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.

 

Police arrest man for DWI after no alcohol found in his system

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
www.statesman.com...

This is out of Austin, TX. (The saying 'keep Austin weird' comes to mind in this case.) Apparently, even if you're not under the influence, you can still be arrested for being under the influence.....

From what I understand, he spent the night in jail, then had the criminal case hanging over his head until the charges were dropped just recently. He blew a 0.00 on the breath test, and voluntarily gave a blood test, which also showed nothing at all in his system.


On the night Austin police arrested his client, they made the wrong choice, he says – his opinion bolstered by a voluntary breath and blood test showing Larry Davis wasn’t intoxicated when he was arrested Jan. 13, 2013. He tested 0.00 on a Breathalyzer – the lowest possible reading -- and the blood test, which took months to be tested, came back negative.



The arrest meant Davis spent a day in jail, and he was left with a criminal case looming over him for more than a year. Because he was declared indigent at the time, the county picked up his legal fees of a few hundred dollars.


Even the blood test showed nothing in his system. APD is still saying they may have just missed something in the test.


Police stand by their decision to arrest Davis. They contend it is still possible he was intoxicated with a drug, including marijuana, that may not have shown up in the blood test.


How does something like THC not show up in a blood test? Wouldn't that be one of the most common things to test for, other than alcohol, in DWI cases?

The article points out the APD does quite a few bogus DWI arrests. In recent years, about 30% of DWI cases are tossed out in court for insufficient evidence.


Their position: If you look drunk, you will be arrested and the court system will work it out in the future.


"Their position: Even if you pass a breath test and blood test (well, the blood test came back months later, but even after, he was still dealing with all the court stuff and APD still thinks he's guilty), you're still guilty and have to go to jail and have to pay money to post bond and have to pay a bunch of money to the courts and go through the court system and pay to get your car out of impound and get your license suspended and have a criminal record in background checks for jobs"

Long story short - Guilty until proven innocent....or even if proven innocent, still guilty.
edit on 27-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Considering that Austin is rife to saturation with a Hippie demographic that's particularly fond of recreational usage of things that don't show up on a breath test, it's quite probable the officers had probable cause to suspect intoxication.

Sure, the fellow gave blood, but, that's not a roadside test with instant get-out-jail-free results.

The police may have also just been total d-bags in getting overzealous with their imitation cowboy swaggering authority act, but, I didn't see any complaints about physical abuse, beating, taser shock, cavity searches, getting hog-tied (a Texas favorite), or any of the other things like shooting the man's dog that we so often see in these forums.

I suspect the guy was acting wonky enough to justify an "intoxicated" suspicion.

He was cleared of all charges too, so, sure, he was inconvenienced, but, innocent people do, on occasion, get pinched.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by buni11687
 


Considering that Austin is rife to saturation with a Hippie demographic that's particularly fond of recreational usage of things that don't show up on a breath test, it's quite probable the officers had probable cause to suspect intoxication.

Sure, the fellow gave blood, but, that's not a roadside test with instant get-out-jail-free results.

The police may have also just been total d-bags in getting overzealous with their imitation cowboy swaggering authority act, but, I didn't see any complaints about physical abuse, beating, taser shock, cavity searches, getting hog-tied (a Texas favorite), or any of the other things like shooting the man's dog that we so often see in these forums.

I suspect the guy was acting wonky enough to justify an "intoxicated" suspicion.

He was cleared of all charges too, so, sure, he was inconvenienced, but, innocent people do, on occasion, get pinched.










You really are a staunch law and order sort of Alice aren't you?
THC would certainly show up on a blood test......
The "hippes" of Austin resent that slur....and say they don't indulge anymore than the rest of the 50% of America that does....
Besides THC is not exactly an impairment to driving..believe it or not...



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 






The police may have also just been total d-bags in getting overzealous with their imitation cowboy swaggering authority act, but, I didn't see any complaints about physical abuse, beating, taser shock, cavity searches, getting hog-tied (a Texas favorite), or any of the other things like shooting the man's dog that we so often see in these forums.


APD has been having some issues lately. Im not sure what's going on with them, but they've been doing some pretty stupid stuff in addition to this DWI event. Im glad they atleast didn't go crazy and beat him or anything like that.

I think the case should have been immediately dropped and the arrest record cleared once the blood test results came back, instead of waiting and dealing with court stuff up until it was dropped just a week ago. Even though the case was dropped, it still shows up on background checks. (Im not sure why dropped cases don't automatically get dropped off your record. Clearing the record costs a good chunk of cash to.)


Davis is now working to have his arrest record wiped clean, a process that could take several more months.


Im assuming the guy is going to sue, and stands a good chance of winning some cash.
edit on 27-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I used to live in Austin. From 1973 until 1991. The people that live there were incredible, I absolutely LOVED it. That all changed when the tech companies moved in and it became hipster city. Uhg. I actually left for that reason. The cops have always been terrible, that doesn't surprise me at all. Everyone disliked the police there. An officer actually gave me a ticket for going 3 miles/h over the speed limit once. Another time I was issued a ticket for running a stop sign because my wheels were a little past the white line on the road at a stop sign.....just a little, and I came to a full stop. Wow, just wow.

edit on 2272014 by Holographicmeat because: Changed dislikes to disliked because I haven't been there in a while.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   

stirling

You really are a staunch law and order sort of Alice aren't you?
THC would certainly show up on a blood test......
The "hippes" of Austin resent that slur....and say they don't indulge anymore than the rest of the 50% of America that does....
Besides THC is not exactly an impairment to driving..believe it or not...


Um. Did you miss the part where I said:

AliceBleachWhite

Sure, the fellow gave blood, but, that's not a roadside test with instant get-out-jail-free results.





Thus, there MAY have been sufficient probability for the police to action.


buni11687
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 



Davis is now working to have his arrest record wiped clean, a process that could take several more months.


Im assuming the guy is going to sue, and stands a good chance of winning some cash.


Excellent. That's good for him.
I personally hope he recoups his losses, and in addition gets some gimme for the inconvenience; something in the 5 figure range.

Instead of folks having a knee-jerk pitchfork and torches mindless drooling villager reaction; I'm supporting a position of moderation.

It seems some folks here think the Police had super-duper-back-to-the-future-88mph-vision that allowed them to see this fellow as completely legit with no illicit mind altering chemical usage and chose to arrest him just for fun, out of spite, from boredom, or out of expression of abuse of authority.

No.

The police did not, and don't have future-vision, and they MAY HAVE had probable suspicion to action.

Yes, the fellow was innocent.
Innocent people, however, DO get arrested for very valid probable cause.

Should the fellow get recourse?
YES.

... or maybe we should just set up Guillotines, Stocks, Whipping Posts, Firing squads, and the like to summarily action the evil corrupt TPTB and their minions without asking questions at any and every slightest eye-twitch some over-sensitive pansy has for getting pinched by mistake?

Really?

Have some sense folks.

The guy was innocent, but, there was likely just suspicion, and, the case was dropped.
Further, he's following up to get recourse for his inconveniences, and will likely come out a bucket of ducats better than he was before the arrest.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Here's an additional article about this to add.

news.yahoo.com...


While at the station, Mr. Davis agreed to give a blood sample as well, to prove he was not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. The results would later come back 100% negative



The Austin Police Department stands by the arrest, saying they believed Davis showed signs of impairment, that while standing on one leg, he “swayed,” and “needed his arms for balance.”


Did it ever occur to APD that just maybe....some people really suck at doing some of these sobriety tests? It was January in Texas when the arrest occurred. If Im cold as heck and shivering (some of us Texans don't really do good in the cold), I doubt I would be able to stand on one leg without swaying around. If it's less than around 50 degrees, Im shivering.

Then there's this....


They also suggested that he could have been on marijuana, a drug that wouldn’t necessarily show up in a test.


Lol! Seriously? Marijuana isn't a drug that shows up in drug tests, and a blood test of all tests out there? Especially in drug tests administered by police?!? Wow APD, just wow....

edit on 27-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Also, check out what the District Attorney for Austin (Travis County) was up to last year. (There's been talk that the DA was in the APD's back pocket)

Travis County District Attorney arrested, charged with drunk driving


She said she had a rough week -- and went out to see a movie at Lakeline around 6:30 Friday night.



She told KVUE News she had a few glasses of wine at the movie and then had a few more drinks.


And the December update to her charges...

Judge refuses to oust Travis County DA who was busted for DWI


AUSTIN — Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg will remain in her post after a judge on Wednesday denied a petition to remove her because of an April drunken driving arrest.



State District Judge David Peeples, visiting from San Antonio, sided with Lehmberg. She will remain the county’s top criminal prosecutor and continue to oversee Texas’ Public Integrity Unit, which handles cases involving public officials and is based in Austin.


Yeah, again "Keep Austin weird" comes to mind.


Lehmberg, who last year was elected overwhelmingly to a second four-year term, was arrested April 12 after deputies found her driving erratically and an open bottle of vodka in her Lexus. At the jail, a video showed Lehmberg shouting orders to call the sheriff, kicking the door of her cell and sticking her tongue out at deputies videotaping her.



That video led to an investigation by a grand jury, which decided she should not be removed for official misconduct.


That's not official misconduct?.... Jeez...


She was pressured to resign but refused, and Travis County Attorney David Escamilla eventually sought her removal, arguing that Lehmberg was unfit for office and could harm the public interest.



Her lawyers, however, said Lehmberg is more than capable and has stayed in office out of a sense of responsibility to the public.


Yup, her actions show she really cares about the general public.

Atleast our Governer did something good in this case.


The matter is still not fully over. Among those who felt Lehmberg should have resigned was Gov. Rick Perry, who threatened to withhold nearly $4 million in state funding for the Public Integrity Unit if she remained on the job. When she refused, Perry made good on his threat, which resulted in a still-ongoing lawsuit from a watchdog group that claimed Perry had abused his power.

edit on 27-2-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   

buni11687

Then there's this....


They also suggested that he could have been on marijuana, a drug that wouldn’t necessarily show up in a test.


Lol! Seriously? Marijuana isn't a drug that shows up in drug tests, and a blood test of all tests out there? Especially in drug tests administered by police?!? Wow APD, just wow....


Once again, there's NO QUICK test to rule out the abuse of other intakes.

His blood test came back negative ... LATER, which in turn exonerated him.

The man was inconvenienced, yes.
He was, however, not otherwise abused.

This whole thing is pretty much a non-issue.
Sure, the man was inconvenienced. He's likely pursuing recompense.
Done.

Now, if the man were abused, I can certainly see cause to make some noise. Otherwise, this all just seems like over-sensitive reactionary making a mountain out of a mole hill nonsense.

I mean, what's next?
"Scary police man looked at me and I got scared and peed on myself so now the Gov'ment needs to pay for all my therapy bills, and a whole new wardrobe, in addition to firing the scary police man that looked at me all scary!!!!!!"

The guy was arrested over probable cause.
He was exonerated, and the case dropped.
He was not otherwise abused.
He may even be seeking legal recompense for the inconvenience.
Recompense, if awarded, may see this fellow much better off and heavier in pocket than before this.

There's no cause to go running around screaming like a stuck pig about police oppression, abuse of power and other such over this case.





posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   
DWI as opposed to a DUI is used for this purpose. Even if you end up clear on all the tests, but you seem to be impaired in any way that makes you a danger behind the wheel of a vehicle, you can be charged with a DWI. I believe that even operation of a motor vehicle while too tired, or even while sick, is considered being “impaired”.

In case you don't know:
DUI=Driving Under the Influence
DWI=Driving while Impaired

Impaired simply means that something (it could even be something physically, mentally, or medically wrong with you) is causing you to operate in an unsafe manner.

im·paired [im-paird]
adjective
1. weakened, diminished, or damaged: impaired hearing; to rebuild an impaired bridge.
2. functioning poorly or inadequately: Consumption of alcohol results in an impaired driver.
3. deficient or incompetent (usually preceded by an adverb or noun): morally impaired; sports-impaired.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 




Once again, there's NO QUICK test to rule out the abuse of other intakes.

His blood test came back negative ... LATER, which in turn exonerated him.

Here in Belgium we get tested on the spot via saliva drug tests. They show positive for THC even if you smoked a joint the day before.

en.wikipedia.org...-based_drug_screen
edit on 27-2-2014 by Bangorak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 





Police arrested him near U.S. 290 and Interstate 35 after he ran a stop sign, and officers wrote in an arrest affidavit that Davis, who told them he’d had only one drink, appeared intoxicated based on his performance in a field sobriety test.


I have to wonder why this was not mentioned in the OP?

So he admitted to having a drink and failed the FST which gives the officer a reason to believe he was impaired, so he had to take him in.

Now had he passed the FST he would have been on his way.

This isn't the first time someone was arrested for DWI that wasn't drunk or under the influence of something, but the officer was doing his job. Now if this officer didn't do his job and this man happened to hurt or kill someone what does that say about his training?

And yes I understand the man wasn't drunk or under the influence of something else, but the officers do not know that at the time of the traffic stop which is why he was taken in.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 

He was lucky, compared to this guy ..

Eckert was then put in "investigative detention" and transported around 2 p.m. to the Deming Police Department.
Sometime after that, a judge signed off a search warrant "to include but not limited to his anal cavity."
The next stop was Gila Regional Medical Center, where the lawsuit states "no drugs were found" in "an x-ray and two digital searches of his rectum by two different doctors." One doctor at this time found nothing unusual in his stool.
Three enemas were conducted on Eckert after 10:20 p.m. A chest X-ray followed, succeeded by a colonoscopy around 1:25 a.m.
After all this, "no drugs were found in or on Plaintiff's person," according to the lawsuit.
Because he "merely looked nervous during a traffic stop," the lawsuit claims that authorities ended up violating Eckert's constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures on a number of grounds.


edition.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


We don't know though about any field tests.. If they guy could not say his abc's and was staggering around, id arrest him regardless of what the breathalyzer said. Did he pass those too? If he did than yea they are wrong.
Firepiston



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

defcon5
DWI as opposed to a DUI is used for this purpose. Even if you end up clear on all the tests, but you seem to be impaired in any way that makes you a danger behind the wheel of a vehicle, you can be charged with a DWI. I believe that even operation of a motor vehicle while too tired, or even while sick, is considered being “impaired”.

In case you don't know:
DUI=Driving Under the Influence
DWI=Driving while Impaired



If you are lucky enough to rock some world and realize before it's too late that you must get out... That qualifies too. Ambiguity is what law strives for. Eventually, and without malice, people will learn to respect the law.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Best advice i can give you is DENY DENY DENY whatever the cop is saying to you....

THEY NEVER TRUST YOU, DO NOT EVER TRUST THEM... WHATEVER YOUR ACCUSED OF YOU DID NOT DO!!!

EVEN IF THEY SAY ADMITTING TO IT, IS THE ONLY WAY YOUR GOING TO GO FREE... ITS BS

This guy could of just said yes, to 'get rid of the trouble' but that is not that way to go....

He did the right thing, if your in this situation no matter what you did, DENY DENY DENY!!! Some of you will thank me one day... shut up and lawyer up!!



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by starfoxxx
 

Ask for a lawyer and a reporter and a doctor. A nurse at the very least. Claim outrageous charges and stoop to their level. Most of all... Lie your ass off.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
nothing new i know of a couple people with neurological disorders that have been arrested in calif.

People with MS, Epilepsy, Brain injures, small fiber polyneuropathy



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join