten a DUI case dismissed for what, in my opinion, would absolutely be sufficient cause for damn near anybody else to have been hit for DUI.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Must be republican



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: pueblosighting

Democrat, actually.

It even says that in the first paragraph of the linked article, had you bothered to read it.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

edit on 29-7-2015 by Bone75 because: Nevermind my bad



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: pueblosighting

"The Nashville Democrat"...

Both sides have morons, don't play partisan politics.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Looks like a political hit article to me. No mention was made of his blood alcohol level. You would think that they would have done a blood test on him.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

How does it being a hit piece (or not) have anything to do with the judge throwing the case out because the officer didn't have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop?

It doesn't sound like this guy is very well liked by too many people other than government types, so it probably is a hit piece. But I fail to see how that has any impact on the judge's stated reason for throwing the case out?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Here is an interesting take on issues like this:


In U.S. v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with this very issue. The arresting officer observed defendant drift onto the solid white fog line of the far side of the right lane for about ten seconds. The defendant’s vehicle then drifted to the left side of the right lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the left lane. The officer then observed the vehicle drift to the left side of the left lane where its left wheels traveled along the solid yellow line for approximately ten seconds. The defendant’s vehicle then returned to the center of the left lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the right lane.

Can you picture it?

The arresting officer then pulled the defendant over for possible violations of California Vehicle Code §21658(a) for lane straddling and DUI.

The court held that the officer’s stop was illegal, stating, “Touching a dividing line, even if a small portion of the body of the car veers into a neighboring lane, satisfies the state’s requirement that that a driver drive as ‘nearly as practical within a single lane’… It is reasonable that a driver with no cars abreast of him might veer slightly within his lane or over the lane lines in the course of making a lane change to ensure that it is safe to do so. In sum, we conclude that the facts, taken together, support the conclusion that [the officer] lacked probable cause to stop [the defendants] for lane straddling.” Id. at 444-445.


Source

Perhaps the judge was correct in his assessment, if I am reading this correctly.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Good find. And that's probably what the judge would point to. Looked to me like both left-hand tires were across the line and into the other lane, though. Near as I can tell, the driver was indeed straddling lanes, not riding the line.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Doesn't matter if it were you or me. Regardless of the "line"

We would have been convicted and anyone being honest knows it

Too much money in DUIs not to



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Chappaquiddick anyone?

Oh, I know, no-one died this time.

No big deal I guess.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I read nothing of his results. Tennessee has a no refusal law in place stating that if suspected of drunk driving, you must submit a breath, blood or urine sample to be tested. Sounds like somebody knew somebody who paid somebody who knew somebody.

Not surprising, this whole state is corrupt.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I didn't watch the video and cannot comment on that. I only provided the quote above as a reference to why the judge may have came to the decision he did.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I wasn't trying to argue (and genuinely appreciate your quote) just stating my opinion on your quote and how it pertains to this issue. Staying in ones lane but going from one side to the other is, at its core, still staying in ones lane. I just don't think this guy was still inside his lane based off the video.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: Shamrock6

Cases like this piss me off. These scum bags getting re-elected pisses me off even more!

S&F


Yes, why do people reelect these types. Beyond my understanding.


There aren't any other types of people, only those who are tempted to or actually do abuse power.

The only solution is to minimize power.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Maybe you can understand our frustration when police get off even in face of evidence now?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Justice may be "blind" -- but she can smell money and power.

Disgusting.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join