- 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
1
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:22 pm to tigercraig
bullshite arrest
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:22 pm to monsterballads
quote:
police report said he got out the vehicle and told his client to not say anything
Where did you see the arrest report?
I've only seen the news article.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:23 pm to monsterballads
quote:
well it's a good thing they stopped this common street thug with her illegal lane change and her wrong address on her license.
whew!
Charges to justify the stop in the first place, well the illegal lane change is anyway. Can't charge him with interfering with a police investigation if there is no investigation.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:24 pm to brass2mouth
if he was a cop, he would have been let go. that's already been established in BR.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:25 pm to rebelJCL
quote:
If an officer makes a traffic stop it is part of his "official" duties and if he suspected the driver was drunk and performing field sobriety tests, he is investigating. Anyone that interferes with that is breaking the law, lawyer or not.
I would think he would be 'interrogating' at this point, and it would be within the rights of the driver and his lawyer to shut it down to prevent self incrimination.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:25 pm to monsterballads
quote:
if he was a cop, he would have been let go. that's already been established in BR.
Oh yeah, no doubt.
BUT he would've been tazed, so you know it works out...
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:26 pm to Tigershatebama
quote:
and it would be within the rights of the driver and his lawyer to shut it down to prevent self incrimination.
but it's not really about rights is it? it's about revenue and the cop knowing the lawyer that has beat him so many times in court.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:26 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
Can't charge him with interfering with a police investigation if there is no investigation.
The traffic stop is the investigation, and warrants the arrest of him.
The law allows the officer to use his discretion on traffic offenses. And if you give the officer a hard time....he probably is not going to give you a warning.
But that is his discretion.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:28 pm to Tigershatebama
Basically the dirtbag lawyer tried to screw over his "client" and failed to do so.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:29 pm to theenemy
are you a cop?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:30 pm to monsterballads
Are you a lawyer? Or been arrested?
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:30 pm to Tigershatebama
quote:
would think he would be 'interrogating' at this point, and it would be within the rights of the driver and his lawyer to shut it down to prevent self incrimination.
Wrong.
For it to be considered an interrogation, the suspect has to be under arrest and at a police facility.
Also, this is not T.V. The attorney cannot "shut it down" only the suspect can invoke his/her rights.
The attorney is allowed access to his/her client through visitation procedures of the jail.
This post was edited on 3/22/14 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:31 pm to theenemy
TV has made it tough for police work. These people will believe anything.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:31 pm to monsterballads
quote:
are you a cop?
'
Yes, 14 years experience with last 8 years as an investigator.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:32 pm to tigercraig
On a sidenote, I know David Rozas. Good guy!
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:38 pm to theenemy
quote:
Interfering with a law enforcement investigation is the intentional interference or obstruction of a law enforcement officer conducting investigative work
quote:
1. at the scene of a crime
at this point, no crime had been committed, only the suspicion of changing lanes without a signal.
quote:
2. the scene of an accident
no accident existed
so basically this interfering law does NOT apply to this situation
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:41 pm to monsterballads
quote:
at this point, no crime had been committed, only the suspicion of changing lanes without a signal.
Which is a violation of a Louisiana law. Warranting a traffic stop in which the officer suspects the driver of being intoxicated and initiates a roadside DWI investigation.
This has been upheld by the courts numerous times.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:42 pm to monsterballads
You are clueless with law. Do you think when a person gets pulled over for a traffic violation, the occupants of the vehicle can just exit the vehicle and just walk around? Serious question.
Posted on 3/22/14 at 4:42 pm to BruinsWoo
She wasn't drunk, so guy gets a designated driver and still gets pissed on. Guess you can't win around here
Page 6 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News