Special Delivery for JustRalph

[Dancer's Image]

Any comments from our resident trooper? Anyone else may comment too of course! And PA, feel free to move to the off-topic form, but could you please wait until JustRalph sees it?

Steve McNair's case thrown out
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an interesting case. As far as I can gather, McNair's judge has ruled that there was not sufficient enough evidence to initially pull him over, so the case is being thrown out of court. Even though his breathalizer was well over the state's limit, that evidence has been deemed inadmissable in the court because the traffic stop was unjust.

I agree with the judge in this matter. I don't think cops should be able to pull people over just because it is late at night and someone is in an area with bars and such. I think this ruling is a big win for our rights.

McNair will probably catch hell. People will most doubtedly say that this ruling was influenced by who he is. Was it? Probably, but I still think it was the right ruling.

Any opinions?

[CryingForTheHorses]

What's this about?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Dancer's Image
Any comments from our resident trooper? Anyone else may comment too of course! And PA, feel free to move to the off-topic form, but could you please wait until JustRalph sees it?

Steve McNair's case thrown out
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an interesting case. As far as I can gather, McNair's judge has ruled that there was not sufficient enough evidence to initially pull him over, so the case is being thrown out of court. Even though his breathalizer was well over the state's limit, that evidence has been deemed inadmissable in the court because the traffic stop was unjust.

I agree with the judge in this matter. I don't think cops should be able to pull people over just because it is late at night and someone is in an area with bars and such. I think this ruling is a big win for our rights.

McNair will probably catch hell. People will most doubtedly say that this ruling was influenced by who he is. Was it? Probably, but I still think it was the right ruling.

Any opinions?

I would have to see the report. I don't know what the "stated" probable cause was. I will see if I can find it online when I get a chance. But, I have a bunch of training in DUI work. This defense is tried all the time. It rarely works..........unless the cop did something really stupid.........but sometime they do.........I will see what I can find out.

[JustRalph]

Here is the officers probably cause...........

''Defendant was observed traveling westbound on Broadway near 5th Avenue in a black 1999 Lincoln Navigator 4dr TN tag HFX 571. He was weaving in the roadway and crossed the yellow line into the turn lane at least twice. I continued to follow him and observe his driving. After crossing 8th Ave he appeared to have difficulty keeping his vehicle in the proper traffic lane. He turned into the Exxon at 1101 Broadway and I initiated a traffic stop. He had a very strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from his breath and first hesitated but then admitted to consuming such. His speech also sounded slurred when he spoke. His eyes were very bloodshot and watery and his pupils were dilated. He was unsteady on his feet and showed several indicators of impairment on the (Standard Field Sobriety Tests). He was placed under arrest for DUI and agreed to a breath alcohol test and registered a 0.18% (Blood Alcohol Content).''

Steve Mcnair just got a serious pass................unless in Tennesee you can cross yellow lines and use up the turn lane, legally.

In Ohio you can be stopped for "Weaving within your own lane"

I am not kidding.........that one has held up in court.

[Tom]

Bottom line....do McNair's rights give him the right to endanger innocent people - maybe children - just because he is an irresponsilbe idiot?
What if they did not stop him and he hit a family head on and killed the other and father and left two youngster orphans?
Too bad kids, we wouldn't want to infringe on McNair's right to act in a stupid and reckless manner.
How about htis as a compromise- mandatory 10 years in jial, lifetime loss of license and $50,000 fine for your FIRST OFFENSE DWI?
Maybe that would sink into these lowlifes who think they are cool becase they can throw a ball.
I think "profiling" bar areas is the right thing to do.
Driving is a privelage, not a right.

[kingfin66]

Nobody has even noted that McNair had a gun with him in the car. In Tennessee, the law says that you can't have a firearm in your possession if you are over the legal limit. He got a huge pass. I don't see how anybody would not believe that he caught a break because of who he is.

[cryptic1]

In Canada the law is somewhat different. Because of social
policy, the courts have found that it is not illegal to stop a
vehicle even if they are doing nothing improper. This allows
programs such as "the ride Program" that most police depart-
ments run around christmas and new years to randomly stop
vehicles and question the driver. In Canada you can legally
stop a vehicle. The next step is the officer has to have
reasonable and probable grounds to demand the driver to
take a breathalyzer test or the requisite reasonable and probable
to areest for impaired driving. Generally the R and P comes
from observation, bloodshot eyes, slurring of speech, fumbling
to get licence etc. Bad driving in and of itself is not enough to
allow for an arrest for impaired driving unless there is some
indicia to go along with the driving. Given the facts you have
outlined above, Canadian law would allow the stoppage and
the next step would be the R and P as outlined above.
I think the U.S. law as interpreted is certainly more defence
oriented and makes things a little harder for the police to
enforce drinking and driving laws.

[Dancer's Image]

Thanks JustRalph, and the other posters who replied. I wanted to clarify that I cut and pasted my initial post from the Delmar forum; I am not in agreement with the author of the post who agreed with the judge throwing out the case. It sickens me that someone like McNair essentially gets special treatment because he is rich and famous and can afford the legal talent that gets these kind of decisions. I would have a lot more respect for McNair if he just pleaded guilty and took his penalty. Correct me if I'm wrong here, JustRalph, but the penalty for a first-time DWI offense is very minimal...a small fine, 3-6 months suspended license which is waived upon completion of an ASAP program. This is what should have happened to McNair but alas, the system, although the best in the world, is not perfect!

[cryptic1]

IN Canada a first offence of impaired driving or having .80
milligrams of alcohol in your bloodstream or refusal to take a
breathalyzer test is a loss of licence for one year and a minimum
$600.00 fine. As well each province adds their own penalty. In
Ontario you lose your right to drive for one year but you have
to take a driving test before you get it back, as well, you have
to lease from the government at the present day price of
$1700.00 approx. a special breathalyzer unit that is attached to
any motor vehicle you own or drive that deactivates the starter
if alcohol is in your system. The unit has to be used for one
year and a breach of this court order generally means jail.
For subsequent offences jail is mandatory and long licence
suspensions kick in including life time bans.


cryptic1

[Dancer's Image]

Cryptic1,
We have 50 different laws for DWI...50 different states, but i would be willing to bet that none of the 50 are as severe as Canada. In AZ, one has the right to refuse to take a breath/blood test, but that is an automatic year suspension of driving license. In neighboring NV, one does not have the right to refuse the test and the trooper can take a person who refuses the field breath test to a hospital and have the blood taken against the person's will! That has always seemed unconstitutional to me, but WTF do i know! My best source of anecdotal knowledge comes from OH where my brother-in-law was arrested/convicted in 2001, of first offense DWI and received 6 months suspension of license, during which he could drive to and from work 6 days a week, and the suspension was lifted after he completed an ASAP program.
Interesting topic, anyone else have anything to add? It seems like the penalties should be more uniform in the USA.

oh, I forgot to add that my B-I-L also had to spend a weekend in jail and a fine which he didn't disclose the amount.

[cryptic1]

Dancer's Image:
I agree it does seem strange that the authorities can get
a blood test without consent. Of course, here its not necessary
as a refusal to take the test has the same result as a failure of
the test. Frankly its easier to defend when they take the test
then when they refuse. The police stations in Ontario have
all tests in police stations videotaped and copies of same are
provided to the defence. Thus it becomes quite clear what goes
down when the test is given.
They used to allow temporary licences for the purposes
of work as a sentence however they were so abused that it
was terminated as a sentence option in 1979 or so in Ontario.
Are licence suspensions in one state accepted in others?
Are their mandatory jail sentences in any state for a first
offence. In Sweden and I think one other Scandanavian country
first offences automatically mean a term in jail. Yet their DWI
statistics haven't shown a decrease in the number of charges
or convictions as best as I can recollect. I suspect that the only
way to actually solve this problem may be to have car makers
actually attach some unit to the ignition of each and every car
to lock the motor if the driver has alcohol in his system. I can't
imagine this happening for a number of reasons which is music
to the ears of most defence attorneys.

cryptic1