Brickbat: This Smells Bad

In February 2024, Honolulu Police Department (HDP) Maj. Mike Lambert hand-delivered a memo to the assistant chief warning that officers were arresting sober drivers for DUI. In an audit, Lambert found 166 DUI arrests where drivers were later released without charges. This included 11 cases where officers claimed to smell alcohol in the car but not on the driver, which made field sobriety tests unjustified, according to the memo. Lambert urged the department to figure out whether this was bad training or intentional misconduct. Nothing happened. At least 82 more people were arrested and released with 0.00 breath tests in the months after the memo. And when reporters asked the HDP for a copy of the memo, the department claimed it didn't have it.

Comments

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

First, but not Fist.

[Fist of Etiquette]

We are all Fist now.

[Chumby]

Fist world problems.

[diver64]

The Cold Fist of Truth

[Vernon Depner]

This is standard practice. Lambert was naïve.

[mad.casual]

Yeah. Record everything up to showing that the Department should have it and, if you're lucky, you can sue them for whatever not having a memo they should have will get you.

[Fist of Etiquette]

And when reporters asked the HDP for a copy of the memo, the department claimed it didn't have it.

That's why it was hand delivered.

[Chumby]

Know someone this happened too. He retelling of the story seemed to suggest it was an ego thing on part of that LEO.

[Idaho-Bob]

Tennessee Trooper James Zahn. 8 sober DUI arrests over a few years. Grand champion.

[jimc5499]

A former girlfriend was a nurse. She was giving a patient a shot, when the patient jabbed her with the used needle. Policy was that a blood sample be taken and she was on paid leave until the sample was evaluated. This was around 1 AM. At 3 AM she calls me, in tears, asking if I could pick her up at the Police Station. She had been charged with a DUI. She was stopped on the way home and given a breathalyzer. It read 0.07, in the Borough she was stopped in their Police Chief openly stated that they wouldn't let anybody drive with a measurable amount of alcohol in their system. I was breathalyzed and my car inspected before I was allowed to take her home. She told me what happened and I told her to contact her Boss and make sure that they kept the Blood Sample. The Blood Sample showed Methyl Alcohol and Isopropyl Alcohol, but no Ethyl Alcohol. The Methyl and Isopropyl were from the anti-bacterial hand sanitizers used at the hospital. It had to go to trial before the Judge threw it out. If she hadn't had that sample, she would have been toast. If a blood sample showing an amount above the limit isn't taken DUI is a scam. Breathalyzers are very inaccurate. The original reason behind them was for probable cause to have a blood sample taken. There's political and financial reasons behind the DUI scam. My personal favorite was the Head of MADD in our area being busted for DUI. He made a big stink about not being able to drink, because of health issues. He wasn't busted for alcohol, he was busted for Pot.

[GroundTruth]

jimc5499:

The reason that she showed anything was that the chips used in breathalizers are NON-specific. They detect ANY highly volatile substance (methanol, isopropanol, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, etc etc etc). This same chips is used as part of a solvent detecting wide-spectrum leak detector in a piece of extraction equipment that I was responsible for. This came to light at one point when I had to repair the thing by replacing the chip.

Why IJ or someone else doesn't get on the stick and bring this BS to and end is beyond me. The public are being royally screwed with phony claims of "science!" and it's time to blow the thing wide open so that everyone can see how rigged this all is. There are lots of ways of detecting and differentiating ethanol from other solvents, but the breathalizer is not one.

[Restoring the Dream]

Where's AT to tell us this is not a problem and tell the cops at the checkpoint no I'm not drunk so that they will say "Oh...OK."

[AT]

Actually, my initial thought was, "166 DUI arrests where drivers were later released without charges. ... At least 82 more people were arrested and released with 0.00 breath tests in the months after the memo."

Inconvenient, to be sure - but it all worked out the way it was supposed to in the end, didn't it. So, what's the issue here?

"Sir/Ma'am, you're under arrest for the crime of [X]."
"Understood, Officer. We'll get it sorted out at the station."
- Later -
"Would you like to tell me about [X]?"
"Yes, I'm afraid you have the wrong suspect. Here is my alibi and/or evidence to the contrary."
- Checks -
"I apologize for the inconvenience Sir/Ma'am, you're free to go."
"No worries, you're just doing your job. Thank you."

That's how any normal person would handle it. But let's say you're not normal. Let's say you're a pissant, or worse a criminal - possibly even the criminal they're after:

"Sir/Ma'am, you're under arrest for the crime of [X]."
"Understood, Officer. We'll get it sorted out at the station."
- Later -
"Would you like to te..."
"Lawyer."
"We're not..."
"Am I free to leave?"
"...no."
"Lawyer."

It's not rocket science.

I mean, what's the argument here? That police shouldn't be allowed to perform arrests at all unless they're sure it's going to result in charges? That's stupid. And anyone advocating such stupidity is stupid.

[diver64]

Be polite and courteous to law enforcement, comply with all lawful orders but do not answer any question like "where you coming from"? "where are you going"? "had anything to drink"? You are not obligated to do so and if the officer places you under arrest comply and still do not open your mouth. Under no circumstance ever give consent for a search. Do not stand in their way if they insist but do not give your consent to let them enter a vehicle.

[diver64]

This is increasingly becoming a problem as police grapple with how to identify a person driving under the influence of drugs specifically pot. There is no breath test for it, a urine or blood sample is required neither of which can be done on the side of the road leaving abuse in the form of arrest for suspicion with no actual proof anything is going on.
Audit the Audit shows how this all works in a great YouTube of a college football player arrested for exactly the same thing, nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFuVdlKD00s