Follow the Law, Not Emotion
This case is obviously going to raise a bunch of strong emotions on both sides.
We state the following:
We state the following:
- In a fight with mutual combatants, we don't just charge the last person standing. We investigate and charge the person on the wrong side of the law.
- in a crash with two sets of allegedly intoxicated motorists, we don't charge the survivor - we charge the "at fault" motorist, who as fate would have it, is dead.
- In any criminal case, the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to not give evidence against one's self.
- the results of an Administrative Order against one's self interest should not be admissible in a court of law.
- The bartender verified to investigators that he was serving shots of water on the night in question. The video wouldn't even stand a cursory motion in court.
- any media driven "counts" are immediately suspect and are inevitably part of a witch hunt.
Like we said, this case is sure to rile people on both sides. Especially dealing with a crooked court system in Cook County. We won't be publishing ad hominem attacks on ourselves, the blog, the Department, etc. Learn to argue the facts at hand and your post will see the light of day.
Labels: open posts
posted by SCC at 12:03 AM
76 Comments:
Saw the big news during a break in the "Chicago can just about forget about" the Olympics.
Hey news persons. The seekers of truth. The other persons involved in this investigation. Where were they coming from and what were they doing just before committing the ultimate traffic violation? And what was their BAC? And are you just pimping for that attorney?
Seriously, tho. That's why there not called "on-purposes".
This appears to be the usual political double standard. Voters cry and elected officials throw you under the bus. I'm sure they will skirt the double jeopardy clause by filing other charges. My question is what chain of custody is there on this new piece of evidence?
It is obvious the media is totally against us. Let the city burn. Those family members just want cash from the city. Let it turn into a Detroit because that s where it is heading.
Another case of the whore media pushing their whore agenda against the Police. Seems like booze was never a factor; just some boyz from the hood blowing a stop sign.
Isnt this a ch7 exclusive? Well, if they wont let this dog die,lets keep bringing up the anchor and his being blackmailed by his dope suppliers and the facts on how that all got buried.Whats was his name: JOSEORRELI?
By the way NORTHFIELD/NEIL ;make sure you welcome the visiting reverend,and embrace diversity.....
They don't mention at all that both people killed were illegal aliens, drinking also and it was determined that the driver of the car that was killed was at fault in the accident.
100% fact and 100% true.
And with the States Attorney election in Novemeber, its highly likely that they will do anything to keep the Hispanic vote happy.
You are 100% correct SCC, circumventing an officer's COnstitutional Rights is circumspect and tantamount to being a criminal Civil Rights Violation.
Just because one is a PO, this does not enable a vindictive leftist media or collective groups of greedy attorneys to deny us due process.
Play it by the letter of the law, they are championing a losing proposition and seeking a ghetto lottery.
again, what was the blood alcohol level of the dead driver??
The other fact that has never emerged in this case is that the decedent's vehicle was traveling at 60 mph on Oakdale before hitting Damen. This is on good authority from Major Accidents who removed the "black Box" from the vehicle, no one traveling on Damen could have avoided this accident.
Media driven or not, the state's attorney's office knows this one is a loser. And we all know how they feel about cases they think are losers. We'll never see this in a court. Bank it.
Interesting. If the officer was above the legal limit, not proved and so therefore he wasn't DUI. But if he had been, being drunk doesn't mean you necessarily caused the accident. Over here we have the offence of "Fail to provide specimen for
analysis (in charge)" I'm sure you have something similar and if so wouldn't this have been the charge laid against this PO?
The members of the fourth estate (other than Kass) in this burg are so scared of short-biggie that they always take the path of least resistance.
More often then not that path leads to the police.
The way its going, it looks like Mette will just complete his sentence. Iowa seems to ignore whatever you say.
The PO had the right of way. That is the end of the story. Stay strong J A and sue the fuck out of the city and county.
My only question regarding SCC's thoughtful post involves this quote:
"In any criminal case, the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to not give evidence against one's self.the results of an Administrative Order against one's self interest should not be admissible in a court of law."
I take the position that a breathalyzer test is not a 5th amendment issue. I think the Supreme Court case Schmerber v. California settles that issue.
Also, the State uses Administrative punishment every single day to compel chemical testing. See 11-501.1 - and remember that everytime a motorist refuses to blow - the Police initiate an action (and the ASA's defend it) to suspend that person's license. I grant you the Administrative punishment set by the CPD is far harsher, but isn't the analysis the same?
I'm not looking to start a fight over this case because, as you point out, it has its problems - but I think some caution is advised when talking about the legal issues involved.
Is this Dan O'connor related to the midget's Ald. Pat O'Connor?
This case is being driven by the attorney for the family - Dan O'Connor who is the brother of 40th Ward Alderman Patrick O'Connor.
I am a police officer and with it comes responsibility. I usually agree with most everything on this site but on this I have to agree.
If there is an auto accident and both parties are DUI, you don't just charge the "at fault" driver, even if he is dead. You charge them both. One is at fault, but both are DUI.
If the other driver was drunk and was at fault, that is a fact that should definitely be known to the public. With this fact, the PO should NOT be charged with Reckless Homocide nor should he be charged with Aggravated DUI.
He SHOULD, however, still be charged with misdomeanor DUI. I am the first one to side with a police officer but this one still fucked up. So did the brass that tried to sweep this under the rug.
They made him blow 7 HOURS LATER and he still blew a .7 something? Like it or not, he was damn drunk at the time of the accident. The ADS who tried to sweep this under the rug should have a CR on him and the bosses who fucked up the investigation should also.
If he committed an armed robbery would they tried to hide that also? Damn, the copper totally screwed up and he should be charged accordingly. MISDOMEANOR DUI. We all know there was no way in hell those shot glasses were full of water. Didn't know water would register a BAC level on the machine!!!
Charge him according, suspend him accordingly, and then give him his job back. It really is that simple.
So was his administrative "blow" used in court against him or not? If so is the administrative order to blow then a violation of our Constitutional right? Sorry, a little lost here.
I have arrested gangbangers who are convicted felons carrying loaded guns on the street that got away with minimal time of PROBATION. Yet, the Crook Cnty SA Office wants to double, triple jepordy JA??
shouldn't the family be paying for the his truck?
I hear that Emil Jones II will submit a new criminal law before handing his throne over to his kid:
720 ILCS 5/25-1a
Being a Police Officer.
THE MEDIA IS GOING TO SLANT EVERYTHING THE WAY THEY AND THEIR MASTERS THE POLITICIANS WANT.
OFF TOPIC FOR A SECOND;
I SAW A TRUCK WITH A DECAL OF A KID PISSING ON "KING DALEY", ANY IDEA WHERE I MIGHT GET ONE FOR MY TRUCK? AND MAYBE ADD WEISS TO IT.
IF WE START DOING THIS DO YOU THINK IT WILL ATTRACT MEDIA ATTENTION?
TO: Paw_Hidden said...
Interesting. If the officer was above the legal limit, not proved and so therefore he wasn't DUI. But if he had been, being drunk doesn't mean you necessarily caused the accident. Over here we have the offence of "Fail to provide specimen for
analysis (in charge)" I'm sure you have something similar and if so wouldn't this have been the charge laid against this PO?
8/23/2008 05:34:00 AM
The provision you are referring to here in Illinois falls under an implied consent procedure. It is civil and not criminal. No criminal aspect if not providing a sample, have to rely on observations and other factors...What state are you in just out of curiosity, always good to know if driving through.... Be safe
I've read other reports that the bartender testified that the PO only drank shots of water. Good for him;someone give that man(the bartender)a salute, or toast for me!(Hope he continues to stand tall)
That guy reminds me of the good ol' days(hicup)when your bartender
was right up there w/your precinct captain, mailman, footcop,milkman,
busdriver,etc...
99% of the population is stoned on something that time of the night and youz liberal/ghetto as*holes want to hang a Copper cause someone
blew a stopsign?
Go f*k yourselves............
just curios why haven't ive seen or heard what the other driver's BAC level was????????
Very interesting that no news source states any of this info?
Wasnt the other driver at fault in this accident?
Hey chicago newes media try reporting the FULL story instead of one that is certainly BIASED towards THE POLICE......
oh and one side note TONY PERICA your a reaL DEUSCHBAG after your lttle interview yesterday stating that the states attorney office is in bed with the CPD......how many more races can you run and still LOSE miserbly..........you lost my VOTE!
Just another reason to let this city implode.
Keep on working dumbfucks.
I'm not saying anything about who was at fault, but if you read the IVC statute, if there is reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) to believe a driver of a vehicle involved in a serious injury or death, to anyone involved in the accident, other than the suspect driver... the suspect driver can be forced to give blood and urine. It doens't matter if you consent or not. They can strap you down and and take both blood and urine, and it's still marked as a refusal. This only applies when serious injuries or death occur to someone other than the driver. I am not sure however, if this applies only to an at fault driver, or any driver involved in the accident. The statute is easy to find under the implied consent section in the IVC book.
welcome to CRook county
If you saw the video on the news when the copper left, he was given a bottle that was clear, the glass was clear and so was the liquid. Seems he took a bottle of water. I don't know of any beer or wine cooler bottle that looks like that bottle in the video.
The bartender was serving $5 shots of top shelf water to the officer? Obviously he had hyponatremia at the time of the crash, which can cause false BAC readings. He will be cleared of any wrongdoing.
"the decedent's vehicle was traveling at 60 mph on Oakdale before hitting Damen."
Doesn't Oakdale dead end at Damen? Pretty hard to be going 60 there. I think it was the Durango that was reported to be going 60.
again, what was the blood alcohol level of the dead driver??
8/23/2008 02:12:00 AM
Inquiring minds want to KNOW. And if they were undocumented, I assume, also unlicensed to drive a vehicle?
Maybe if they were'nt drunk, they wouldn't have blown the stop sign.
Come on already, how many coppers run across these news scum all the time..DUI, wife beaters, narcotic abuse, etc....Start locking up their asses no matter what phone calls are made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting. If the officer was above the legal limit, not proved and so therefore he wasn't DUI. But if he had been, being drunk doesn't mean you necessarily caused the accident. Over here we have the offence of "Fail to provide specimen for
analysis (in charge)" I'm sure you have something similar and if so wouldn't this have been the charge laid against this PO?
8/23/2008 05:34:00 AM
We have no such charge here in Illinois. Failure to provide a sample for analysis is just grounds for suspension of DL.
The media is a joke as a matter of fact they lie... repeatedly I have heard them say "even though Officer Ardelean crossed over into the wrong lane of traffic and struck mr luna head on". Yet anyone who has taken accident investigation 101 can see that there is no damage to offender Luna's vehicle... there is damage to the drivers side of offender Lunas vehicle... so how the fuck is that a head on collision??? And they fail to mention that offender Luna's vehicles on board computer showed prior to impact offender Luna had not hit the breaks in over 3 blocks... there were 3 stop signs in that 3 block stretch... including the one offender Luna blew, causing the fatal accident... All this information is available to the media if they look, as it came out in the preliminary hearing so the argument "Ardelean wont talk to us" is bullshit... they can get the info if they want it... but then again, why letthe truh get in the way of a good story?! Bunch of suck holes... time to start writing news trucks tickets again... I havent written a parker and/or mover in almost a year and a half I will lift the moratorium for news trucks only FUCK THEM!!
not to mention, Im sure whatever shithole bario offender Luna and his compadres were in had a camera, too... where is that? Why doesnt Paul Meinke and the rest of the scum bags do some leg work and get the TRUTH out seems like thats a word they dont know much about
Channel 7 lied by omission. They and no other channel or media stated the truth that the dead driver pulled out into traffic in a way that put him at fault in this accident. What was their blood alcohol level. Publish all of the facts in this case.
This appears to be the usual political double standard. Voters cry and elected officials throw you under the bus.
Your elected official, the State's Attorney, didn't throw you under the bus. They covered for you by throwing the family under the bus.
I'm sure they will skirt the double jeopardy clause by filing other charges.
Double jeopardy does not attach until a verdict is rendered. It does not apply for a preliminary hearing.
My question is what chain of custody is there on this new piece of evidence?
Is the police officer claiming that that grainy video which shows his bald head taking shots of "water" ha, ha, ha, wasn't really him?
It is obvious the media is totally against us. Let the city burn. Those family members just want cash from the city. Let it turn into a Detroit because that s where it is heading.
Read the book, "The New Urban Renewal" by Derek S. Hyra, (don't worry he is white, read with sarcasm) and you will see that Chicago is not really heading the way of Detroit. It is a case study of the urban renewal with Bronzeville as an example.
It is obvious the media is totally against us. Let the city burn. Those family members just want cash from the city. Let it turn into a Detroit because that s where it is heading.
Read the book, "The New Urban Renewal" by Derek S. Hyra, (don't worry he is white, read with sarcasm) and you will see that Chicago is not really heading the way of Detroit. It is a case study of the urban renewal with Bronzeville as an example.
8/23/2008 04:43:00 PM
Ok, Ms. Tillman. Shouldn't you be shopping for more hats?
"oh and one side note TONY PERICA your a reaL DEUSCHBAG after your lttle interview yesterday stating that the states attorney office is in bed with the CPD......how many more races can you run and still LOSE miserbly..........you lost my VOTE!
8/23/2008 10:39:00 AM"
Not the ENTIRE CPD, you idiot, just the portion consisting of shortshank's minions.
What, you'd prefer Alvarez to replace Devine?
"I SAW A TRUCK WITH A DECAL OF A KID PISSING ON "KING DALEY", ANY IDEA WHERE I MIGHT GET ONE FOR MY TRUCK? AND MAYBE ADD WEISS TO IT.
IF WE START DOING THIS DO YOU THINK IT WILL ATTRACT MEDIA ATTENTION?
8/23/2008 09:51:00 AM"
Maybe one on every city vehicle, including squads?
"8/23/2008 08:13:00 AM"
You say you'd read the SCC article, yet, in your analysis, you ignore the potential criminal charges faced by the officer, who is also a citizen, involved.
That is where the 5th Amendment Rights come into play.
Did you forget that, or were you omitting that on purpose?
There is no black box.
Doesn't Oakdale dead end at Damen? Pretty hard to be going 60 there. I think it was the Durango that was reported to be going 60.
Actually, He (the decedent) would have traveled from Wolcott west on Oakdale to Damen. At Damen the driver was legally required to make a stop at the end of this one-way street before entering traffic...only after it was safe to do so.
Since, according to another poster...the driver was "an illegal" we can only assume that he figured a stop sign or a speed limit were small potatoes compared to his earlier crimes.
That said, it really comes down to one simple fact. The westbound driver of said vehicle on Oakdale learned that there really are consequences for running a stop sign. It also shows that he had an utter disregard for the safety of his fellow passengers by placing them in harm's way when he consciously chose to ignore yet another law in our country.
Is this Dan O'connor related to the midget's Ald. Pat O'Connor?
8/23/2008 08:16:00 AM
anonymous said...
This case is being driven by the attorney for the family - Dan O'Connor who is the brother of 40th Ward Alderman Patrick O'Connor.
8/23/2008 08:59:00 AM
POS Alderman O'Connor has officed for years with our very own goof of an FOP lawyer - Joe Roddy. Wonder how his brother got the case? F the FLOP.
The PO had the right of way. That is the end of the story. Stay strong J A and sue the fuck out of the city and county.
8/23/2008 07:47:00 AM
What did the City and County do to him? Just asking.
They can strap you down and and take both blood and urine, and it's still marked as a refusal.
**Very rarely does that ever happen in this liberal county.
IF this case goes to trial, the BAC of the other driver will be known. Until then, nobody will say a word about it. They're hoping that this kid will just plead and the other driver can be looked to like he was an angel.
The States Attorney tried using an administrative blow in traffic court last year but fortunately the judge denied there motion. The ASA supervisor of traffic court is a bitch. She is a power hungry nazi that is out to destroy anyone who gets in her way.
The peace officers bill of rights states that any admission in an interrogation or any administrative evidence obtained in the course of an administrative proceeding AFTER warnings are read Cannot be used against an officer in a criminal case.
The .07 reading if in fact true is inadmissible as evidence in a criminal case.
013th District Copper said...
I am a police officer and with it comes responsibility. I usually agree with most everything on this site but on this I have to agree.
If there is an auto accident and both parties are DUI, you don't just charge the "at fault" driver, even if he is dead. You charge them both. One is at fault, but both are DUI.
If the other driver was drunk and was at fault, that is a fact that should definitely be known to the public. With this fact, the PO should NOT be charged with Reckless Homocide nor should he be charged with Aggravated DUI.
He SHOULD, however, still be charged with misdomeanor DUI. I am the first one to side with a police officer but this one still fucked up. So did the brass that tried to sweep this under the rug.
They made him blow 7 HOURS LATER and he still blew a .7 something? Like it or not, he was damn drunk at the time of the accident. The ADS who tried to sweep this under the rug should have a CR on him and the bosses who fucked up the investigation should also.
If he committed an armed robbery would they tried to hide that also? Damn, the copper totally screwed up and he should be charged accordingly. MISDOMEANOR DUI. We all know there was no way in hell those shot glasses were full of water. Didn't know water would register a BAC level on the machine!!!
Charge him according, suspend him accordingly, and then give him his job back. It really is that simple.
8/23/2008 09:20:00 AM
That was the problem the bosses tried to cover it up but they made things worse for him. I guess because it happened in his district they thought they were being nice! But they actually ended up hurting the kid. I would sue the bosses if I were him!The whole thing was handled wrong. I would of had that Walter guy handle it he is a pro!
The driver of the other car had a BAC of .073 and was probably impaired. His passenger also had a high BAC. Darren O'Brien did not want to prosecute, as he always says, If you are not the proximate of the crash, you can not be held liable. It went over his head to Milan and Devine. With it being election, they decided to pander to the voters and indict the P.O. The P.O. was on a through street and had the right of way. The other guys were coming from a side street. If this were just a civilian involved it never would have gone this far. The S.A. office knows they can't win, but they are worried about the backlash.
I'm an ASA for Cook County and find this "second look" ridiculous. What a slap in the face to this officer. Our office needs to get a backbone. We can't change our decisions just to placate people who complain enough.
Why can't y'all ever say we/I did something wrong? Shots of water? Pretty hard to believe.
P.S. I know the media will never give you a break.
Former -
B company
3rd Ranger Battalion
75th Ranger Regiment
It makes me sick to see the media so blatantly smearing his image by saying that he carried a beer out of the bar when it was so obviously a bottle of fucking water. Are u media pricks serious, oh I know, u could always print a retraction in the back of the paper that no one will see and everything will be ok. go fuck yourselves
Saw the pix of that accident in the paper when it happened. Dead persons vehicle was said to have been sideswiped and occupants thrown from vehicle.
I haven't done a traffic crash report in about 10 years, but that sure sounds like to me that some one did not have their seatbelts on. And from looking at the pix of their car in the paper, if they had they probably would have walked away from the crash.
"Did you forget that, or were you omitting that on purpose?
8/23/2008 06:38:00 PM"
Yes.
"I'm an ASA for Cook County and find this "second look" ridiculous. What a slap in the face to this officer. Our office needs to get a backbone. We can't change our decisions just to placate people who complain enough."
Highyl doubt you're an ASA, but nevertheless this is Bob Milans' attempt to curry favor w/ the Hispanic community. Election time right.
YOu saw a rapid decline in Quality ASA's & blatant incompetence when DICK Devine became State's Atty. He didn't make a move until he cleared it through the Mayors Office. Therein lies the problem.
the decedent's vehicle was traveling at 60 mph on Oakdale before hitting Damen."
Doesn't Oakdale dead end at Damen? Pretty hard to be going 60 there. I think it was the Durango that was reported to be going 60.
8/23/2008 12:53:00 PM
The skid marks on Damen were very long from the Durango... But I hope the officer beats it. There is a stop sign on Oakdale/Damen though, and the kid that was killed was not careful either. Both have some fault obviously, but the kid with the stop sign more than the speeding cop.
Ok, maybe I was lied to, but my husband had a DUI. He also did not cause the accident, although he was the only witness to that so hard to prove. His attorney told him it does not matter if he caused it or not. He used an example of being DUI, stopped at a red light. If a person ran into him from behind, causing enough damage to be killed or seriously injured, the car doing NOTHING wrong...who just happened to be above the limit...could be charged. The whole point was supposedly that if he was drunk he shouldn't have been driving. Although he didn't cause the accident, he was at fault for the end result. Never did make sense to me.
What state are you in just out of curiosity, always good to know if driving through.... Be safe
8/23/2008 09:52:00 AM
by writing style and spelling, i'd guess he's from across the pond. :)
Anonymous said...
There is no black box.
8/23/2008 07:03:00 PM
Is that like "there is no spoon"?
8/23/2008 04:36:00 PM
This appears to be the usual political double standard. Voters cry and elected officials throw you under the bus.
Your elected official, the State's Attorney, didn't throw you under the bus. They covered for you by throwing the family under the bus. How, P.O.A didn't cause the accident. He should not have been charged with a felony only Misd. DUI.
I'm sure they will skirt the double jeopardy clause by filing other charges.
Double jeopardy does not attach until a verdict is rendered. It does not apply for a preliminary hearing.I think we all know that. The point is if he was a civilian it would be over.
My question is what chain of custody is there on this new piece of evidence?
Is the police officer claiming that that grainy video which shows his bald head taking shots of "water" ha, ha, ha, wasn't really him? No but how many times has the video been stepped on or edited? We don't know. In a criminal trail in order for it to be admissable you must show chain of custody.
Oh by the way you sound like a jailhouse lawyer to us.
"You say you'd read the SCC article, yet, in your analysis, you ignore the potential criminal charges faced by the officer, who is also a citizen, involved."
I get that you don't agree with me, but doesn't everyone who is asked to give a breath sample to the police facing a potential criminal charge?
And no, I did not ignore that fact - which is why I gave you the caselaw that states compelling a breath sample does not violate the 5th amendment.
OFF TOPIC FOR A SECOND;
I SAW A TRUCK WITH A DECAL OF A KID PISSING ON "KING DALEY", ANY IDEA WHERE I MIGHT GET ONE FOR MY TRUCK? AND MAYBE ADD WEISS TO IT.
IF WE START DOING THIS DO YOU THINK IT WILL ATTRACT MEDIA ATTENTION?
8/23/2008 09:51:00 AM
http://www.signspecialist.com/decals/boypeeing.html
""Did you forget that, or were you omitting that on purpose?
8/23/2008 06:38:00 PM"
Yes.
8/24/2008 02:48:00 AM"
So, you admit that you forgot that on purpose?
You're arguing apples and oranges.
Schmerber v. California references blood tests taken if there is probable cause or exigent circumstances to indicate a person might be intoxicated. In this case, the contention is that a breathalyzer was not performed. Under Illinois law, persons suspected of DUI have the right to refuse a breath test and a subject to an immediate 6 month suspension for refusal.
"So, you admit that you forgot that on purpose?
8/24/2008 09:15:00 PM"
Yes, I admit I forgot to omit that on purpose. What's your excuse?
You're arguing apples and oranges.
Schmerber v. California references blood tests taken if there is probable cause or exigent circumstances to indicate a person might be intoxicated. In this case, the contention is that a breathalyzer was not performed. Under Illinois law, persons suspected of DUI have the right to refuse a breath test and a subject to an immediate 6 month suspension for refusal.
8/24/2008 09:57:00 PM
No, I am not - and sorry if the law is a bitch.
Forcing someone to blow into a breathalyzer - despite any noncriminal punishments arising from the refusal is NOT a violation of the Constitution.
My point (and you don't have to belive that I am actually on J.A.'s side) is that conflating the CPDs requirement to submit to a BrAC or face disciplinary action (which is assumed to be termination) is exactly the same thing as 501.1. If one is unconstutional then so is the other.
If you are a thinking P.O., and I know the vast majority of you are - your problem is with your casper milquetoast contract and NOT with the Constitution.
If the FOP wins their fight about administrative blows - then there is not way 501.1 can stand.
"I get that you don't agree with me, but doesn't everyone who is asked to give a breath sample to the police facing a potential criminal charge?
And no, I did not ignore that fact - which is why I gave you the caselaw that states compelling a breath sample does not violate the 5th amendment.
8/24/2008 05:29:00 PM"
1. If the consequence for refusing, when 'asked', is automatic suspension of state DL, albeit a civil 'punishment', then how can this 'request' be a request, since the options are: a) comply with the 'request' or b) be punished for not complying?
2. Since the punishment in the above is civil, then, if or when the refusal to comply with the request results in criminal charges, how can the 5th Amendment Right not apply?
3. Is it your opinion that the civil refusal to comply can be taken as an admission in a criminal case?
1. If the consequence for refusing, when 'asked', is automatic suspension of state DL, albeit a civil 'punishment', then how can this 'request' be a request, since the options are: a) comply with the 'request' or b) be punished for not complying?
I don't know why you are getting tied up with the civil and criminal distinctions. Illinois says either give evidence against yourself or something bad will happen to you).
2. Since the punishment in the above is civil, then, if or when the refusal to comply with the request results in criminal charges, how can the 5th Amendment Right not apply?
Because the 5th Amendment only protects you from providing testimonial evidence against yourself. Compare my position here to the case on the east coast (Penn. I think) where a Police department forced an officer to geive a statement, and then the state used it against him. That IS a constituional violation.
3. Is it your opinion that the civil refusal to comply can be taken as an admission in a criminal case?
Absolutely, and anyone who doesn't bring up the refusal during the trial on the DUI is asleep at the switch.
Please don't drink and drive.
Given the climate of the department, if I were an officer, I would be extremely cautious what I was drinking, where, with who and for how long. People are out to get you, especially around st. patrick's day.
Damn if he had killed a member of your family would you still be defending this dumb ass cop who has brought negative attention to us once again. Oh and yes the Sh'T is always in the cover-up
The title of this thread is "Follow the Law,Not Emotion." If you are following the law ,then do not drive under the influence of alcohol. Why is that an on-duty copper must always put himself/herself in a jam to look out for some jagoff? Do Not consume alcohol until you are impaired and then drive. It is very simple. Coppers get on here and talk about everyone else when they do wrong,but see no wrongdoing in ourselves. If you want to jam yourself up that is your own business,but don't expect me to jam myself up,when you have put yourself in a bad spot that could have been avoided completely.
<< Home