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.

 

Billings cop attacks breath tests, gains mistrial

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
more of the same BS from our flawed police state.
do as i say not as i do, if this were any civilian all we would be hearing about is how that person got another DUI, but in this case they make a joke of their own laws.

shouldn't our law enforcement and Gov officials be held to a higher standard when it comes to the law and obeying it?

they have no excuse they are the law they know the law better than any Civilian and go around preaching to the public that they the public must know and obey the laws that are just added to the books and hailed as gospel. laws that are not taught to the public or voted on by intellectual majorities only corrupt law makers and their police puppets.



Helena police say they measured Samantha Puckett’s breath-alcohol content above .10 percent that night, exceeding the legal limit for driving of .08 percent. But Paul Miranda, an expert witness for Puckett, testified that the analysis could be flawed. Miranda, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Montana and works as a senior metallurgist for Idaho-based Thompson Creek Mining Co., has had some training related to breath-testing and has previously testified as an expert witness about eight or 10 times, he said. He argued that the test results could vary due to elevation, the body temperature of the person blowing, and other factors. Based on those variables, and after viewing police video of Puckett performing well in two of the three field sobriety tests, Miranda said he believed Puckett was below the legal maximum.
Source
edit on 7/30/2011 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   



shouldn't our law enforcement and Gov officials be held to a higher standard when it comes to the law and obeying it?


I believe they should be held to the SAME standards we are.

They are no better or worse and are just people too.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
This is obvious.

The only thing that's irking is that the average joe can't go and say 'too many variables to be sure if I was actually above the limit'. The cop shouldn't get a free pass, because equally everyone else who's only slightly above the limit should get a free pass too, and we're really just contributing to drunk driving if we do that.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
What higher standard than trial by jury would you like?

Second line.
edit on 30-7-2011 by SFA437 because: Second line added



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I'm surprised a cop arrested another cop for DUI.
In my neck of the woods they just let them go.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 


Not really....

First there are 2 tests - A breath test and a Portable breath test.

The PBT (the small hand held devices we use during a traffic stop). It is not a calbrated device, nor is it admissible in court. The only allowable use in a report is yes it detected the presence of alcohol, or no it did not. The actual readout is not allowed. Also, it is not a NHTSA certified test, which means you can refuse to take the PBT and it cannot be held against you in court (if you are under 21 and live in a state with a statute of minor in possession by consumption read your states law - some require minors to submit).

The actual Breath test (datamaser / breathlyzer) on the other hand IS a calibrated instrument and its results ARE admissible in court (actual BAC percetnage etc).

The calibrated instruments have been succesfully challenged in court, however it usually stems from the person who calibrates the machine missing a step or making a mistake. Regular line officers have a type III certification. In order to actually perform maintenance on the system an officer must be type II certified.

The machines are so sensitive that if a person picks the machine up and moves it to another location it is no longer in calibration and has to be rest / recalibrated before it can be used.

Other fcators to take into consideration.
- Vomit in the mouth
- Belching - This is one of the reasons we are required to observe an individual prior to administering the test. If the person belches it forces us to restart the observation period since a belch can give an incorrect higher data sample due to concentration. (before anyone gets the idea to use this to get out of a breath test if the officer determines your belching is intentional it goes down as a refusal to provide a sample).

Im not condoning the drinking and driving. Just pointing out the challeneges present for the testing.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwood



shouldn't our law enforcement and Gov officials be held to a higher standard when it comes to the law and obeying it?


I believe they should be held to the SAME standards we are.

They are no better or worse and are just people too.


Unfortunately the OP wishes for trial by jury to be abolished and for him/her to be the Ultimate Arbiter of Justice in the country.

The mistrial was just that- a jury trial where the jury could not reach a decision. Apparently the OP is utterly and completely ignorant of the legal/judicial process in this country, is deliberately attempting to mislead & inflame or truly believes they should be appointed as Supreme Judge of the United States where juries are abolished and they, and they alone, decide the fate of the accused.

Wonder which one it is? I'm betting the first as it implies ignorance versus the other two which imply ill intent and megalomaniacal tendencies (in order).



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be wise to find out what this expert's testimony typically been while testifying in previous DUI cases before jumping to the conclusion that he is purposely slanting his testimony in favor of the defendant because she is a police officer? My guess is that he probably has given similar testimony that leaned in favor of the defendants since it clearly states he was a witness for the defense.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Let me assure people that police officers who are arrested for DUI are NOT given any special treatment. In fact, the days where cops looked after their own who were caught driving drunk are diminishing rapidly, primarily out of fear of lawsuits.

I know this from personal experience, the circumstances of which I will begrudgingly share with you here on ATS since I think this topic is important.

I was arrested for DUI in the early 90's while employed as a police officer. I was driving home from a club at about 2 a.m. and was two blocks from my home. The reason I was pulled over was because I had a two-seater convertible and had three people (including myself) on board. Can't argue that violation.

To my surprise, I was hooked up and hauled off by a CHP officer who even went to the extent of calling his supervisor over to make the decision to arrest because he didn't want to take the heat for it. I was taken to the jail and blew a .10 B.A.C., the legal limit, of course, being .08.

I had no one to blame but myself for that situation. Many officers in my department were promoting a ticket war against the CHP in retaliation (no, I'm not joking), which I vehemently opposed on the grounds that I was pulled over fair and square and, therefore, cooked my own goose.

My department had not experienced one of their own being arrested for anything, so my chief, understandably, put me off for a couple of months with no pay, regardless of what the outcome of any trial would be. I had committed an unlawful act, and he had no choice but to send a clear message.

Of course, I obtained a lawyer, and, much to my chagrin, my first hearing found me in the courtroom with an angry group of M.A.D.D. members staring me down with a look of disdain. Oh, boy.....not fun. M.A.D.D. NEVER missed a hearing and even approached the D.A.'s Office asking that I not be given any leniency due to my status as a police officer, as I was expected to be held to a higher standard by the public.

Next, my attorney and I had the DMV hearing to request that I be given driving privileges to at least drive to and from work, and while on patrol. Not only did the hearing officer say no, he said, HELL NO!! The hearing officer brought the hammer down on me very abruptly and without batting an eyelash. First offense, same treatment as a civilian.....four months suspended license.

So, the next humiliating aspect of my punishment came when I had no choice but to work the desk for the four months my license was suspended. This assignment came with an ominous warning from my chief, "If I find out you so much as even back your vehicle out of your driveway while your license is suspended, you will be fired."

Did I step foot behind the wheel of my brand new convertible in those four months? Hell friggin' NO! LOL. I was scrounging for a ride to and from work every day, which was not a pleasant task since my workplace was in a different town as my residence.

I ultimately received a hefty fine and probation for my offense. Was it over at that point? HELLO NO! LOL

The very first night that I returned to patrol, guess what my first arrest was? A DUI! When court rolled around for the suspect I had arrested, the D.A. pulled me aside to let me know what was occurring behind the scenes of this case. Apparently, the defense attorney had suggested that since I had been arrested and convicted of the DUI, there was reason to speculate as to my sobriety while on duty on the evening that I arrested his client!

WOW!

Needless to say, it was literally the most embarrassing position I ever found myself in in the history of this lifetime.

I'll tell you one thing, I never once drove after I'd been drinking from that time on. As a matter of fact, I eventually grew to detest alcohol after that experience and don't even drink anymore at all.

You may be surprised to know, however that I DO agree that police officers should definitely be held to a higher standard because of their status as a cop.

I was lucky I wasn't fired. Some of you probably believe I should have been, and I can understand why. When it was over, my chief made it a point to tell me he appreciated I didn't try to pawn responsibility off on the CHP officer who arrested me and that he respected the fact I admitted my own stupidity caused my predicament.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


I agree there- we've had a Chief in my county lose his job over a DWI conviction. Just flat out fired before trial based on Intoxilizer results.

The OP however wishes to do away with jury trials for police officers and hand out only guilty verdicts as the entire court system and every juror who sits on a case involving police/deputies (other than those who vote guilty) are working secretly for the police to get them off scot free


I'm waiting for the OP to blame the mistrial on Mossad, the NWO/Bildebergs or grey aliens next rather than on the jury
edit on 30-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 





I agree there- we've had a Chief in my county lose his job over a DWI conviction. Just flat out fired before trial based on Intoxilizer results. The OP however wishes to do away with jury trials for police officers and hand out only guilty verdicts as the entire court system and every juror who sits on a case involving police/deputies (other than those who vote guilty) are working secretly for the police to get them off scot free I'm waiting for the OP to blame the mistrial on Mossad, the NWO/Bildebergs or grey aliens next rather than on the jury


LOL......

I'm also waiting for the OP to address my previous inquiry about the past testimony of this expert witness in other DUI cases, since there is little chance that the defense would choose anything BUT an expert with such a track record of testimony that was favorable toward a defendant. Guess that fact kinda puts a damper on the OP's desire to portray that this expert's testimony was favorable the defendant based solely on her police officer status.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Why do I have a feeling you'll be waiting a LONG time for the OP to post that the expert witness has testified in exactly the same way at every trial.

That would go against the OP's preconceived notions of the massive conspiracy infecting the jury pool of the entire county leading to the mistrial. I get that ATS is a conspiracy site but



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Why do I have a feeling you'll be waiting a LONG time for the OP to post that the expert witness has testified in exactly the same way at every trial.

That would go against the OP's preconceived notions of the massive conspiracy infecting the jury pool of the entire county leading to the mistrial. I get that ATS is a conspiracy site but





Jodoin questioned whether the chemist had any training in analysis of field sobriety tests. Miranda said he hadn’t, but he’s previously had a few beers with buddies and knows when they’re intoxicated


is this your expert witness?
yore the only one repeatedly whining making assumptions and using your own interpretation of me as fact when it is actually just your extremely lame opinion.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
You know what>?

All these people defending the police officers IN THIS CASE
are sick...

You know damn well if it was ANYONE ELSE they would of got the hammer
for being .2 over...

Calibrate this, cops stick together like a brotherhood, through good AND bad
bottom line..

They get the *special* treatment in this case.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by hillynilly
 





They get the *special* treatment in this case.Text


Apparently, we have someone here who has yet to explore the concept of "deny ignorance."



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 





is this your expert witness? yore the only one repeatedly whining making assumptions and using your own interpretation of me as fact when it is actually just your extremely lame opinion.



No, that is the defendant's expert witness. It's not our fault that the expert witness comes off like a numbskull on the stand.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 





Why do I have a feeling you'll be waiting a LONG time for the OP to post that the expert witness has testified in exactly the same way at every trial.


Ooops.....spoke too soon.....lol



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by -W1LL
 





is this your expert witness? yore the only one repeatedly whining making assumptions and using your own interpretation of me as fact when it is actually just your extremely lame opinion.



No, that is the defendant's expert witness. It's not our fault that the expert witness comes off like a numbskull on the stand.



im not sure what you are trying to get at ...? there is only one witness and yes that's for the defense.

that witness in fact is not and expert in the area of breathalyzers and shows that in the quote i posted.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join