Brickbat: Three Strikes

Police Officer Noah Werner of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, arrested Jeff Adams for DUI in 2023. Adams asked for but was not given a breathalyzer at the scene. It took four months, but lab tests eventually found Adams was not intoxicated. But in the meantime, he was suspended as an Uber driver, and while he wasn't fired from his day job as a teacher, he says he still fears the arrest hurt his reputation. WSMV, Nashville's CBS affiliate, reports that Werner arrested two other people for DUI in 2023 who turned out to be sober. "I certainly regret that, and I really deeply hurt for what they went through," said Police Chief Gary Goodwin. The station reports that police departments throughout Middle Tennessee have arrested sober people for DUIs. It also found that many drivers ask for but do not get breathalyzers because departments do not use them. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation told the station that because of a backlog it can take up to eight months to get alcohol reports back.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

I certainly regret that, and I really deeply hurt for what they went through...

Not so much to implement changes, of course.

[Don't look at me!]

More money needed for training!

[jimc5499]

Breathalyzers are a joke. Their original intended use was to obtain probable cause to get a Blood Test. I'll take any and all bets that if Adams would have received a breathalyzer and it showed anything over .08 he would have been convicted of DUI and they would have never checked the blood sample.
Breathalyzers don't measure Ethyl Alcohol. They measure a group of chemicals. Odds are very good that a painter, a nurse or many people in other professions will register on a breathalyzer without consuming any alcohol.

[Rossami]

Why breathalyzer? Even the inventor thinks they are not competent for use in criminal proceedings. You should be demanding a blood test.

And, okay, a police department so incompetent that they can't get breathalyzers probably also can't process blood tests any faster but at least demand the thing that might actually exonerate you.

[mad.casual]

And, okay, a police department so incompetent that they can’t get breathalyzers probably also can’t process blood tests any faster but at least demand the thing that might actually exonerate you.

I know you're struggling mightily to stay one step ahead of morons but you do realize that, by your own narrative, a blood test almost certainly won't exonerate you at the scene, right? That by skipping straight to calling for a blood test you're effectively compelling your arrest and/or detention and a report and/or evidence gathering? It's your right if that's what you want to do but, again, you're working awful hard in order to fail to outwit morons.

[Rossami]

Couldn't bother to read the article again? He wasn't "exonerated at the scene" by the breathalyzer either. If you're having to demand a proper test, you're getting arrested either way.

[mad.casual]

Couldn’t bother to read the article again?

Did. Don't have to. That's whay "by your own narrative" means.

He asked for the breathalyzer at the scene. Asking for a blood test like a moron, is like asking for them to take you to jail so that you can get your one phone call... like a moron. If you're going to jail either way, the request isn't necessary.

Seriously, there are actually illiterate, developmentally retarded, inner city youth who aren't this stupid. Do you think by playing stupid you're somehow defending or helping someone?

[Social Justice is neither]

Are you stupid enough to think that processing capacity for blood testing is infinite?

[jimc5499]

I agree with you. Better yet, how about doing away with DUI and increasing the penalties for Reckless Driving? With Pot becoming legal in many places, let's do away with "impairment" altogether. With the number of cameras in Police cars these days, Reckless Driving should be a slam dunk.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

It says he's a "teacher" so probably guilty of grooming

[Chumby]

The public school teacher was swerving, which resulted in the original traffic stop, and then did poorly on the field sobriety test. Do unsafe drivers have to be in sarc’s sauce or is it ok to get them off the streets even if they have not been drinking?

[Pablo long cock]

Define "swerving".

[Dillinger]

looking at his phone.

[markm23]

Or dodging pot holes.

[Rise of the Impedance]

Everybody fails the roadside sobriety dance. Everyone, every time, intoxicated or not. The only question is by "by how much", which is determined by the officer's opinion.
Never consent to any roadside testing.

[Chumby]

False on statement 1. As for refusing to be tested, that can be grounds for auto revocation of the driving license. There may or may not be the opportunity to skip the walk in a line, hold a foot up, count backwards or do the alphabet backwards and proceed to breathalyzer or blood test. Know your local laws.

Dunno if dash cam footage available to corroborate or dispute the allegation he was driving erratically.

[Rise of the Impedance]

You can always refuse the road-side dance and preliminary breath test. These are designed only to develop probable cause for you to be arrested, which is NOT the same as determining intoxication. Blood/breath testing becomes mandatory after arrest. The PC for the arrest comes the officer's observations, which are the HGN test, walk-and-turn, preliminary breath test, etc.
You never under obligation to help with his investigation. Just hand over your license, say you're not answering any question, then STFU. Do not cooperate. If you're "offered" the test, the cop already made up his mind.

[Chumby]

And refusing may result in your license being suspended unless the local laws accept that you can skip straight to the blood test. If you are over the limit, then the delay may buy time to test lower/under the limit. But hopefully not since drunks don’t need to be on the road. If they got pulled over for driving erratically and were drunk, that does fall under something many expect law enforcement to address. If someone was merely driving erratically but not drunk, then they can get the ticket and be on their way unless they flunk a roadside test that ostensibly sober people regularly pass.
Having the dashcam footage, if available, would help determine if the teacher earned the stop or if it was bullshit. Same with bodycam video of the sobriety test, if available.

[mad.casual]

False on statement 1.

Even trivially. Roadside sobriety checks, which, legal or not, were actually a thing and were notorious wastes of time/effort specifically because the vast, vast majority of people stopped were sober and let go.

The idea that no one ever passes any roadside sobriety test is between self-retardation, useful idiocy, and distraction from more concerted lawfare and mendacious(ly selective) policing in this country.

[Rise of the Impedance]

You have nothing to gain from taking any test. If you did the test and weren't arrested, that indicates there was not enough evidence for the officer to state PC for an arrest. You didn’t “pass”, it's there just wasn’t enough evidence to charge you with DUI and go against that lawyer you’re going to hire. “Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”.

Don’t be an asshole, but never consent. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind. You’re playing “You Bet Your Life” against someone who plays literally every day. And you have no way to know if this cop is fair or an asshole. They guy in this article is a perfect example.

BTW, roadside checks are still a thing in many states. And, yes, they are a waste of time.

[Zeb]

They have to be on the sauce (or something) if you are going to use DUI laws against them.
And let's start with the cops who I see driving while looking at their phones or laptops all the time.

[Dillinger]

>>drivers ask for but do not get breathalyzers because departments do not use them ... because of a backlog it can take up to eight months to get alcohol reports back.

revenue. stream.

[AT]

They don't even have one in booking? I find that very hard to believe.

[Daddyhill]

“Serve and Protect” strikes again. The LE officer(s) in question probably use the “good faith” excuse, and qualified immunity probably protects them and their departments from civil suits.

As a side note, I remember having a noted Minnesota alcoholism researcher speak to my public health class about DUI, MADD, etc. He pointed out that if the scary estimates of the numbers of people drinking, driving, and colliding were true, there would have been wrecked cars and dead people stacked up along every road every weekend. Why were there not? Many people learn how to drive more or less safely while UI, it takes practice but they do. This isn’t a good thing necessarily, of course, but a fact. Someone I know very well accomplished this.