TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Ignoring the issue of medical problem v.s. intoxication -- they asked her to step out on her porch, then arrested her for public intoxication. Isn't that entrapment? They asked her to step outside just so they could get her in a "public" place (still on her own property), to make it illegal so they could arrest. Seems pretty smarmy to me.

No, it's not entrapment, but I believe that this happens often in this type of situation.

Why not? They are asking the person to do something illegal, then arresting them for it. What's missing?

Asking someone to go outside isn't illegal. If they ordered her to go out, maybe. Maybe one of the LEOs or lawyers can give you a better answer. I just know that this isn't the first time this has happened. I believe it is standard practice.

P.S. I am not sure exactly what "smarmy" means, but I will concede that they acted swarmily.

If going outside wasn't illegal, they wouldn't have been able to arrest her for it. They didn't have all the components of the crime, she was (apparently) intoxicated, but was not in public. They requested she complete the crime by stepping outside. All this ignores the dirty (if you don't like smarmy) business of arresting someone on their own property for PI.

smarmy isn't exactly the term I was reaching for, but at least it IS a word! (unlike swarmily)

Definitions of smarmy on the Web:

buttery: unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech; "buttery praise"; "gave him a fulsome introduction"; "an oily sycophantic press agent"; "oleaginous hypocrisy"; "smarmy self-importance"; "the unctuous Uriah Heep"; "soapy compliments"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Falsely earnest, smug, or ingratiating
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smarmy

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Ignoring the issue of medical problem v.s. intoxication -- they asked her to step out on her porch, then arrested her for public intoxication. Isn't that entrapment? They asked her to step outside just so they could get her in a "public" place (still on her own property), to make it illegal so they could arrest. Seems pretty smarmy to me.

No, it's not entrapment, but I believe that this happens often in this type of situation.

Why not? They are asking the person to do something illegal, then arresting them for it. What's missing?

WildBill wrote:This story is about a woman arrested for PI after her son tried to explain her medical condition before that took her to jail.

“The officer told me to sit down and if I said one more word that I was going to be arrested," her son said.

He said he tried to show police his mother's medical records that show she goes to speech therapy.

“And I got arrested for that," he said of his attempt.

http://www.khou.com/home/Stroke-victim- ... 05243.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ignoring the issue of medical problem v.s. intoxication -- they asked her to step out on her porch, then arrested her for public intoxication.
Isn't that entrapment? They asked her to step outside just so they could get her in a "public" place (still on her own property), to make it illegal so they could arrest.
Seems pretty smarmy to me.

Keith B wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:
[youtube][/youtube]

And of course, not real.

Aww, Keith! Next you'll be telling us there is no Santa Clause, or Tooth Fairy!

Those are the "standardized" tests?
Can anybody actually recite the alphabet backwards? (Without practice.) Another test I'd fail.

gigag04 wrote: You can't walk a line and turn? Can you walk normally when not performing a test? Can you stand on a leg?

Are you elderly or overweight? Do you have any long term injuries? What do you mean when you say you "couldn't" do the tests...

The only reason I've seen that people can't even attempt it is they are extremely intoxicated. Most can do the test, even if exhibiting clues...

I'm 59. I'm not 50 lbs overweight, but used to be much more than that. I can walk normally, but have problems on uneven surfaces (anything that might tend to throw my ankle to one side or the other -- causing my ankle to buckle). 'Normal' walking and standing is not a problem (with feet NOT together/touching).
I could walk the line, but had to "flop my arms around" to keep my balance with one foot directly in front of the other. Same problem, but not as severe to stand with my feet together. Balancing on one foot would take 10-15 seconds, but not 30, again with some flapping around.

After reading the paper above regarding how the SFST is executed, I tried the one-leg-stand and the walk-and-turn tests. I could not do them (and no, I hadn't been drinking). I've had problems with my feet and ankles, and simply cannot keep my balance on one foot, my feet together, or one in front of the other. Guess I'd better not get stopped!

srothstein wrote:
But, since you asked for reports of scientific testing, I thought you deserved more than just my opinion. In addition to advising you to check the article's references (he lists several validation studies), here is an older copy of the SFST instruction manual to read (how the tests are given and the officer's are taught): http://breathtest.wsp.wa.gov/SupportDoc ... 202004.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Steve
There's something seriously wrong with the math on page II-17 of the manual.

Consider exactly what a BAC of 0.08 means. blood alcohol concentration is expressed in terms of the "number of grams of alcohol in every 100 milliliters of blood". When we find that a person has a BAC of 0.08, that means that there is one-eighth (0.08) of a gram of alcohol in any given 100 milliliter sample of blood. One-eighth of a gram is equal to one hundred milligrams (a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram). So, at a BAC of 0.08, the person has 100 milligrams of alcohol in every 100 milliliters of blood, or exactly one milligram per milliliter. If a person has a BAC of 0.08 it means there are 0.08 grams of pure ethanol in every 100 milliliter ("percent") of his/her blood.

First: one-eighth is NOT 0.08, it is 0.125
Second: One-eighth of a gram is NOT equal to 100 milligrams, it is equal to 125 milligrams
Third: Which is it? 0.08 = 100 milligrams/100milliliters = 1 milligrams/milliliter -- or --
0.08 = 0.08 grams/100 milliliters = 80 milligrams/100 milliliters = 0.80 milligrams/milliliter

I haven't finished the rest of the report, as I got seriously stumped at the math they'er using. Perhaps they're mixing BAC with BrAC? They're description just looks WRONG.