Interesting Police Video....

[Nigel Tufnel]

As some of you may know, David Boston was arrested last week and charged with DUI. Not really all that big of a deal....another athlete getting in trouble..ho hum. Well, the video of the field sobriety and arrest is now out....and personally, I think its a little disturbing.

Granted, I don't know all the facts....what I do know is that Boston was passed out behind the wheel of his car in a traffic lane....pretty dangerous ****. He's lucky he or someone didn't end up dead. On the other side of it, this video, IMHO, makes it pretty clear that Boston was not drunk or under the influence of a narcotic. His speech is not slurred, his balance is steady, he makes complete sense...and he remains patient throughout this entire video. I don't know the law in Florida, but in Ohio, you can call your attorney....also, if you say you want to talk to your attorney, the police officer is supposed to stop the investigation and questioning right there and then. Also, if you wish to refuse to do field sobriety tests, you are well within your rights to do so. In the video, Boston wishes to speak to his attorney...the cop won't let him...Boston also says he will consent to a breath test, urine test, blood test, whatever...but he doesn't want to do field sobriety testing....

I think the officer comes off pretty condescending throughout the tape. While it may come out that Boston had something in his system, I'll give him credit....he showed a lot more patience than I would have if I had been in his position.

FYI, it has since come out that Boston blew a .00 breath test and his urine was negative for controlled substances....blood results are still pending.

Thoughts?

TBO.com. Tampa Bay video news.


Another note....it was the second time in the last few years that Boston was found passed out behind the wheel of his car.....think this guy needs to get checked for narcolepsy or what?

Also, since this is a gambling site...I'd say the odds that this thing gets thrown out of court are about 1/50. If it does get thrown out, I'll be interested to see if Boston sues the police department.

[CuseFan10]

Nigel- Very interesting video. I have to very respectfully disagree with you on a few things though. His balance was not "steady" at all. He failed every single sobriety test he was given. He couldn't walk the line without his arms being away from his side and he failed to count to 9 as he was asked to do. Then, he couldn't hold his leg out and count to 30, and worse off made up some ridiculous backwards leg test to boot. He darn near touched his eye-ball instead of his nose on (I think) the fourth "nose touch test". And he obviously wasn't capable of listening, or following, instructions at any point over the 14 minute span (which as the cop said is part of the test). I don't see how you think the cop is in the wrong? I thought the cop showed extreme patience with David, and handled himself very professionally.

It's pretty obvious he is on something, IMHO. When you find a guy passed out in a car and then he fails all four sobriety tests you give him over a 14 minute span, I'm not sure how you don't arrest him.

Lastly, in Ohio you can call your lawyer during field sobriety tests? What do they do, wiat for your lawyer to show up? What if you are 150 miles away from him or something? I have no recourse of knowing this, but I would think that is highly against the norm over the 50 states. I know in NJ that we do not have that right (I called my buddy who is a cop, and he said you have the right to refuse a breathalizer and such, which essentially admits your guilt, but you can definitely not call a lawyer until it's time for your one phone call in the clink).

Anyway, reasonable minds can differ, but IMHO he was clearly on something and was clearly endangering himself and obviously others by falling asleep in the car in traffic with it running.

Interesting to see how this plays out. I would say since he passed the tests that the case will be thrown out and nothing will come of this, but again, I thought the cop acted professionally.

[Nigel Tufnel]

When DB asked for an attorney or said he wanted to talk to his attorney, the officer should have arrested him and taken him to the station. At that point, DB made it clear that he would have consented to breath/urine or a blood test. At that point, the tests could have been done.

The law is pretty clear that when someone asks for an attorney during an investigation, the investigation should stop and the person should be given their right to speak to an attorney. Many people ask for an attorney and then refuse to take all tests....Boston, in this case, still would have consented to the other tests. Refusing to take field sobriety tests doesn't hurt someone. Refusing to take the breath test can cost you your license for a year in Ohio.

Have you ever had to do field sobriety tests? They do nothing more than allow the officer the opportunity to get reasonable cause to give you the breath test....Boston made it clear he had bad ankles and knees and didn't have great balance and would rather just move straight to the scientific testing. The guy is a professional athlete and may not have wanted to deal with the embarrassment and publicity of being subjected to FSTs in public....he doesn't have to relent to FSTs if he doesn't want to do them, especially when he consented to breath/urine. Why the whole charade of the FST out in public? I got pulled over a few years ago and the officer wanted to give me FSTs. I hadn't been drinking. I told him I wasn't going to stand on the side of a public street and do his tests because I didn't want to be seen...being a professional in the community. I told him I'd be happy to have him take me to the station and I'd consent to a breath or urine test. He let me go.

FSTs can be challenged to the extent that they are pretty much useless, unless the person falls down or passes out during the test. The simple fact that DB has had surgery on both knees and had injured an ankle in training camp would render those tests useless in Court in terms of proving his intoxication. FSTs are usually used to simply give the officer probable cause to arrest the suspect and have them submit to the breath test. Usually attorneys file a Motion To Suppress the FSTs because if the tests are done incorrectly, then the officer didn't have probable cause to arrest the suspect. Hence, the case is dimissed because the breath test, even if it came back showing the suspect was intoxicated, was the fruit of the poisonous tree (the invalid FST) If this case goes to trial, I sincerely doubt that video alone would convince a jury that DB was guilty of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.

That officer was arresting DB regardless of what happened during those FSTs. Passed out behind the wheel is enough probably cause to go straight to the breath/urine tests. If you have a suspect that is willing to go straight to the breath/urine, why subject him to 15 minutes of worthless bs tests in public?

DB could have handled himself better. He should have simply said he refused to do the tests but he would be happy to take the breath/urine and that he wanted to speak with his attorney....it would have been the same outcome. DB would have been arrested, taken to the station and his tests would have come up negative. On the flip side, when DB asked for the breath/urine test and asked to speak to his attorney, the officer should have arrested him and taken him to the station for the breath/urine tests....end of story.

That video will neither convict nor exonnerate DB....it was worthless and it was unnecessary.

I showed that video to three different DUI attorneys in my office....they all laughed their asses off and said they wished that had happened in our home town....a nice fat legal fee from a pro athlete and almost guaranteed dismissal.

[CuseFan10]

The law is pretty clear that when someone asks for an attorney during an investigation, the investigation should stop and the person should be given their right to speak to an attorney.

A-10 Commish - How is that "law" clear, when it's not even a law in some states? In NJ you do not have the right to speak to your attorney at that point of the officer's investigation. Again, I find it strange that in Ohio you even have that right. I guess he could have just arrested him on the spot "under suspicion" for refusing the tests, but DB never refused - he only asked for different tests to be administered. I guess he was trying to proof he was on something (which he knew wasn't alcohol), and IMHO, he did that.

If you get pulled over for speeding and they smell weed when you roll down the windows, in Ohio you can call your attorney before allowing the cop to search your car?

When they read you your rights, it says directly in there that you now have "the right to an attorney". I guess it differ state by state though. Ohio is very lenient, eh?

Also, no offense, but "he has bad ankles and bad knees"? Come on now... The guy plays professional football and was penciled in as the starting WR2 next to Joey Galloway until this. You're telling me he doesn't have the ability to stand on one foot or walk in a straight line if he were sober? That's a bit much. He can get hit by 230 LB's and get up, but he can't hold his foot 5 inches off the ground and count to 30?

Again, not trying to sound condescending (even though I probably am, sorry), but I just don't see what the officer did that was wrong, and don't see how anyone could think DB passed any of those 4 sobriety tests. Especially when the guy was sleeping in his car, engine running, in the middle of the street and is a convicted drug user already (I'm pretty sure he is, I could be wrong there though so if so I apologize).

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

That cop is obviously a Wolverine fan.

DB's FST >>

[yomonte]

Cuse, I think he did quite well on his field tests. I'll get to the best one last. Its hard to walk heel to toe when your straight. They know this. He did good. I have never known a cop not to let you rhyme your abc's. Thats tough. But he did. Now the kicker. they always try to trick you with this one and I thought they would get him but they didn't. Touch your nose with your right hand. Now touch your nose with your right hand. And he did. Every one always touched their nose with their left the second time.. He did very well and should not have been arrested when he blew .00. I would love to be his lawyer. Cuse, you said he failed every sobriety test. What basis did you go on. Cops are *******s and love to get ya, but they didn't get him. If he was drunk and failed the tests, I'd be the first to say lock his ass up. He was'nt slurring his words like Nigel said and was in control the whole time. I would love to be his lawyer

[FearTheRaven]

definitely wasn't drunk.

Might have had a few drinks.

[emv01]

I don't know if I could do those tests stone cold stober let alone drunk..This cop is a real piece of work..I think this department is in for some trouble..Unless something shows up in DB's blood his lawyer is going to have a field day...

[CuseFan10]

Cuse, I think he did quite well on his field tests. I'll get to the best one last. Its hard to walk heel to toe when your straight. They know this. He did good. I have never known a cop not to let you rhyme your abc's. Thats tough. But he did. Now the kicker. they always try to trick you with this one and I thought they would get him but they didn't. Touch your nose with your right hand. Now touch your nose with your right hand. And he did. Every one always touched their nose with their left the second time.. He did very well and should not have been arrested when he blew .00. I would love to be his lawyer. Cuse, you said he failed every sobriety test. What basis did you go on. Cops are *******s and love to get ya, but they didn't get him. If he was drunk and failed the tests, I'd be the first to say lock his ass up. He was'nt slurring his words like Nigel said and was in control the whole time. I would love to be his lawyer

Yo - He wasn't drunk, but he was on some type of drugs obviously and far too much of it. I never said he was drinking or drunk, and in fact, I thought I said he obviously wasn't drunk somewhere (but I could be wrong). Also, anytime you are pulled over and do a field sobriety test and they ask the ABC question, the first thing they say is do NOT rhyme it. I was asked this once when I got pulled over, and everyone single person I know that has eve taken a field sobriety test has been asked this question. My friend who's a cop said they specifically ask you NOT to rhyme it because many times when you don't rhyme it, you can't remember it if your on something. Secondly, if you do rhyme after they specifically asked you not to, then they know you are a ******* dumbass and aren't listening or are incapable of comprehending what they just asked you to do.

I agree with you that it's hard to walk heel to toe stone sober, but again, the cop noted (1) that he didn't count to 9 like he specifically asked, and (2) that he had no shot in hell of staying upright if he didn't hold his arms out. That's a failed test. I can't believe anyone could watch him walk that line and think he was sober (including drugs/pain killers/etc etc). He clearly wasn't, IMHO.

The touching his nose thing was the only thing he might have passed, and I agree that he didn't fall for the "trick" which is a very good sign for him, but that video wasn't exactly in HD and I'm not sure if he didn't miss his nose once almost completely.

Again, I think you are focusing too much on alcohol and missing the point that he was on something else and it seemed pretty clear to me at least.

To each his own though :beerbang:

[CuseFan10]

definitely wasn't drunk.

Might have had a few drinks.

Again, the cop wasn't suspecting him of driving drunk necessarily. It's illegal to drive under any influence, gotta remember.

[homedawg]

I've passed all those sobriety tests, ****faced drunk, many of times!!!!!!... got beer????:gulp: Beer does a body good!!!!:beerbang:

[Nigel Tufnel]

Cuse, you're not being condescending at all. OK, let me clarify my initial intention of this post....I went back and reread it and I didn't make myself clear. I guess I just don't think the field sobriety tests were legally necessary. I'm looking at it in the legal sense. And now, for the longest post I'll ever make on this forum....read at your own risk.

A police officer has to have a reasonable suspicion to pull a suspect over for a traffic offense. If an officer is following someone and they are weaving, marked lanes, driving reckelessly, etc., the officer has a reasonable suspicion to pull a suspect over. Once the stop is initiated, the officer starts his investigation. Now, before an officer can arrest someone for DUI, they have to have probable cause to do so. Usually, there is a strong odor of alcohol on the person....slurred speech....bloodshot eyes. The officer then asks the suspect to perform a series of field sobriety tests. This is used to give the officer further probable cause to arrest the suspect. The suspect usually fails one or all of the field sobriety tests. This gives the officer reasonable cause to arrest the suspect of DUI and take them to the station to administer a breath/urine/blood test on the suspect.

Now, if the suspect refuses to take the field sobriety tests, the stop, odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and the refusal to take the field sobriety tests gives the officer reasonable cause to arrest the suspect and take them to the station to administer the breath/urine/blood test.

In the Boston situation, the officer clearly had reasonable suspicion to stop Boston....he was already stopped and sleeping at the wheel of his car in a travel lane....hell, the officer at that point probably had probable cause to arrest him. At any rate, when Boston said he would have rather just skipped the field sobriety and take the breath/urine/blood tests, the officer could have simply explained to him that if he wanted to refuse the field sobriety tests and go straight to the breath test, he would arrest him for DUI and take him to the station for his breath/urine test. If Boston agreed to do so, which I think he would have based on the video, then the 15 minute field sobriety test was completely unecessary. He had his probable cause with the stop and refusal....it was a completely lawful arrest.

A field sobriety doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...especially when the breath and urine tests are negative. Convictions are obtained by breath/urine/blood. The guy wanted to do those tests.....no need to have him out there for 15 minutes...it did nothing legally for the case when the guy would take the scientific tests.

In a normal DUI, when someone is pulled over, fails their field sobriety tests, gets arrested, blows .17 and is charged. The first thing a lawyer will do is file a motion to suppress. The attorney claims that the officer didn't have reasonable suspicion to pull the Defendant over. The lawyer then says the officer didn't have probable cause to arrest the Defendant. The lawyer then attacks the stop and attacks the field sobriety tests. If the Court finds the the field sobriety tests weren't properly administered, they can suppress the tests. As a result, if the reason for the stop wasn't heinous, then the Court has to suppress the breath test because it was fruit of the poisonous tree....in other words, if the field sobriety tests weren't good, then the probable cause wasn't there, which means the breath tests can't be considered. The case is then usually dismissed.

So, IMHO, I think the cop knew that if he just skipped the field sobriety tests and went to the scientific tests, he knew he had a legit stop and arrest. I personally just think he was ****in' with him.

And one other thing about the field sobriety tests. I don't buy the "not following instructions" thing. A person who doesn't follow directions is drunk? Come on....that means every one of my employees is drunk every day they are at work. People suck at listening...my wife couldn't pass a field sobriety test because she has the listening skills of 2 year old.

As for your questions about Ohio, no you can't stop an officer from searching your car. But the Boston situation wasn't a search. He could have said, I want to talk to my attorney.....kept his mouth completely shut.....he would have been arrested, taken to the station and he could have called his attorney. Officers can search....but if someone is steadfast in talking to an attorney, they can't really do anything else to a suspect. Generally, at least in Ohio, when the suspect gets to the station, they get the opportunity to call an attorney....and then they can choose whether to blow or refuse.

Sorry for the length....that's Nigel's law lesson for the year.

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

Cuse, you're not being condescending at all. OK, let me clarify my initial intention of this post....I went back and reread it and I didn't make myself clear. I guess I just don't think the field sobriety tests were legally necessary. I'm looking at it in the legal sense. And now, for the longest post I'll ever make on this forum....read at your own risk.

A police officer has to have a reasonable suspicion to pull a suspect over for a traffic offense. If an officer is following someone and they are weaving, marked lanes, driving reckelessly, etc., the officer has a reasonable suspicion to pull a suspect over. Once the stop is initiated, the officer starts his investigation. Now, before an officer can arrest someone for DUI, they have to have probable cause to do so. Usually, there is a strong odor of alcohol on the person....slurred speech....bloodshot eyes. The officer then asks the suspect to perform a series of field sobriety tests. This is used to give the officer further probable cause to arrest the suspect. The suspect usually fails one or all of the field sobriety tests. This gives the officer reasonable cause to arrest the suspect of DUI and take them to the station to administer a breath/urine/blood test on the suspect.

Now, if the suspect refuses to take the field sobriety tests, the stop, odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and the refusal to take the field sobriety tests gives the officer reasonable cause to arrest the suspect and take them to the station to administer the breath/urine/blood test.

In the Boston situation, the officer clearly had reasonable suspicion to stop Boston....he was already stopped and sleeping at the wheel of his car in a travel lane....hell, the officer at that point probably had probable cause to arrest him. At any rate, when Boston said he would have rather just skipped the field sobriety and take the breath/urine/blood tests, the officer could have simply explained to him that if he wanted to refuse the field sobriety tests and go straight to the breath test, he would arrest him for DUI and take him to the station for his breath/urine test. If Boston agreed to do so, which I think he would have based on the video, then the 15 minute field sobriety test was completely unecessary. He had his probable cause with the stop and refusal....it was a completely lawful arrest.

A field sobriety doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...especially when the breath and urine tests are negative. Convictions are obtained by breath/urine/blood. The guy wanted to do those tests.....no need to have him out there for 15 minutes...it did nothing legally for the case when the guy would take the scientific tests.

In a normal DUI, when someone is pulled over, fails their field sobriety tests, gets arrested, blows .17 and is charged. The first thing a lawyer will do is file a motion to suppress. The attorney claims that the officer didn't have reasonable suspicion to pull the Defendant over. The lawyer then says the officer didn't have probable cause to arrest the Defendant. The lawyer then attacks the stop and attacks the field sobriety tests. If the Court finds the the field sobriety tests weren't properly administered, they can suppress the tests. As a result, if the reason for the stop wasn't heinous, then the Court has to suppress the breath test because it was fruit of the poisonous tree....in other words, if the field sobriety tests weren't good, then the probable cause wasn't there, which means the breath tests can't be considered. The case is then usually dismissed.

So, IMHO, I think the cop knew that if he just skipped the field sobriety tests and went to the scientific tests, he knew he had a legit stop and arrest. I personally just think he was ****in' with him.

And one other thing about the field sobriety tests. I don't buy the "not following instructions" thing. A person who doesn't follow directions is drunk? Come on....that means every one of my employees is drunk every day they are at work. People suck at listening...my wife couldn't pass a field sobriety test because she has the listening skills of 2 year old.

As for your questions about Ohio, no you can't stop an officer from searching your car. But the Boston situation wasn't a search. He could have said, I want to talk to my attorney.....kept his mouth completely shut.....he would have been arrested, taken to the station and he could have called his attorney. Officers can search....but if someone is steadfast in talking to an attorney, they can't really do anything else to a suspect. Generally, at least in Ohio, when the suspect gets to the station, they get the opportunity to call an attorney....and then they can choose whether to blow or refuse.

Sorry for the length....that's Nigel's law lesson for the year.

That is some typing!





Damn laywers :nuts:






Cheers Nigel :beerbang:

[CuseFan10]

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:

[yomonte]

No prob Cuse. I was replying to your "he failed all the field sobreity tests" Believe me, they got me on that "touch your right index finger to your nose. Now, touch your right index finger to your nose." Like most drunks, I touched my left anticipating the next call was going to be left. I watched for it and I knew it was coming and although they did it different, they were doing the same thing and I thought he was going to fk up, but he didn't