If, if, what the accused stated in the article was true, I wonder what was the officer thinking. I wonder what was the probable cause for the initial contact (stop). How many indicators were present, what tests were administered, what training and experience did the officer have. Just curious. You really have to be on point when working DUI cases. I wonder why any officer would take chances. As an officer if you are unsure about something get a second opinion, just ask.
Several years ago, a county commissioner, on the night prior to election day, was out putting up signs at polling places, when it started to rain. He got soaked.
When he stopped at a Walgreens, to buy a coke, and off duty deputy claimed he was so drunk he wet his pants and reported him as a drunk driver.
He just happened to support freezing the Sheriff budget due to reduced tax collections.
Another deputy, this one on duty, waited across the street and arrested him for drunk driving when he pulled out of the lot. He was charged with drunk driving on the say so of a deputy that claimed he was an expert at determining drug, and alcohol use.
The Commissioner bonded out and went straight to a hospital for an independent blood test and it showed EXACTLY what the county test showed; ZERO blood alcohol, ZERO drugs.
The commissioner appeared on TV, in time for the six AM news and explained what happened and the public reelected him by the highest margin of his career.
Shortly thereafter the officer that claimed to be the greatest living expert, was banned from testifying in criminal cases as it was uncovered he had granted himself "expert" status.
Truth is that you cannot trust the police to be truthful, any longer. Haven't been able to for over twenty years.
