RockyTop85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 13,157
- Likes
- 7,119
I agree with most of the first paragraph, but it would be insanity not to rely on police testimony as grounds for an arrest. If there were real consequences for them getting caught lying then it’d be easier to take their word for it, but either way that’s been the way things are done for hundreds of years.If she registers zero alcohol on her blood draw, then every DWI charge coming from that officer should be reviewed. If there is a pattern of corruption then that officer might need to be in cuffs. You cannot prove what they have smelled. When that is used to arbitrarily take away anybody’s freedom, we have a problem.
Has Allen followed up his initial outrage or has he gone silent?
In my experience… probably 400 DUI cases? It’s fairly rare that one comes back with 0.00 where the officer smelled alcohol. They’re literally writing that down while the phlebotomist takes the blood. It would be used against them in other cases and would likely result in some sort of sanction, even if you and I don’t think it would be enough. You’d have to have balls and brains of pure steel to sit there and make that up while the test that proves you’re a liar is being administered.
There’s more to back up the arrest, it’s not just the smell. Somebody else pointed out the nystagmus. I know she had an excuse, but it still goes to probable cause. Nothing is getting suppressed from that case, but I do think it’s a strong likelihood that it’d get reduced if there were no Tox screen coming back. IF TX law is like TN it’s all pretty much on what’s in her blood, anyways.