- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DWI lawyer gets arrested
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:00 pm to crimsonian
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:00 pm to crimsonian
quote:Scruffy despises cops and truly believes society should make their jobs much, much harder.
You guys have reading comprehension problems. Like I said, just a bunch of criminals in here. I bet the total arrests in this thread is pretty high.
Scruffy doesn't even has a speeding ticket to his name.
Scruffy is sorry that he disapproves of an organization which consists of individuals with low intelligence and a propensity for violence.
1
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:01 pm to theenemy
quote:
The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.[18]
You are aware that stopping somebody for a traffic stop is custody right? I mean surely you as a LEO knows that "custody" doesn't just mean when you arrest them right? Custody is defined something along the lines of whenever a LEO lawfully holds a person by removing their freedom of liberty at that time, and stopping them on the side of the road to ask questions is most definitely removing them of their freedom of liberty (movement).
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:01 pm to crimsonian
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand.
A passenger who gets out of the car without permission during traffic stop is very likely to get arrested and at minimum yelled at.
A passenger who gets out of the car without permission during traffic stop is very likely to get arrested and at minimum yelled at.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:01 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
They lawyer is allowed to intervene and advise his client that he/she does not have to say/do anything. If the client wishes to continue anyway, thats a separate issue, but the lawyer is allowed to intervene and offer initial guidance.
Dude, are you a cop? If so, you do not sound like the other blue liners here.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:02 pm to crimsonian
quote:
If she agreed to continue with the test after the lawyer advised her and the cop to stop, it is allowed to happen. Nothing wrong with it.
:kige:
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:03 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
You are aware that stopping somebody for a traffic stop is custody right? I mean surely you as a LEO knows that "custody" doesn't just mean when you arrest them right? Custody is defined something along the lines of whenever a LEO lawfully holds a person by removing their freedom of liberty at that time, and stopping them on the side of the road to ask questions is most definitely removing them of their freedom of liberty (movement).
Wrong!
quote:
Absent a formal arrest, the issue is whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have believed that he was under "full custodial" arrest.[31] Applying this objective test, the Court has held Miranda does not apply to roadside questioning of a stopped motorist or to questioning of a person briefly detained on the street—a Terry stop.[32] Even though neither the motorist nor the pedestrian is free to leave, this interference with the freedom of action is not considered actual arrest or its functional equivalent for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.[33] The court has similarly held that a person who voluntarily comes to the police station for purposes of questioning is not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings particularly when the police advise the suspect that he is not under arrest and free to leave.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:04 pm to theenemy
quote:
he evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody
Was she in custody? Was she free to leave or was she compelled to stay?
Is there a difference between under arrest and in custody?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:04 pm to novabill
quote:
Dude, are you a cop? If so, you do not sound like the other blue liners here.
Yeah, thats why I'm not one anymore.
I didn't hide behind "officer safety" so I could frick up somebody's rights, or a whole bunch of other nonsense that I saw going on.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:06 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Scruffy despises cops and truly believes society should make their jobs much, much harder.
Their actual jobs or their imposition of their will upon the peasants they have power over?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:06 pm to tigercraig
Ambeau got railroaded. He's a lawyer, and telling his client to not incriminate themselves by answering questions is quite valid. It's why people seek council when they're being questioned by the police regardless iof where the questioning takes place.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:08 pm to brass2mouth
You know what is worse than a cop?
Me neither
Me neither
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:08 pm to novabill
quote:Both.
Their actual jobs or their imposition of their will upon the peasants they have power over?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:11 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Both.
While I do not have a beef with your position. I do not have any interest in not making it difficult for them to do their actual job, you know keeping the public safe.
However, ruining people's lives, which is what they really do, without any consideration for how their actions impact the lives of other people (which is what often makes people angry enough to fight back with violence), we should make that as difficult as possible for them.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:25 pm to theenemy
quote:
Berkemer v. McCarty - 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
2. The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule. Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the "freedom of action" of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end, he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. Moreover, the typical traffic stop is conducted in public, and the atmosphere surrounding it is substantially less "police dominated" than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda and subsequent cases in which Miranda has been applied. However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him "in custody" for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda. In this case, the initial stop of respondent's car, by itself, did not render him "in custody," and respondent has failed to demonstrate that, at any time between the stop and the arrest, he was subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest. Although the arresting officer apparently decided as soon as respondent stepped out of his car that he would be taken into custody and charged with a traffic offense, the officer never communicated his intention to respondent. A policeman's unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was "in custody" at a particular time; the
Page 468 U. S. 422
Your little wiki page only quotes half of the SC ruling, and is referring to a basic traffic stop and ticket citation and gives the officer leeway to ask about 15-20 questions, but in excess of 15-20 questions and you have effectively put them in custody for practical purposes.
There are several states that require officers to give Miranda rights before SFST, and to be completely honest, I always read them their rights and told them the tests were completely optional so I honestly had no idea if LA requires you to or not.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:26 pm to BruinsWoo
I wonder why he waited so long to intervene. When she got stopped he should have said "refuse everything"
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:29 pm to mikelbr
quote:
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand.
A passenger who gets out of the car without permission during traffic stop is very likely to get arrested and at minimum yelled at.
+1
I will quickly summarize this thread.
Adults don't like to be told what to do. Period.
I am willing to bet Ambeau was given at least 3 to 5 verbal request to return or stay inside his vehicle.
The fact that the arresting officer decided to book him in lieu of a summons is all the evidence I need to know that he clearly thought he was above listening to any request/orders. But as in most cases with lawyers or law students, he thought he knew his rights. His misinterpretation of them cost him a trip to jail.
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:30 pm to mikelbr
quote:
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand. A passenger who gets out of the car without permission during traffic stop is very likely to get arrested and at minimum yelled at.
Only clueless people or people trying to hide something get out of the car.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:31 pm to The People
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:31 pm to novabill
quote:
You know what is worse than a cop?
I knew some really good cops/game wardens when I was in that line of work, but when I tell you that the overwhelming majority is the typical "OOO Im a cop hear me roar" mentality I tell you that with 110% truth. Between that and the "us vs. them" mentality I couldnt take it anymore. I went into LE after I got out of the military b/c I thought it would be an easy transition, and I liked being apart of something that led to a bigger picture, but I was definitely in the minority.
I was quickly labeled "the lawyer" and I would more often than not give the citizen the benefit of the doubt. I cant tell you how many times I would say something about like a guy having a gun in the car and the guy I was working with flip out and then ask me after the fact what I would've done in Iraq if the hajis had guns. It was just waay too much.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 7:32 pm to The People
quote:
The fact that the arresting officer decided to book him in lieu of a summons is all the evidence I need to know that he clearly thought he was above listening to any request/orders.
So you think that him being opposing counsel on many cases, had nothing to do with the fine officers decision to arrest the attorney?
Page 12 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News