There is no difference between police and citizens. The difference in this case is there wasn't even probable cause to arrest him (the officer) at any point. For those citizens you are referring too...their ARREST records are released. You have to be arrested before you can go to trial. IF the officer was arrested it would be released. That's the way the law is.
You are comparing BEFORE trial and AFTER arrest to (in this case) BEFORE arrest and AFTER investigation. Two totally different standards.
I hope this makes sense
The average rate of "burn off" of alcohol in the bloodstream is .015 per hour (assuming no more alcohol has been consumed). Since she did not have anything to drink since the accident her BAC would be higher than it was at the time of the crash. This would put her blood alcohol level (BAC) at around .115 at the time of the accident. Put another way, an individual will eliminate approximately 1/2 to 2/3 of an ounce of 100-proof whiskey in an hour.
Section (b) specifically says that the prosecutor only has to show the driver is "affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug". People are prosecuted all the time for DUI even though they are under the limit.
Plus, the average rate of "burn off" of alcohol in the bloodstream is .015 per hour (assuming no more alcohol has been consumed). Since she did not have anything to drink since the accident her BAC would be higher than it was at the time of the crash. This would put her blood alcohol level (BAC) at around .115 at the time of the accident.
Actually the BAC is a test using breath that measures your blood alcohol level. It measures the breath from the deep lung tissue which is saturated with blood. The results are actually going to be the same. The average rate of "burn off" of alcohol in the bloodstream is .015 per hour (assuming no more alcohol has been consumed). Since she did not have anything to drink since the accident her BAC would be higher than it was at the time of the crash. This would put her blood alcohol level (BAC) at around .115 at the time of the accident. These have been studied over and over nationally and the results are the same. This information is according the NHTSA the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Failure to Sign Infraction is not currently arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. At the time if the driver didn't sign (after numerous warnings) the officers had no choice (they were required by the courts) and had to arrest the driver. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest
Failure to Sign Infraction is not currently arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. At the time if the driver didn't sign (after numerous warnings) the officers had no choice (they were required by the courts) and had to arrest the driver. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest
Failure to Sign Infraction is not currently arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. At the time if the driver didn't sign (after numerous warnings) the officers had no choice (they were required by the courts) and had to arrest the driver. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest
You are partially correct that Failure to Sign Infraction is not arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest.
Oprah's has 6 bedrooms and 14 bathrooms.
Gates has 7 bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, 6 kitchens, and 6 fireplaces.
Trump has 17 bedrooms, 15 bathrooms, and 8 half baths.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Production