Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
He used the correct form, but deliberately disobeyed the authorizing state law, printed directly on the form, acting on behalf of the state. I fail to see how this isn't a civil rights violation of some kind, even with a successful appeal.
Addendum: The form used is required for any OVI arrest, charged or not, license suspended or not. A cop with 3 year reasonably should be expected to know how use a standard form, esp one wining awards for being on of the best for OVI arrests. Quality over quantity in policing, esp patrol.
Addendum 2 : I also might add that from the time of the arrest till i was allowed to drive again was exactly 15 days, under the appeal. the time limit of the mandatory suspension without an appeal, is 15 days. the fore the appeal practically didn't matter. The cop essentially, against sate law, punished me the same way I would have been punished anyway. if if I had been convicted of the DUi and the traffic offenses, I would have likely, being a first offender, received the EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT, as I've already suffered, therefore in my mind, the cops has effectively punished me for being innocent, exactly the same if I had been guilty, fro where *I* stand, there is litreally no difference then a piece of paper with a different set of letters on it.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
Zeo
He used the correct form, but deliberately disobeyed the authorizing state law, printed directly on the form, acting on behalf of the state. I fail to see how this isn't a civil rights violation of some kind, even with a successful appeal.
But for a § 1983 claim, you need to find a violation of your rights under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute. Failing to follow state law would be handled by whatever remedy state law gives you for that, if any. It does not give rise to a § 1983 claim. What, exactly, did the form say that the cop failed to do? Bear in mind that not everything a cop does is mandated by some law. The requirements printed on there may simply reflect department policy rather than something required by law. A failure to follow department procedure might get the cop in trouble with his/her superiors, but doesn’t give you any legal claim.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
it said under Ohio state law the he has to certify, assummedly under the threat of perjury, that the suspect is arrested for DUI, and that they have tested positive for either a prohibited: blood alcohol content OR llicit substance content by blood urine, hair follicle or breath in order to use executive authority to administratively suspend a license with out a court order. again not wanting to go into huge detail but there are several things he did that suggests he deliberately violated that law.
and a civi irghts vi9lation under the 14th amendment automatically qualifies for Federal law, right?
Also, do none of you read details? you're aall defaulting to assuming its a local cop, its State Highway patrol, and the form is issued by the STATE not the department.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
There is a difference between policy and practice and the state police would have policies that they use to ensure that they are conforming to the law. Not conforming to the policy, on the part of the officer, would not necessarily result in a violation of the law or of your rights.
If I read this correctly and recall the original thread that it sprung from you refused the FST and breathalyzer and were subsequently arrested for OVI, yes? The officer cannot certify that you tested positive using any of the methods that you list as these are not tests that he can perform. He can certify that you were driving erratically, or whatever was going on that he used to derive the stop and your refusing the FST and breathalyzer triggered an arrest so that they could perform the blood test which was all that they had left.
You opened the door to the arrest. Your 14th amendment rights weren't violated, in any way I can see as you've given express consent by having a valid drivers license to blood tests in the case of suspected OVI. That you were found not guilty doesn't mean that they were wrong in their suspicions or impeach the arrest.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
Zeo
and a civi irghts vi9lation under the 14th amendment automatically qualifies for Federal law, right?
I already said that a § 1983 claim may be based on a violation your rights under the U.S. Constitution. But the question is what U.S. Constitutional right do you believe the officer violated? A violation of your rights under state law doesn’t automatically mean there is a violation of your rights under the federal Constitution, after all.
Quote:
Quoting
Zeo
Also, do none of you read details? you're aall defaulting to assuming its a local cop, its State Highway patrol, and the form is issued by the STATE not the department.
You are assuming I meant local cop. A state highway patrol officer also works for a department (or agency, bureau, or whatever name you give it) it just happens to be a statewide department rather than a local one. Not having seen the form myself, it should not surprise you that I can only go by what you tell us of the form, and up until now you have not said a whole lot about it.