|
I was referring to the DECP website because the OP was describing a situation in which an officer had made a determination on his drug ingestion. I was trying to point out that it seemed too abreviated of an examination to come to that determination.
IF a complete DRE exam was done do I feel that this determination could have been made? Yes. Does it matter if he was not behind the wheel of a car? No. TheDRE program is currently used to assist remove and convict drivers who are under the influence from our roadways. In the state I live in, if you smoke some meth at home and dont get caught doing that then walk down the public sidewalk tweaking and picking at the meth bugs and an officer comes across you, there is nothing illegal standing there and telling him you are high on meth. I am pretty sure that this is not the case in NV and CA. I think they have "internal possession" laws. Im not sure about that though. As for the Guide to the DUI driving link, it looks like the typical defense attorney website touting the evils of the government in prosecuting offenders and is rife with information designed to attract paying clients. Are officers Medical Doctors? Porbably not very many. Can they accurately recognize HGN as related to the level of alcohol levels? Yes, very consistantly. Its admissible as evidence in this state, and in fact an HGN test alone done by a trained officer has shown in both lab studies and real world tests to be very accurate. Of the three NHTSA tests that defense attorneys love to bash, HGN alone has proven to be 88% accurate at showing when a person is above .08% BAC. As you can tell, my expertise lies in DUI. As for conviction rate, i'm in the 95% to 97% range. If everything is done properly you leave no room for anything but a plea or finding of guilty. As for the OP and his case (with the information available here), I think he got treated pretty poorly and it does appear to be a bad arrest. He wisely submitted to the arrest even though he believed it to be a bad one. In my state resisting an arrest, even though it may be a bad one can still get you charged with resisting. Im not in favor of civil suits generally, however from the info here it appears he may have a very good case for a civil suit. Maybe the police department allowed this officer to operate this way and it may very well be the only way to get them to change is to have them found responsibile in the civil suit.
Originally Posted by Landing Gear
Eastwest, my sincere condolences for the outrageous manner in which you were treated. As an American, I am outraged.
I realize this is not a legal forum, but I feel compelled to set a few points straight. First, contrary to what the local law enforcement officer said as well as the post here which validated it, it is NOT against the law to be "on drugs," i.e. under the influence of a controlled substance unless either a) one is operating a motor vehicle or aircraft; or b) one is disorderly in public; or c) one is in violation of a clearly written and constitutional statute. No less than the U.S. Supreme Court ruled many years ago on exactly this point: States cannot punish status but can punish behavior. This is first year law school stuff. A perfect example would be the passenger who is nervous about flying so he takes a tranquilizer prescribed for him (e.g. Valium) before clearing the security checkpoint. As long as he has done nothing criminal, he has not violated any law, EVEN THOUGH he is "under the influence" of a controlled substance. Similarly, there may be another passenger who has medical condition, e.g. cancer, which puts him in severe pain. He takes his prescibed pain killer that is a controlled substance (e.g. Vicodin ES) and the same situation applies. I do not understand the repeated references to "drug recognition experts." The poster who cited this should himself take a look at the web site to which he referred and can read at http://decp.org/experts/ the following: "A Drug Recognition Expert or Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) is a police officer trained to recognize impairment in drivers under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol." Obviously, you were not driving.It sounds to me like the officer was either trying to perform (or trying to fake) a test called "horizontal gaze nystagmus," about which you can find out more at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...agmus/toc.html Since we're into citing websites, I thought you might like this quote from "California DUI: A Drunk Driving Law Guide" "This field sobriety test has proven to be subject to a number of different problems, not the least of which is the non-medically trained officer's ability to recognize nystagmus and estimate the angle of onset. Because of this and the fact that the test is not accepted by the medical community, it is not admissible as evidence in many states; it continues, however, to be widely used by law enforcement." (Interestingly, I took a continuing legal education course on the prosecution and defense of drunk driving and saw first hand how this test is performed correctly and incorrectly.)I agree with all the posters who have urged you to see an attorney. Since I am an attorney myself, I would suggest you try and find someone who handles not merely tort cases (e.g. False Arrest, False Imprisonment) but also civil rights violations. If the brief notes you have provided here are a complete and accurate description of the incident, your lawyer may wish to consider an action against the local authorities for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. Again, only a competent and experienced lawyer who interviews you can determine what rights you have and how best to pursue a remedy. Since various laws exist which can seriously limit the amount of time in which you can sue a governmental entity, I urge you to see an attorney right away. I am not a member of the Bar in your state and do not solicit you as a client. Good luck. |
Assuming all the facts stated are correct and complete, this boils down to the following:
1. Illegal arrest. 2. Illegal search. 3. Illegal imprisonment. 4. Deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Now, the last one is the really good one because not only does federal law provide for large damages, the defendant, if it loses, has to pay the plaintiff's attorneys fees. I am sure the fact that the OP was held for twelve hours once verified that he was cold sober would really go over well with any jury. When I was an assistant DA, cops like this, who make up the law as they go along (while extremely rare, fortunately), were the bane of our existence. |
Originally Posted by Landing Gear
Assuming all the facts stated are correct and complete, this boils down to the following:
1. Illegal arrest. 2. Illegal search. 3. Illegal imprisonment. 4. Deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Now, the last one is the really good one because not only does federal law provide for large damages, the defendant, if it loses, has to pay the plaintiff's attorneys fees. I am sure the fact that the OP was held for twelve hours once verified that he was cold sober would really go over well with any jury. When I was an assistant DA, cops like this, who make up the law as they go along (while extremely rare, fortunately), were the bane of our existence. I have to agree with you there... that last one is something we are always warned about..... it is a BIG deal! They would hate to have me serve on a civil jury in a case like this. |
congrats we got digg'ed
|
I walked into our lunch room today and some guys from our shop were talking about this thread. I was really surprised because they are definitely not frequent flyers. They told me they had read about in on digg.com
They were very impressed when I told them that eastwest was a friend of mine. I guess these didn't think I was cool enough to associate with criminals. ;) |
Yeah! Who'd a thunk ANYBODY woulda kept lining up for the TSA even BEFORE they heard about this particular kind of abuse?
Sure fun reading! Keep it up, folks. TSA will be delighted to see ya and treat ya with their Dignity and Respect Public Frisk! (Special this week: a few people WILL be 'randomly selected' for the Goat Award.) Good lord. |
Contrary to information coming from others in this thread, it is illegal to be under the influence of a broad range of drugs in California except when administered by or under the direction of a person licensed by the state to dispense, prescribe, or administer controlled substances.
The statute is 11550(a) of the Health and Safety Code. A DRE level examination is not required in order to have the necessary probable cause to arrest, only sufficient training and experience to recognize and articulate specific symptoms. |
Originally Posted by FoothillFlyer
Contrary to information coming from others in this thread, it is illegal to be under the influence of a broad range of drugs in California except when administered by or under the direction of a person licensed by the state to dispense, prescribe, or administer controlled substances.
The statute is 11550(a) of the Health and Safety Code. A DRE level examination is not required in order to have the necessary probable cause to arrest, only sufficient training and experience to recognize and articulate specific symptoms. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Is there any evidence of the OP being "under the influence" of that "broad range of drugs in California"? No. Bringing that up is just like bringing up the possibility that someone could be a terrorist. :rolleyes: The TSA/LEOs might as well have detained the OP for that while they were at it. Not. :td:
|
Originally Posted by FoothillFlyer
This is the crime the OP says he was arrested for, and which other posters claim is not a crime at all. This was probably a contempt of cop arrest, to be sure, but he was not booked for a made-up offense. I also wonder why the OP is subject to random drug tests? Just being a ramper does not subject you to this further indignity.
|
This has the usual forumla of a TSA arrest:
-Pax goes through checkpoint with something marginally illegal -TSA agent violates minor protocol -Violation of minor protocol gives pax license to be a dick -TSA agent asks pax about marginally illegal good -Instead of saying "oh is that a problem? I'm sorry, I didn't know it would be a problem, do what you have to do" pax questions TSA agent for doing his job by going through his bags and mocks the TSA agent, informing him that the x-ray and ionscan are wrong -TSA agent, sick of getting mocked and ridiculed day in and day out persists -Pax gets hostile -TSA agent gets hostile and is approaching point of finality -Pax can either shut up, grin, and shake his head so he can still project an image of disrespect without getting in trouble, use the 'you get more flies with honey' approach, or continue with the attitude. Pax elects for the attitude. -TSA gets marshall/cop/sheriff -Pax gives more attitude. Of course he can act contrite and apologize for everything, such as being so pretentious to the point of telling the TSA screener that his x-ray and ionscanner are wrong, but telling the screener to "quit running at the mouth" makes for a better FT TSA thread. -Marshall/cop/sheriff arrest for stupid offence that they wouldn't otherwise arrest for if the pax wern't going out of his way to be a dick. -Pax ends up in jail, is released, and posts on FT. Instead of realizing that being polite is a better way to get through situations than acting hostile and insulted whenever asked a question by a person in authority, pax ends up writing about he was so hard done by. OP also finally realises that a SIDA pass doesn't mean you're above the law and that it won't get you out of jams, like mouthing off cops. |
Originally Posted by cur
This has the usual forumla of a TSA arrest:
|
JakiChan, for some blame the victim never gets old, it just gets sold when convenient by them. :eek:
|
Originally Posted by JakiChan
Because the cops/TSA/anyone in uniform is always right? Bzzt, wrong answer...
I never said they were right, I said that the x-ray and ion-scan are normally right. All I argued was being polite, or at least saying nothing will get you a lot further and save you a lot of grief than deciding to mouth them off. Think about it, you're a screener, and you come across a harmless looking ball that shows a hard metal object in the centre and tests positive for explosives. You get two different people: a) The guy had no idea it would be a problem and cooperates. He understands that because of the indicators they have, he'll be deeply scrutinized, and understands that he will be asked questions like "is this a detonator" or "are you smuggling drugs". When they cut up the ball, they'll see that it's a big misunderstanding. Afterall, these people have a job to do, and it's just a perfect combination of wrong events, making for the ideal day of travel. And hey, at the very least, this would make for a funny story on FT. b) The other guy thinks it's so stupid that he's being scrutinized over a rubber ball. Just look at it, it's a rubber ball! Who do these people think they are? You opened my bags without my permission? Of course, I would give permission if you asked, but you didn't ask! It's all about me! They're just saying that the ionscan shows a hit for explosives to see how I react. It's apart of their really weak interrogation techniques training. They just make up the rules as they go along and they're powertripping on me. Ohhh now they are bringing up the cops because they're on even more of a power trip. Who does this cop think he is? Do I look like a drug smuggler or user? I'm a baggage handler! I have a SIDA pass, you can't screw with me! Assuming that rubber-band-balls are seceretly prohibited and subject to arrest if attempted to be brought across, who would you be happy to arrest and who would you feel bad to arrest? Who are you going to be nice to and work with? Who are you going to cut a break to? |
Originally Posted by FoothillFlyer
Contrary to information coming from others in this thread, it is illegal to be under the influence of a broad range of drugs in California except when administered by or under the direction of a person licensed by the state to dispense, prescribe, or administer controlled substances.
The statute is 11550(a) of the Health and Safety Code. A DRE level examination is not required in order to have the necessary probable cause to arrest, only sufficient training and experience to recognize and articulate specific symptoms. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:07 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.