Cherry Picking, Con't

A debate is at hand about police cruising the bar scene in order to pick up possible DUI's.

Is it fair?

Should the police be allowed to watch patrons of watering holes stagger to their cars and nab them then for public intoixication?

Or....

Should the police wait and let the patron drive away and pull him for DUI??

Each has its ramifications:

A public intox case is the weaker of the two and may stop some folks from trying to drive drunk, whereas a DUI case has to made with the patron actually driving drunk and the police knowing he is drunk, yet permitting him to operate the car as such in order to get the bigger arrest.

By allowing cherry pick, the bar's business will suffer abit because folks don't want to go where they know they will get picked up.

By not allowing it, the police in effect, turn a blind eye to the problem of DUI until an ambulance is called. Then, an arrest is made, but its too late.

Another point is that if the cops wait until the patron is in the car, but has not yet left or tried to drive, then no DUI case can be made-- the argument is that they cannot be DUI if they are not driving.

Where do you think the line should be drawn? Pick up before driving, or wait until the drive is made. Explain your reasoning.

Quote:

---

Another point is that if the cops wait until the patron is in the car, but has not yet left or tried to drive, then no DUI case can be made-- the argument is that they cannot be DUI if they are not driving.

---

I've heard and read (though can't remember the site) that if you are in the vehicle, with the keys in the ignition (vehicle running or not), you can be cited for DUI. My apologies if that is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Quoting M'sta Mikey

---

I've heard and read (though can't remember the site) that if you are in the vehicle, with the keys in the ignition (vehicle running or not), you can be cited for DUI. My apologies if that is incorrect.

---

I have heard the same thing. But, as a defence attorney, I would argue that

1. The car is not moving, therefore no driving has occurred, lets get technical.

2. The client went to the car to get cigarettes or something beofre going back to the bar

3. Client was listening to the radio

4. client was waiting for someone to come drive him home

5. client went into the car to sleep it off

As for the keys being in the ignition, that was so the radio would play or he was warming the car up while waiting for a driver to come or to release the electric trunk lock.

If nothing else, it could be argued that anyone of any age could be charged with the current law of being in the driver's seat and keys in ignition. So, if anyone in the courtroom has a kid or a dog that gets behind the wheel while the car is parked is in clear violation of law.

The way that I look at its like this. If you old enough and mature enough and know that your going to be drinking, then you make arrangements to get home. The minute that you make the decision to drink and drive and by that I mean, put the car into any gear besides park, then you are fair game and you SHOULD be arrested for DUI. I don't want my kids in your path of you and your vehicle.

If you've made the correct decision to leave the keys alone and say walk home then you shouldn't get a ticket for public intox. That is of course unless your falling down in the road.

The blind eye should NEVER be turned when public safety is an issue.

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

A debate is at hand about police cruising the bar scene in order to pick up possible DUI's.

Is it fair?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Should the police be allowed to watch patrons of watering holes stagger to their cars and nab them then for public intoixication?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

By allowing cherry pick, the bar's business will suffer abit because folks don't want to go where they know they will get picked up.

---

Clearly, not enough since the police are still getting duis from that establishment. Moreover, police procedures aren't dictated by the economy of a local bar.

Quote:

---

Another point is that if the cops wait until the patron is in the car, but has not yet left or tried to drive, then no DUI case can be made-- the argument is that they cannot be DUI if they are not driving.

---

That's why there are physical control statutes. All the same penalties, none of the messy driving business.

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

The way that I look at its like this. If you old enough and mature enough and know that your going to be drinking, then you make arrangements to get home. The minute that you make the decision to drink and drive and by that I mean, put the car into any gear besides park, then you are fair game and you SHOULD be arrested for DUI. I don't want my kids in your path of you and your vehicle.

If you've made the correct decision to leave the keys alone and say walk home then you shouldn't get a ticket for public intox. That is of course unless your falling down in the road.

The blind eye should NEVER be turned when public safety is an issue.

---

I agree that once the car leaves park, or neutral, the right to freedom is lost. But, in the case of no charge for public intox if they opt to leave the car and walk, I have another thought: what if the drunk is killed by someone else because he walked out in traffic? Then the driver suffers. So, in public or behind the wheel, a ticket at least is earned.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Yes


Yes


Clearly, not enough since the police are still getting duis from that establishment. Moreover, police procedures aren't dictated by the economy of a local bar.

A lawsuit of harassing patrons could curb the cherry picking of a bar. So, yes, economic reasons could could come into play


That's why there are physical control statutes. All the same penalties, none of the messy driving business.

---

What are "physical control statutes"? I've never before heard of that.

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

A debate is at hand about police cruising the bar scene in order to pick up possible DUI's.

Is it fair?

---

I don't think so. It's very bad for the local economy.

Quote:

---

Should the police be allowed to watch patrons of watering holes stagger to their cars and nab them then for public intoixication?

Or....

Should the police wait and let the patron drive away and pull him for DUI??

---

Or they could fight some REAL crime... Opps... did I say that out loud? I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

Pick up before driving, or wait until the drive is made. Explain your reasoning.

---

Fight REAL crime (rape, murder, robbery, etc). Why? I'll tell you why. Because less than 10% of violent criminal offenses get solved.

I understand the issue here, is it fair for the police to wait outside a bar and pull people over as they drive off.


Hmmm, ok, but on the other side lets look at what can happen.

The guy leaves the bar, drives off, runs over a guy walking down the street.

Now would it be better for the police to stop the guy before that happens? or is better to look the other way?

It is easy for me to pick a side since I never drink and I am in law enforcement.

I guess I am partial to the police on this one:eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting OhMy

---

I understand the issue here, is it fair for the police to wait outside a bar and pull people over as they drive off.[

---

Fine. Maybe we citizens should start our own "cherry pickin" near donut shops? Geez, Officer OhMy, your eyes look glazed! Have you been eating donuts???

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Fine. Maybe we citizens should start our own "cherry pickin" near donut shops? Geez, Officer OhMy, your eyes look glazed! Have you been eating donuts???

---

Thats fine, I dont eat donuts LOL, I still have my 31" waist:D

I am NOT a police officer, I am a government agent. Only the guys who can not make it at the federal level become cops :eek:

Uh oh, I am sure that wont go over well with the police officers on this site. I guess I can send them a dozen donuts:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

what if the drunk is killed by someone else because he walked out in traffic? Then the driver suffers. So, in public or behind the wheel, a ticket at least is earned.

---

If your noticibly intoxicated then yes, you should be ticketed. You've become a danger. But if your not and just have a happy buzz, then you shouldn't be ticketed.

Quote:

---

Quoting M'sta Mikey

---

I've heard and read (though can't remember the site) that if you are in the vehicle, with the keys in the ignition (vehicle running or not), you can be cited for DUI. My apologies if that is incorrect.

---

That is state law specific, some yes, some no maybe. You can even be DUI riding a Horse or operating a horse drawn buggy.

I find nothing wrong with so called "cherry picking".

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

A debate is at hand about police cruising the bar scene in order to pick up possible DUI's.

Is it fair?

Should the police be allowed to watch patrons of watering holes stagger to their cars and nab them then for public intoixication?

Or....

Should the police wait and let the patron drive away and pull him for DUI??

Each has its ramifications:

A public intox case is the weaker of the two and may stop some folks from trying to drive drunk, whereas a DUI case has to made with the patron actually driving drunk and the police knowing he is drunk, yet permitting him to operate the car as such in order to get the bigger arrest.

By allowing cherry pick, the bar's business will suffer abit because folks don't want to go where they know they will get picked up.

By not allowing it, the police in effect, turn a blind eye to the problem of DUI until an ambulance is called. Then, an arrest is made, but its too late.

Another point is that if the cops wait until the patron is in the car, but has not yet left or tried to drive, then no DUI case can be made-- the argument is that they cannot be DUI if they are not driving.

Where do you think the line should be drawn? Pick up before driving, or wait until the drive is made. Explain your reasoning.

---

IF a person is permitted to drive intoxicated, and the officer knows there is a good probability they are drunk, and injury occurs before they can be stopped, the police can be liable.

Stopping a motor vehicle is a SEIZURE per the 4th AM. The seizure MUST be "reasonable", this is mostly by authority of existing case law.

The fact a person is leaving a Bar after hours of patronage is not a reasonable suspicion they are drunk nor probable cause to believe so, therefore, if such a "Terry stop" were to be made, the officer better be able to point to specific and articulable facts to support it.

If a patron staggers to his car, but doesn't start it, or attempts to, is he still DUI? He is behind the wheel, keys in ignition, just sitting there. Perhaps too drunk to drive and realizes it, so he sits.

A cop watched this happen.

While watching the sitting drunk, he sees someone leave the bar in a stagger, yet walks away and down the street.

What is the cop to do? Its Saturday night, a very busy night. He is the only one in the area so a call for assistance is out.

Should he go after the walker or sit and wait to see what the sitting drunk does.

One presents danger mostly to himself, the other potentionally to several people, but has not yet acted to commit an offence. The other is obviously too drunk to walk alone.

What is he to do?

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

If your noticibly intoxicated then yes, you should be ticketed. You've become a danger. But if your not and just have a happy buzz, then you shouldn't be ticketed.

---

You mean something like a buzz where the drunk is skipping along the roadside and whistling dixie while laughing at his own foolishness? BE.... any input here?? LOL

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

If a patron staggers to his car, but doesn't start it, or attempts to, is he still DUI? He is behind the wheel, keys in ignition, just sitting there. Perhaps too drunk to drive and realizes it, so he sits.

---

I wouldn't think so. To be DUI you have to actually be DRIVING the vehicle.

Quote:

---

A cop watched this happen.

While watching the sitting drunk, he sees someone leave the bar in a stagger, yet walks away and down the street.

What is the cop to do? Its Saturday night, a very busy night. He is the only one in the area so a call for assistance is out.

Should he go after the walker or sit and wait to see what the sitting drunk does.

One presents danger mostly to himself, the other potentionally to several people, but has not yet acted to commit an offence. The other is obviously too drunk to walk alone.

What is he to do?

---

I would let the walker go. The danger he presents is negligible, but the one in the car MIGHT present a threat to safety if he decided to drive. But it really depends on how drunk he is. Studies suggest individuals can safely operate a vehicle even at TWICE the legal limit.

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

You mean something like a buzz where the drunk is skipping along the roadside and whistling dixie while laughing at his own foolishness? BE.... any input here?? LOL

---

Never had this happen. I was ticketed for PI, but I was to drunk to even stand up. No way I would have been sober enough to skip or whistle.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Never had this happen. I was ticketed for PI, but I was to drunk to even stand up. No way I would have been sober enough to skip or whistle.

---

LOL, but no he had no influence on this one.

My comment comes from a local watering hole thats common patrons are veterans. There is a housing development up the street from the post that a good portion of them live. The long standing faithful ole timers walk home after of course opening up the place. Some can't see to drive and some have DUI's. They have to cross a street that is fairly busy during rush hour. There are no sidewalks. They walk home and get stopped on a regular basis for PI. I think it's wrong. They aren't criminals, the are minding their own business trying to get home before the wife comes to get them. Just ole vets looking for their fix.

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

LOL, but no he had no influence on this one.

---

Uh huh... you're post was clearly a reference to me. :p

Quote:

---

My comment comes from a local watering hole thats common patrons are veterans. There is a housing development up the street from the post that a good portion of them live. The long standing faithful ole timers walk home after of course opening up the place. Some can't see to drive and some have DUI's. They have to cross a street that is fairly busy during rush hour. There are no sidewalks. They walk home and get stopped on a regular basis for PI. I think it's wrong. They aren't criminals, the are minding their own business trying to get home before the wife comes to get them. Just ole vets looking for their fix.

---

See this is bullshit. Those old me aren't hurting anybody. How do the police sleep at night know they're harassing veterans?

"Cherry picking" meant something entirely different when I was in college.

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

What are "physical control statutes"? I've never before heard of that.

---

Click me! I'm a physical control statute! There ya go, kiddo!

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

"Cherry picking" meant something entirely different when I was in college.

---

That's probably because cherries had just been invented and they were still tossing around how best to use it in the vernacular. *hides behind BE*

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

*hides behind BE*

---

Somebody help me... Gigirle???

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

......... *hides behind BE*

---

I KNEW IT!!!!:eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

If nothing else, it could be argued that anyone of any age could be charged with the current law of being in the driver's seat and keys in ignition. So, if anyone in the courtroom has a kid or a dog that gets behind the wheel while the car is parked is in clear violation of law.

---

The elements of what constitutes DUI vary by state. In my state, actual driving must be observed or demonstrated. Merely having the keys in your pocket and sitting in a friend's car in a parking lot is generally not sufficient.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Or they could fight some REAL crime... Opps... did I say that out loud? I'm sorry.

---

Traffic violations and DUI are real crimes. And, we find more wanted felons on traffic stops than on warrant sweeps and fugitive details ... so, they are quite useful - especially if addressing other issues in the area or trying to discourage OMG (outlaw motorcycle gang) activity ... if this is happening. This is how a local city managed to drive out an OMG club that tried to get established in their town.

Quote:

---

Fight REAL crime (rape, murder, robbery, etc). Why? I'll tell you why. Because less than 10% of violent criminal offenses get solved.

---

Not because of a lack of resources, but because of a lack of clues. You can put twenty cops on an investigation, but there may only be enough work for one guy to do and for only part of any one day during a week.

Oh, and we tend to find evidence and arrest those violent "real" criminals on those darn traffic stops.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting OhMy

---

I am NOT a police officer, I am a government agent. Only the guys who can not make it at the federal level become cops

---

Nah ... the feds paid too little, required me to move away, had a shorter academy with less training, and their retirement system was inferior. :D

Quote:

---

Uh oh, I am sure that wont go over well with the police officers on this site. I guess I can send them a dozen donuts:rolleyes:

---

I prefer croissants.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting zedex

---

If a patron staggers to his car, but doesn't start it, or attempts to, is he still DUI? He is behind the wheel, keys in ignition, just sitting there. Perhaps too drunk to drive and realizes it, so he sits.

While watching the sitting drunk, he sees someone leave the bar in a stagger, yet walks away and down the street.

---

The guy staggering down the street is not a big problem, and may not be breaking the laws unless he is unable to care for himself or endangering others.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Nah ... the feds paid too little, required me to move away, had a shorter academy with less training, and their retirement system was inferior. :D


I prefer croissants.

- Carl

---

Hmm, I am not sure about the pay. We seem to be paid pretty well and we have a great retirement plan. I do agree with you as far as the moving. I am in my third state in 5 years.

Croissants / Donuts. Tomato / Tumato :cool:

My wife would kill me if I asked her to move that often. That's also why I turned down a job with the State Parks ... I was single when I applied, but engaged when I got a job offer. So, I went to a county sheriff instead.

And at the time I was starting, pay for federal officers was very low. Today the pay has gotten better (but still not up to par compared to many agencies here) but people like me cannot take advantage of it because while locals cannot legally discriminate based on age, the feds can, and I am now too old to apply for federal law enforcement.

- Carl

Then riddle me this, Batman.

If it is not profiling to wait outside of a bar to pick up drunks, why would it BE profiling to ask for the id's of all of the workers on a corner waiting to be picked up for day labor?

Doesn't the same rule apply?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

My wife would kill me if I asked her to move that often. That's also why I turned down a job with the State Parks ... I was single when I applied, but engaged when I got a job offer. So, I went to a county sheriff instead.

And at the time I was starting, pay for federal officers was very low. Today the pay has gotten better (but still not up to par compared to many agencies here) but people like me cannot take advantage of it because while locals cannot legally discriminate based on age, the feds can, and I am now too old to apply for federal law enforcement.

- Carl

---

I am sure you made a good choice. When I decided to go into law enforcement, I considered being a cop. But the thought of having to give out traffic tickets, rescue a cat from a tree etc was not what I wanted to do.

I was looking for the BAD GUYS and I was looking to make a big differience. That is why I went for a federal investigator job.

I know you no longer do those kinds of things, but when I was young I wanted to start out going after the bad guys and didnt want to spend years at the bottom until I would get a promotion to a detective.

In either case there is NO SHORTAGE of criminals out there LOL. Police officer, federal agent etc, we all have very good job security:cool:

The other thing I like about my job is that it is always in the same line of work. DEA is DEA is DEA, so we become more expert in our line of work. Its not like we have to handle a traffic accident one day then arrest a shop lifter the next.

Either way I am sure neither of us went wrong:D

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Then riddle me this, Batman.

If it is not profiling to wait outside of a bar to pick up drunks, why would it BE profiling to ask for the id's of all of the workers on a corner waiting to be picked up for day labor?

Doesn't the same rule apply?

---

Well, for one thing, because drunks can be of ANY race, and being an immigrant worker is primarily a Hispanic thing.

But, since local cops can't ask for ID because people are just hanging around (unless loitering or trespassing in violation of state law or local ordinance), the issue is kinda moot.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting OhMy

---

I was looking for the BAD GUYS and I was looking to make a big differience. That is why I went for a federal investigator job.

---

And here that is what I thought *I* did every day ... :confused:

I enjoyed working the street much better than I did as a detective. And, now, I enjoy it even better because in a small community I see the fruits and sorrows of my labors each and every day. Much more rewarding than when I was in the big city, and when I was in investigations.

Quote:

---

I know you no longer do those kinds of things, but when I was young I wanted to start out going after the bad guys and didnt want to spend years at the bottom until I would get a promotion to a detective.

---

I never wanted to be a detective. I'm too much of a people person.

Quote:

---

The other thing I like about my job is that it is always in the same line of work. DEA is DEA is DEA, so we become more expert in our line of work. Its not like we have to handle a traffic accident one day then arrest a shop lifter the next.

---

That's one of the reasons I was not so attracted to the feds early on as well - I liked the variety I saw. I get bored easily, and the variety I see in this job is kinda cool!

Quote:

---

Either way I am sure neither of us went wrong:D

---

Surely not.

As long as you've never been FBI ... ;)

- Carl

Funny thing is, I almost went to the FBI a few years back but I decided to stay just where I am:D

I agree 10000%:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Well, for one thing, because drunks can be of ANY race, and being an immigrant worker is primarily a Hispanic thing.

---

But, so is illegal immigration.

Quote:

---

But, since local cops can't ask for ID because people are just hanging around (unless loitering or trespassing in violation of state law or local ordinance), the issue is kinda moot.

- Carl

---

I think that police are most effective when they can be placed where crimes are most likely to start.

If you want to catch an airline hijacker, you search people at the airport.
If you want to catch an illegal, you search for people looking for work on streetcorners.

And bringing race into this is disingenuous. Being an illegal has nothing to do with race.

I also advocate looking for Canadian illegals at hockey games and British illegals at cricket matches or at the orthodontist.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

But, so is illegal immigration.

---

Well, I don't about where you live, but I find that illegal immigration of Swedes is not on the radar screen.

And local cops are not tasked with enforcing federal immigration law. But, loitering and trespassing are crimes, and local cops can enforce those actions ... the fact that they tend to involve illegal immigrants is beside the point, it is the actions that result in the contact.

Quote:

---

I think that police are most effective when they can be placed where crimes are most likely to start.

---

The lowest crime rate in Los Angeles history occurred in 1992 ... coincidentally it was at the end of the so-called "Rodney King Riots" when there were cops and National Guardsmen on every corner. Yes, crime was low ... however, no government on the planet could afford to maintain that level of coverage.

It should also be noted the suppression patrols tend to have only a temporary deterrent effect on crime, or, they move crime from one area to the next. Ultimately, suppression (putting cops where the crimes occur) is a bandaid.

Quote:

---

If you want to catch an airline hijacker, you search people at the airport.
If you want to catch an illegal, you search for people looking for work on streetcorners.

---

And the Border Patrol does this.

Quote:

---

And bringing race into this is disingenuous. Being an illegal has nothing to do with race.

---

True enough. But, I can't recall the last time I came across an illegal immigrant who was NOT Hispanic. We're not being overrun with illegal Swedes. And I have yet to see clusters of Anglo or oriental day laborers on street corners or in parking lots waiting for work.

Quote:

---

I also advocate looking for Canadian illegals at hockey games and British illegals at cricket matches or at the orthodontist.

---

As a bean counter, I would point out that the cost-benefit ratio is far too low. Perhaps if you had word of a particular illegal Canadian smuggling ring was working out of the arena, such a thing could be justified. Otherwise, it would likely be a waste of time.

Why go to a hockey game where you MIGHT catch one guy if he essentially jumps up and says he is there unlawfully, when you could go to a restaurant or a construction site ... Canadians have to work, too. Who knows, there might be one there along with the others.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

But, since local cops can't ask for ID because people are just hanging around (unless loitering or trespassing in violation of state law or local ordinance), the issue is kinda moot.

- Carl

---

Why can't an officer request to see an ID for no reason?

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Why can't an officer request to see an ID for no reason?

---

Okay, they can ASK, but they can't compel. And since there is really no reason to walk up to everyone we see and start asking for ID, why do it? If they could not or would not provide ID, okay ... nothing. If they do provide ID, still nothing. What would be the point?

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Why can't an officer request to see an ID for no reason?

---

Probably for the same reason that an officer, without cause, cannot (legally) perform a traffic stop.