|
|
DUI Arrest Videos
Where are all the Video Cameras and Tape Recorders?
Obviously, the officer can, and frequently will exaggerate and distort in order to prove his point, and he is able to do so because very few of the field sobriety tests truly are objective. Which raises another question: Instead of ordering the accused to recite the alphabet while the officer writes into the police record the alleged results, why not allow the accused to actually write the alphabet out in his own hand? This would be direct evidence of the accused’s ability to demonstrate his dexterity and hand coordination directly to the jury. Taxpayers have purchased expensive video and audio taping equipment for our law enforcement agencies, but those agencies rarely use the equipment in driving under the influence cases, thereby denying the jury firsthand evidence of the accused’s actual state of sobriety. Instead, the officer simply testifies before the jury about how badly the accused did on the tests. He actually is telling the jury, “Trust me. I have no motive to lie. If I say he did badly, that should be enough for you.”
The fact is DUI officers do have a motive to be biased, and, sadly, stretching the truth to gain a conviction seems to be the rule, rather than the exception. A retiring CHP officer recently told me he could double his annual salary by $50,000 working overtime making court appearances in DUI cases. He lamented that he disliked working nights because it required him to ride with a partner.
This veteran CHP officer explained that if he stopped a suspected DUI and formed the opinion following the field sobriety test that the driver was not DUI, very often his patrol partner, eager for overtime, would say, “If you don't take him downtown, I will.” Doesn't a $50,000 increase in one's annual salary provide a motive to lie about performance on the field sobriety test? Police officers and overzealous young prosecutors often are heard around the courthouse rationalizing less-than-candid police officer testimony in marginal cases saying, “If they were not drinking and driving, they wouldn't be in trouble in the first place.” That may be MADD’s law, but it is not the law in this state, or any other of the United States. A public policy saying “The end justifies the means” didn't work for the communists and it does not work in a free society.
For these reasons, if you are stopped, do not take these trick roadside sobriety tests, and if you are a juror, demand to see the written alphabet, video/audio tape recordings, or other firsthand evidence of impairment. It is very easy to provide. The law is a search for the truth and should not be a witch hunt guided by hysteria, half-truths, and self-serving statements of the arresting officer.
Free Case Review: DUI Consultation Form
|
|
Santa Barbara DMV Hearing Lawyer
