Everyone On the Wagon
Remember when J-Fed said he'd give everyone free rides if you were too tipsy to drive home? Someone better get his number:
- The Supreme Court of Illinois has denied the Lodge’s petition for leave to appeal the case of People v. Carey. As has already been reported, the Appellate Court ruled that the use of an administrative breathalyzer examination at a criminal proceeding is permissible. The Lodge filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking an opportunity to argue our position.
The Supreme Court denied our request. Accordingly, the ruling of the Appellate Court remains in effect. Evidence obtained by IAD, whether for a criminal case or an administrative case, will be admitted into evidence at any subsequent criminal proceeding, as long as the recovery of the evidence does not violate the exclusionary rule.
To be clear, the fact that evidence was obtained administratively does not in and of itself violate the exclusionary rule and will be admitted into evidence. The Lodge will continue to monitor what it believes was an incorrect ruling by the Appellate Court and will inform the membership of any new developments.
Don't drink and drive seems a simple enough solution. Calling J-Fed for a ride seems to be the next step. And failing that, sleep it off somewhere.
Labels: info for the police
posted by SCC at 12:02 AM
24 Comments:
hey mark
U BETTER CALL IN THE NATIONAL LODGE 4 THIS CASE CUZ IF U SCREW THIS UP ALL THE OTHER ASS WIPE ATTORNEYS WILL FOLLOW SUIT.
HEY WE DO KICK UP DUE TO THE TOO RIGHT!!?? PUTEM TOO WORK!
the writing is on the wall-- do your boozin in your basement. and never open the door for anyone.
listen if we are that f'd up that we are taken in, then we shouldn't blow. We can all pretend to have gone to sleep and not heard the direct order from IAD SGT. We are probably going to lose our job anyway. Might as well play it all the way. If i didn't hear the order you can't hold me responsible. It's not a crime to sleep, and sleep hard. I'm sure we've all had an arrestee that pretended to be comatose when it was time to take him to the back. If you get stopped, and your lit, be humble, apologetic, don't be a jagoff. If we are out and see another getting blasted, take the keys, give him or her a ride, or pretend to invite them to continue drinking in your car and eventually home. Be creative safe a life, a job, a family.
This means you Buzzsaw! Leave the chosen one alone.
J-fed will fuck me over even if I'm not driving. He's already gone back on his word that he'll give me a ride if I had one too many jars and now he's said he'll fuck me over even if I had a six pack at a bbq in my own yard on my day off on private property while obeying all the laws only because I would blow more than .08. So Jody, you've never had a couple beers with your buddies at a baseball game or at a party, you've never had a couple glasses of wine with dinner with your old lady? If you blew, you'd fail. Now do you think the crap you're dishing out is fair? Thought not.
No more protection if you are ordered to blow the breathalyzer administratively. You will be giving evidence that will be used against you in court.
Don't drink and drive seems to be the best solution or else have a second career all ready to go.
So you call Jody for a ride because you are too drunk to drive. Then you are brought up on charges of being intoxicated while in public on or off duty and instructed to blow, which can be used later administratively or criminally. Oh yeah I can see calling the OEMC for a ride and an Inspector shows up, ordering you to blow.
It's common sense in todays times. Don't put a noose around your neck and don't put the noose around the on duty p/o as you beg for him to cut you loose. Times have changed so smartin' up!
Doesn't the Garrity Act, the Illinois Uniform Peace Officers Act and the Weingarten Rule play into all of this?
Making you administratively blow is tantamount to a violation of civil rights. The subsequent results will and can be now used against you in a criminal court of law.
Refusing a direct order in this case is your only option. The direct order is invalid since the evidence obtained will be used against you not only administratively but criminally.
speaking of drinking....can you ever go out on the northwest side anymore and not run into the drunk from 012 who doesn't even live up here!
Nobody ever heard of a cab here?
2/06/2009 08:22:00 AM
RT?
To be clear, the fact that evidence was obtained administratively does not in and of itself violate the exclusionary rule and will be admitted into evidence. The Lodge will continue to monitor what it believes was an incorrect ruling by the Appellate Court and will inform the membership of any new developments.
so if ordered to blow, can we take the 5th & refuse.. i know you'd be disobeying a direct order, but if your case is that serious, should we refuse...a little help here
THEN THEY SHOULD SERVE YOU WITH BOTH ADMIN + CRIMINAL RIGHTS & WE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE....OR CONSULT OUR ATTORNEY
Hey SCC, did I miss something here, I was always under the impression that IAD can order an officer to comply with Orders and that any request can only be used with departmental proceedings. A request/demand for compliance to an order could not be used in a criminal action. Is my dementia acting up again???
It's a Violation of your 5th Amendment Rights if it can, in court be used against you. There is no due process of the Law if this is the case. The forcing of someone under assumed or implied threat of a punative action if you don't comoly ie: you blow or lose your job, is basically the same as ordering you to confess to a crime or get the shit beat out of you, or have another type of punishment inflicted on you if you don't comply with the answer being sought. It is in direct opposition to your Constitutional Rights against self-incrimination.
The problem is that the 5th Amendment does not apply to a breathalyzer test. The 5th Amendment applies to STATEMENTS, not physical evidence (i.e. breathalyzer results) seized under the 4th Amendment. Garrity applies to evidence seized from statements. An argument can be made that the officer was forced to blow through duress and coercion because he would lose his job otherwise, and any evidence seized through such coercion should be thrown out. However, the IL. Supreme Ct. determined that only breathalyzer results obtained through physical force can be excluded.
The shitty part about this is that the court's ruling only applies to police officers. What other job makes you submit to a breathalyzer immediately after being detained for DUI, or any alleged crime where alcohol is perceived to be involved. Makes police officers second class citizens.
As for advice, if it's only for a DUI, I'd blow since you won't lose your job if its your first DUI. You probably will be fired if you refuse to blow. If you're blowing for anything more than a DUI, it depends on the circumstances and you're on your own. The question you should ask yourself is - "Will I be fired even if I blow?" And that question can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and requires a fortune teller.
Don't worry it won't be too long until J-Fed starts hitting the bottle real hard. J-Fed's days are numbered with all the scandals breaking every week.
To be clear, the fact that evidence was obtained administratively does not in and of itself violate the exclusionary rule and will be admitted into evidence. The Lodge will continue to monitor what it believes was an incorrect ruling by the Appellate Court and will inform the membership of any new developments.
so if ordered to blow, can we take the 5th & refuse.. i know you'd be disobeying a direct order, but if your case is that serious, should we refuse...a little help here
---------------
Depends you want to avoid going to jail? I think it's common sense ... stay out of jail.
Hey SCC, did I miss something here, I was always under the impression that IAD can order an officer to comply with Orders and that any request can only be used with departmental proceedings. A request/demand for compliance to an order could not be used in a criminal action. Is my dementia acting up again???
2/06/2009 11:44:00 AM
Anonymous said...
It's a Violation of your 5th Amendment Rights if it can, in court be used against you. There is no due process of the Law if this is the case. The forcing of someone under assumed or implied threat of a punative action if you don't comoly ie: you blow or lose your job, is basically the same as ordering you to confess to a crime or get the shit beat out of you, or have another type of punishment inflicted on you if you don't comply with the answer being sought. It is in direct opposition to your Constitutional Rights against self-incrimination.
------------
We are covering this exact issue in Law School right now ...
It is indeed violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
OK even if it is not - let's agree it is for argument's sake.
THe gov't is violating the officers 4th Amend right. The Exclusionary RUle is simply a judicially created remedy. The Exclusionary RUle is not in the U.S. Constitution. The COnstitution forbid the gov't form "Unreasonable search/seizure"
But the COnstitution provides no remedy. SCOTUS then created the remedy .. the Exclusionary Rule.
In around 1920 in the WEEKS case the Exclusionary Rule was created by the Sup Court. THe Feds broke into a counterfieters house and found evidence. THe court said, ini order to deter the gov't from doing such a thing, the evidence should be excluded. (Prior to that the evidence would have been admitted but the officers could be personally sued).
In Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 the Warren Court made the Exclusionary Rule applicable to the States.
After the Mapp decision the U.S. citizens began freaking out over this decision ... all of a sudden rapists, murderers, and child molesters were being set free.
The Exclsionary RUle was radical. England has no such rule.
Scalia is opposed to the Exclusionary Rule.
When cops screw up in 'good faith' meaning they did not INTENTIONALLY violate one's 4th amend right against unreasonable search/seizure ... the exclusionary rule does not apply.
In summary, just because the governement violates your 4th Amend right against unreasonable search/seizure ... the remedy is SOMETIMES the exclusion of evidence, but not always.
The writing has been on the wall for quite some time. Anyone who continues to deny the illegality of drinking and driving is a fool. Illinois is one of the last, if not the very last, state to disallow protection for "administratively obtained evidence" being admitted into a criminal case.
In most other states police officers have no recourse but to blow the machine per a supervisor's orders and them those results can and will be used in court. Illinois and especially Chicago is just slow in catching up.
FOP knew this and knows this cannot be fought. You have no right to break the law and then keep evidence of your guilt out of court.
How difficult can it be, people just don't want to admit the obvious, do not drink and drive and especially not if you are a police officer. If that is so difficult to comprehend you can either give up drinking or give up being a police officer.
We are covering this exact issue in Law School right now ...
It is indeed violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
OK even if it is not - let's agree it is for argument's sake.
THe gov't is violating the officers 4th Amend right. The Exclusionary RUle is simply a judicially created remedy. The Exclusionary RUle is not in the U.S. Constitution. The COnstitution forbid the gov't form "Unreasonable search/seizure"
But the COnstitution provides no remedy. SCOTUS then created the remedy .. the Exclusionary Rule.
In around 1920 in the WEEKS case the Exclusionary Rule was created by the Sup Court. THe Feds broke into a counterfieters house and found evidence. THe court said, ini order to deter the gov't from doing such a thing, the evidence should be excluded. (Prior to that the evidence would have been admitted but the officers could be personally sued).
In Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 the Warren Court made the Exclusionary Rule applicable to the States.
After the Mapp decision the U.S. citizens began freaking out over this decision ... all of a sudden rapists, murderers, and child molesters were being set free.
The Exclsionary RUle was radical. England has no such rule.
Scalia is opposed to the Exclusionary Rule.
When cops screw up in 'good faith' meaning they did not INTENTIONALLY violate one's 4th amend right against unreasonable search/seizure ... the exclusionary rule does not apply.
In summary, just because the governement violates your 4th Amend right against unreasonable search/seizure ... the remedy is SOMETIMES the exclusion of evidence, but not always.
2/06/2009 05:18:00 PM
**********************************
Actually the remedy, even though not expressed, is the supression of the evidence. The Bill of Rights was actually intended to apply to the Federal Government, and always has. Over the years several decisions have applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Mapp v. Ohio applied the 6th Amendment, Unreasonable Search, to the states. That is the exclusionary rule, fruits of an illegal search can not be used, and are therefore supressed. At the present time there are only a couple of Bill of Right issues that no longer apply to the states. The Second Amendment was recently clearly applied to states, specifically DC. I believe this whole issue is a 5th ammendment, Self Incriminationm issue anyway.
The finding does make you wonder if the order to blow or give a statement is perhaps not a lawful order.
Ooops., In my previous post I said the "Exclusionary Rule" referred to the 6th amendment. That was a typo, I of course meant the 4th amendment. Incidentally Justice Scalia may not like the exclusionary rule, but it is well established and is not likely to go away anytime soon, and that is a good thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home