Interesting Police Video....

[yomonte]

And where I come from, they never say you can't rhyme it. That never comes up. But they do say you can sing it if you have too. LOL sad but true. We have the option to sing it to "twinkle twinkle little star" which has the same music.

[CuseFan10]

And where I come from, they never say you can't rhyme it. That never comes up. But they do say you can sing it if you have too. LOL sad but true. We have the option to sing it to "twinkle twinkle little star" which has the same music.

haha, no prob yo! break out a little old school hip-hop next time to really impress them!!!

[Nigel Tufnel]

Love Nigel and his ability to disagree and cool, calm, and reasonably assemble a counter-argument. Always a pleasure chatting on here with you.

Go figure you are a lawyer? Haha... I still disagree though and feel that he failed those tests. And next time I get pulled over, I hope it's in Ohio where you seem to have more rights then in NJ.

:beerbang:

Unfortunately, yes. The whole thing is nothing but a scam, IMHO. You go to law school, get $100,000.00 in debt....then, after you graduate, you have to pay another $2,000.00 to take a course to help you pass the bar. The class literally teaches you what you need to know to pass...as long as you have the motivation to study. Once you pass, you realize you have now entered a completely saturated profession....and unless you were in the top 10% of your class...or unless you know somebody or are related to the right person (I wasn't either of those), you realize that this whole high paid lawyer crap you've heard about is nothing more than a myth. Now you've got a mortgage, car payment, bills....and a gigantic loan payment to make from your school debts.

The dart in the ass? If you are motivated and somewhat intelligent, you could take the bar course, study for a year (some people 6 months), and pass the bar exam. That $100,000 law school was a waste of ****in' time. The scam of it...you have to graduate from an accredited law school to be able to take the bar.

IMHO, law school = money making scam.

And Cuse, I certainly respect your opinion on DB failing those tests....its all subjective. But if DB blew .00 and his urine comes back clean for all controlled substances, the guy could have acted as weird as possible and failed those tests in a much worse fashion, and it wouldn't matter. No such thing as being charged with driving while goofy. He could still be subject to charges related to the dangers associated with having your car parked in a travel lane....that is some dangerous ****.

If anybody has any questions of the legal variety, I'm no expert in all fields of law and laws are clearly different in different states, but I'll be happy to try to help anyone here.

I don't do the criminal stuff anymore....I have managed to delve much deeper into the cesspool of the legal profession. I represent adults who fight over innocent children....my motto on representing people in a divorce or custody matter? You're dealing with good people at their worst...and bad people who are off the friggin' charts. And who is caught in the middle? Some 10 year old kid.

No wonder I drink.

[Horfin]

Nigel,

I didn't know you were an atty in Ohio. Me too. I don't do criminal law, but here is my take on it:

David Boston's statement that He wants an attorney may (if his attorney's are smart enough) be his saving grace.

It may be true that you waive that right (to an attorney with respect to field sobriety tests), but the officer screws himself when he says: "I know you can do it I saw you walk over here." (paraphrase)

If the officer watched him walk from another area over to the area of the video, then on cross you ask:
"When he was walking over to that area Did he stumble, did he trip, did he lose his balance, did he do anything that made it appear as though he was under the influence of something?"

(1) If the cop says NO then there is no need for the feild sobriety tests. Then you would go back to "why did you pull him over?" "He was swerving" "Did you ask him why? I mean did he drop his cell phone, did he drop a cigarette, did he change the radio station?" Cop probably didn't ask and has no answer. David could supply an answer. Then follow up with why did you ask him to get out of the car. Answer is probably "I smelt a hint of weed" Did you find any weed? Did you charge him with possession?

(2) If the cop says YES (he stumbled on the way walking over) then the question is "You knew your were going to arrest him at that point, right?" "I mean he swereved and he stumbled, lost his balance, etc." Cop says YES (he knew he was going to arrest him prior to the tests) then EVERYTHING after the request for an attorney could be suppressed. Cop says NO then why in the **** are you imposing the tests after he had stumbled, swerved and all of that?

I think that in combination with the appearance that he passed all of the tests would be a good defense.

And I agree the cop was ******* with him.

[HiPockets]

Good thread calling attention to this case. You all make good points. I scratch my head over the video. Boston speaks coherently and performs the tests reasonably well imo. Has there been any followup explanation as to Boston's falling asleep? Could it be some physiological disorder or medication imbalance? Nigel's post has be turning 180 degrees from first news account impressions. Good reminder to withhold judgments, especially news spins, until picture gets clearer.

[yomonte]

So it wasn't me that felt he passed the field sobriety tests. Horfin, take that case free and cash baby LOL

[Big Pimpin]

Nigel,

I didn't know you were an atty in Ohio. Me too. I don't do criminal law, but here is my take on it:

David Boston's statement that He wants an attorney may (if his attorney's are smart enough) be his saving grace.

It may be true that you waive that right (to an attorney with respect to field sobriety tests), but the officer screws himself when he says: "I know you can do it I saw you walk over here." (paraphrase)

If the officer watched him walk from another area over to the area of the video, then on cross you ask:
"When he was walking over to that area Did he stumble, did he trip, did he lose his balance, did he do anything that made it appear as though he was under the influence of something?"

(1) If the cop says NO then there is no need for the feild sobriety tests. Then you would go back to "why did you pull him over?" "He was swerving" "Did you ask him why? I mean did he drop his cell phone, did he drop a cigarette, did he change the radio station?" Cop probably didn't ask and has no answer. David could supply an answer. Then follow up with why did you ask him to get out of the car. Answer is probably "I smelt a hint of weed" Did you find any weed? Did you charge him with possession? He was asleep behind the wheel in the middle of the road and took several minutes to wake him up....Thats all the PC you need to preform a sobriety test

(2) If the cop says YES (he stumbled on the way walking over) then the question is "You knew your were going to arrest him at that point, right?" "I mean he swereved and he stumbled, lost his balance, etc." Cop says YES (he knew he was going to arrest him prior to the tests) then EVERYTHING after the request for an attorney could be suppressed. Cop says NO then why in the **** are you imposing the tests after he had stumbled, swerved and all of that?Whether you are going to arrest or not doesn't really matter.Him requesting a lawyer BEFORE any tests doesn't mean squat at that point. Don't know what the law is in that state but a refusal could be an automatic arrest therefore making his request legit AFTER he is arrested

I think that in combination with the appearance that he passed all of the tests would be a good defense.

And I agree the cop was ******* with him.

Just my .02

[CuseFan10]

Good lord I agree totally with BP.... I need to go take a shower now and wipe this filth off me, haha!

I don't really understand your points Horfy. The guy was asleep at the wheel with the car on in the middle of the street. I think the cop has every right to try to figure out what the **** he was or what the heck is wrong with him.

I also agree about the lawyer thing, but Nigel has said that differs from state to state so I'll trust him on that. If I say here in NJ that I want my lawyer (at that point), they will laugh at me (figuratively speaking). In fact, asking such a question will probably further support their suspicions that I'm doing something wrong, IMHO.

In this case, Boston already was doing something wrong when the cop "pulled him over". He was passed out in a vehicle that was running in the street.

[NevadaJay]

Great thread fellas. Very well presented by the atty's here - I'd hire either of you should I ever get in some kind of trouble.... :chaching:

[Nigel Tufnel]

Update on the Boston story....what a moron. If you've got something in your system, you don't ask them to take blood and/or urine. I wonder if he thought it wouldn't show up? Or that they would only test for alcohol and weed/coke/meth/heroin....stuff like that. It makes absolutely no sense to ask to forgo field sobriety tests and go straight to the urine and blood if you've got something in your system.

ESPN - Police: Bucs WR Boston tested positive for GHB - NFL

[CuseFan10]

I knew he was on SOMETHING.

It's kinda funny that the "date-rape drug" is used by bodybuilders too, huh? Odd.

"GHB is a central nervous system depressant often called the "date-rape drug" because it leaves people groggy and powerless. Among other things, it is also said to have body-building effects."

[Horfin]

I had no clue what led to the sobriety tests (him sleeping in the car). Just watched the video. BP is right if you refuse the test it in most states in an automatic suspension of yourlicense. My point was that if the cop had reason to arrest the guy prior to the sobriety tests, then he should have arrested him. If he arrested him then he has a right to an attorney. If he is arrested and then requests an attorney and that is denied then everything after the arrest would not be admissible (suppressed). That leads to the questions of the cop that I listed. I don't do any criminal but if you can trap the cop into saying he had probable cause to arrest him but didn't you may be able to get the later stuff (sobriety tests) suppressed so that they are not admissible.

Again, I do NO criminal law. I only practice law dealing with dead people and crazy people (makes client management much easier)


Horfin