"Reasonable suspision"

Jarod said:
Paragraph 1 - Try taking that into a Florida Court and argueing that, you would LOOSE.

Paragraph 2 - NOT.

Paragraph 3 - I dont care what you belive.
Click to expand...

I call BS and it is obvious that you don't understand the laws of Florida.

This is a cut and paste from a Florida DUI Lawyers site:

"Most commonly, officers are looking for a flush face, slurred or mumbled speech, red/bloodshot/water eyes, or an odor of alcohol."
 
Dixie said:
Here is your problem Jarhead... You are attempting to apply standards of jurisprudence to police officers in the field, and these are two completely separate things, with completely differing sets of criteria. A cop is not required to prove you are guilty or innocent of violating the law, that is what courts and judges do. A cop is merely responsible for making a reasonable determination that you broke a law. In order to do this, one of their tools is "reasonable suspicion" and another is "probable cause." As long as they reasonably suspect a violation of the law has occurred, they can act with "probable cause." They are not required to PROVE you are guilty of a crime before acting. It is not only absurd to make such an argument, but patently ignorant. Anyone with ANY level of knowledge and understanding of how laws work, and the role of law enforcement, should understand this... you obviously don't.

Now, you talk a pretty good talk here, and I suspect you've probably watched a lot of Mattlock or Perry Mason, maybe some Law & Order, but you don't have the literacy skills to be a lawyer, and you certainly lack a basic understanding of how laws are enforced. I believe you are a Lawyer like I am the CEO of Microsoft!
Click to expand...

Again I dont care what you belive, and you clearly do not understand the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspision".

I never claimed a police officer needed to prove guilt.

PC and RS are two different standards that allow police officers to do different things.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I call BS and it is obvious that you don't understand the laws of Florida.

This is a cut and paste from a Florida DUI Lawyers site:

"Most commonly, officers are looking for a flush face, slurred or mumbled speech, red/bloodshot/water eyes, or an odor of alcohol."
Click to expand...

They must have more than an odor of alch. Sorry, the web cite you looked at is wrong.
 
Well have any of you guys calling me wrong ever been to Miami?


I have spent a lot of time there, I had a girlfriend who lived in Kendall, her parents were from Cuba. They knew a LOT of Americans who spoke no English... I met them...
 
Yurt said:
imo...jarod is right about florida law...a little bit of alcohol alone is not reasonable suspicion to conduct any further testing...
Click to expand...

Thanks Yurt, I appreciate your integrity. Even though we disagree you still speak the truth!
 
Jarod said:
I spent three years prosecuting DUI's here in Palm BEach County, I dont knwo of a web cite that proves it, I know the law.
Click to expand...

BS.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in part: "The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but probable cause . . ."

The direct result of this sacred provision of the U.S. Constitution is that all evidence, and "fruit of the poisonous tree" obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is excluded as evidence - leaving very little, if anything, upon which a DUI prosecution can be based.

This exclusionary rule is applicable in State and Federal Courts. That includes Arizona coyrts, dumbass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top