Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,196

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    With that weak evidence you guys would be shredded by a real, skilled trial attorney. Especially in a courtroom where you could be forced to eat your words. I suspect none of you have ever witnessed a real trial attorney at work.
    Actually, no Harold. Prosecutors have won a number of DUI cases on just the sort of evidence I described without any BAC test, even against some of the best DUI litigators. Show a jury a dashcam video of the defendant clearly drunk and winning the conviction isn't all that difficult. So insist all you want that scientific evidence is always required; the reality in court though is different.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    681

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Actually, no Harold. Prosecutors have won a number of DUI cases on just the sort of evidence I described without any BAC test, even against some of the best DUI litigators. Show a jury a dashcam video of the defendant clearly drunk and winning the conviction isn't all that difficult. So insist all you want that scientific evidence is always required; the reality in court though is different.
    I went back to re-read our posts to see what you did to get here. It was slick, but no cigar.

    Since I made my point about what Ron said, and how he implied there was a pot test that measures a person's highness, you could not see it in you to acknowledge that so you changed the subject to DUI trials. You are now trying to compare, in your own slick way, whether determining if a person is drunk absent a BAC test is similar to determining if a person is high on pot without an effective and proven THC test.

    Remember, this thread, and our conversation up to now has been about pot, not alcohol. It was you that changed it to alcohol so you could hopefully 'win' on something. So, to put your new misleading example to test, let's see if you are so bold to say that body cam footage alone is sufficient evidence that a person was high on pot? If you say it is, then please tell what you would look for in that footage that would be comparable to a scientific pot test (that does not exist)?

    To further your misleading argument to DUI convictions absent a BAC test, if a trial took place, the prosecutor would have far more information on the defendant than only the body cam footage. Through discovery he would have where the perp came from (like a bar). He would have sworn witness testimony as to whether he/she was drinking alcohol. He would know if he/she had medical conditions that would cause abnormal behavior. He would have prior DUI convictions. In the convictions you cite, there may have been a traffic accident. A death or severe injury that would cause the jury to want to convict. Etc, etc, etc. So, you are incorrect that the smell of alcohol along with video alone convicted anybody.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,284

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Since I made my point about what Ron said, and how he implied there was a pot test that measures a person's highness,
    Again Ron did not imply that. You incorrectly inferred it.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,196

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post

    Remember, this thread, and our conversation up to now has been about pot, not alcohol. It was you that changed it to alcohol so you could hopefully 'win' on something. So, to put your new misleading example to test, let's see if you are so bold to say that body cam footage alone is sufficient evidence that a person was high on pot? If you say it is, then please tell what you would look for in that footage that would be comparable to a scientific pot test (that does not exist)?
    Yes, let's review this thread. Your statement was:

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Further, to prove intoxication on pot or alcohol requires a chemical test, not an assumption based on observation. Or some flim-flam FST.
    My point here has been that the above statement you made is wrong. You stated that a chemical is required to prove intoxication and that an officer's observations or FST are not good enough to prove either drug or alcohol intoxication. But the case law clearly states otherwise:

    In presenting evidence sufficient to convict a defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol, the State need not present scientific evidence such as a Breathalyzer or blood test, (Diaz, 377 Ill.App.3d at 344–45, 316 Ill.Dec. 187, 878 N.E.2d 1211); rather, the testimony of a sole, credible police officer is sufficient. People v. Janik, 127 Ill.2d 390, 402, 130 Ill.Dec. 427, 537 N.E.2d 756 (1989). Evidence, such as a “defendant's breath smelled of alcohol” and that his eyes were “glassy and bloodshot” is relevant in convicting a defendant. Morris, 2014 IL App (1st) 130512, ¶ 20, 384 Ill.Dec. 173. Other relevant non-scientific evidence includes a defendant's speech, failed sobriety tests, (People v. Robinson, 368 Ill.App.3d 963, 983, 307 Ill.Dec. 232, 859 N.E.2d 232 (2006)), or his refusal to submit to a Breathalyzer test (People v. Johnson, 218 Ill.2d 125, 140, 299 Ill.Dec. 677, 842 N.E.2d 714 (2005)).

    People v. Crawford, 2015 IL App (1st) 130031-U, ¶ 17 (Bolding added). As you can see from the part I bolded, the appeals court states point blank that a chemical test is NOT required, contradicting your statement that it is. In that case, the appeals court upheld the defendant's conviction on an alcohol DUI based on the following:

    At trial, Cruz stated he smelled alcohol coming from defendant's breath, defendant admitted to Cruz that he had a beer around midnight and had just left a bar. Furthermore, Cruz stated defendant's eyes were “bloodshot,” his speech was “slurred” and he believed based on his years of experience that defendant had failed all three field sobriety tests. Finally, defendant refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test at the police station.

    People v. Crawford, 2015 IL App (1st) 130031-U, ¶ 23. That stop was recorded on video, which the jury saw. So the conviction was based solely on what the officer testified he saw and heard during the stop, including the FSTs, and the video of it which backed up his testimony. Critically, for our conversation, there was NO chemical test involved at all. It was not required. All there was here was the admission of the defendant he'd been drinking, the cop's observations, and the FSTs. And the latter two of those you claim aren't good enough as evidence. Yet the court, in the quote above, says they are.

    You complain that I used alcohol DUI as my example to rebut your statement, even though your statement itself referred to both alcohol and marijuana intoxication. But even with pot DUI, the courts don't insist on a chemical test. In affirming that there was probable cause for arrest and conviction on a pot DUI charge, a court stated the following:

    Nonetheless, upon approaching the driver's side door of the Infiniti, Risteen detected the odor of burnt and unburnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle, and the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the defendant's person. Among other things, the defendant had red and glassy eyes, he was struggling to keep his eyes open and his head upright, “his coordination was slow,” he had difficulty “focusing,” and he also had difficulty in following the officer's “simple directions.” The defendant told the officer that he had smoked marijuana earlier that day, before he left to drive to Somerville. Given this, the judge was warranted in finding that police had probable cause to believe that the defendant had operated a motor vehicle while impaired.

    Commonwealth v. Davis, 481 Mass. 210, 216–17, 114 N.E.3d 556, 564 (2019). You'll notice the evidence consisted entirely of the cop's testimony of what he observed of the condition of the defendant during the stop, the smell of burnt marijuana, and the defendant's admission that he had smoked pot earlier in the day. Again, no chemical test was required. The defendant got convicted of a marijuana DUI without any scientific evidence at all.

    The cases I cited here are just two of the hundreds of cases I found for alcohol and marijuana DUI convictions in which there was a conviction without a chemical test. The case law clearly shows your contention that a chemical test is necessary is wrong.


    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    To further your misleading argument to DUI convictions absent a BAC test, if a trial took place, the prosecutor would have far more information on the defendant than only the body cam footage. Through discovery he would have where the perp came from (like a bar). He would have sworn witness testimony as to whether he/she was drinking alcohol. He would know if he/she had medical conditions that would cause abnormal behavior. He would have prior DUI convictions. In the convictions you cite, there may have been a traffic accident. A death or severe injury that would cause the jury to want to convict. Etc, etc, etc. So, you are incorrect that the smell of alcohol along with video alone convicted anybody.
    It appears that by the above statement you are conceding that conviction is indeed possible without a chemical test, i.e. that a chemical test is in fact not required, which seems to settle the matter.

    As for your other claim that the testimony of the cop about the smell of alcohol along with a video isn't good enough, I think the Crawford case I cited above shows that it could be. Crawford was convicted on not much more than that.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    681

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    If a guy smells strongly of alcohol, is slurring his words, and stumbling around, those are all things that are evidence that the guy is drunk
    Those three bits of evidence have never been the sole evidence to convict a person for DUI unless the defendant took a plea and let that be the only evidence.

    As for your example on pot, the guy admitted smoking pot and those symptoms are not symptoms of pot, rather a stronger drug that he obviously did not admit to.

    I know that you are stating caselaw, but exactly what is caselaw? Is it the outcome of a trial that fits your narrative? If so, then my case could be used to show that traffic laws need not be followed, the MUTCD is a joke, bikes can be channeled into 70mph traffic, that cone use is optional, that specific laws do not apply to state highways and that breaking laws and regs do not endanger cars and bikes on the road. IOW, no laws apply to roadside workers to keep the traffic safe.

    If I wanted to search cases I am sure there are many to the contrary of your examples.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The cases I cited here are just two of the hundreds of cases I found for alcohol and marijuana DUI convictions in which there was a conviction without a chemical test. The case law clearly shows your contention that a chemical test is necessary is wrong.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    And you said a person can be convicted by observation alone. Not true because all the other elements and witnesses would also be used to convict the defendant. This makes it impossible for one piece of evidence (observation) to ever convict a drunk. And pot too. Never observation alone.

    FYI, you do know that I am aware that you could argue against everything you are saying here because all lawyers can do that. There is no right or wrong...just arguments pro and con.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,196

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I know that you are stating caselaw, but exactly what is caselaw?
    Case is are the statements from the courts as to what the law is and how the law is applied. In my examples, the appeals courts stated that the convictions were good without chemical test evidence. Indeed, the Crawford decision specifically says just that:

    In presenting evidence sufficient to convict a defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol, the State need not present scientific evidence such as a Breathalyzer or blood test, (Diaz, 377 Ill.App.3d at 344–45, 316 Ill.Dec. 187, 878 N.E.2d 1211); rather, the testimony of a sole, credible police officer is sufficient.

    People v. Crawford, 2015 IL App (1st) 130031-U, ¶ 17.

    That disproves your claim that chemical tests are always required. Pretty simple. I understand that you don't like me pointing out that the cases don't support what you thought the law was, but when you get it wrong you shouldn't be too surprised that someone corrects you.


    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    If I wanted to search cases I am sure there are many to the contrary of your examples.
    You'd certainly find a number of cases in which chemical evidence was presented. As I said before, such evidence is certainly helpful to the state if it has it. But what you won't find are court cases that state that chemical tests are always required for to prove intoxication, which was the statement you made.

    If you chose to do research before you posted instead of just relying on your gut feeling of what the law says you'd get fewer things wrong. Most nonlawyers — including a lot of very bright people — have many of misconceptions about the law. It's not surprising. They haven't studied the law much, if at all, and what they see and hear about the law in popular media often gives them the wrong impression of the law. So you might consider when posting that what you think you know about the law might actually not be right and take the time to verify it before you post. Do that and you'll likely have fewer of these instances where I or someone else shows that you got it wrong by citing the applicable law.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,502

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    I have said it before and I will no doubt say it again.

    CSI and Law and Order have a lot to answer for.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    681

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Case is are the statements from the courts as to what the law is and how the law is applied. In my examples, the appeals courts stated that the convictions were good without chemical test evidence. Indeed, the Crawford decision specifically says just that:

    In presenting evidence sufficient to convict a defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol, the State need not present scientific evidence such as a Breathalyzer or blood test, (Diaz, 377 Ill.App.3d at 344–45, 316 Ill.Dec. 187, 878 N.E.2d 1211); rather, the testimony of a sole, credible police officer is sufficient.

    People v. Crawford, 2015 IL App (1st) 130031-U, ¶ 17.

    That disproves your claim that chemical tests are always required. Pretty simple. I understand that you don't like me pointing out that the cases don't support what you thought the law was, but when you get it wrong you shouldn't be too surprised that someone corrects you.




    You'd certainly find a number of cases in which chemical evidence was presented. As I said before, such evidence is certainly helpful to the state if it has it. But what you won't find are court cases that state that chemical tests are always required for to prove intoxication, which was the statement you made.

    If you chose to do research before you posted instead of just relying on your gut feeling of what the law says you'd get fewer things wrong. Most nonlawyers — including a lot of very bright people — have many of misconceptions about the law. It's not surprising. They haven't studied the law much, if at all, and what they see and hear about the law in popular media often gives them the wrong impression of the law. So you might consider when posting that what you think you know about the law might actually not be right and take the time to verify it before you post. Do that and you'll likely have fewer of these instances where I or someone else shows that you got it wrong by citing the applicable law.
    Your points have nothing to do with the law. But you wish they did so you could gloat that you are an all-knowing lawyer and I am a non-lawyer which is why you want to say I am losing this debate.

    I know very well that a person can get convicted without a chemical test because I watched it happen to my sister-in-law a quarter mile from my house about 8 years ago. She refused the tests and was convicted anyway. So I watched it happed right in front of me. It was you that said observation alone can convict someone in a court of law. And I said that has never happened. So go on and evade and mislead from there, it is the dance lawyers do to win debates and trials.

    There are four words a lawyer will never say: "You got me there." Oh, they will say it to their spouses, but that is all.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,284

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Your points have nothing to do with the law. But you wish they did so you could gloat that you are an all-knowing lawyer and I am a non-lawyer which is why you want to say I am losing this debate.

    I know very well that a person can get convicted without a chemical test because I watched it happen to my sister-in-law a quarter mile from my house about 8 years ago. She refused the tests and was convicted anyway. So I watched it happed right in front of me. It was you that said observation alone can convict someone in a court of law. And I said that has never happened. So go on and evade and mislead from there, it is the dance lawyers do to win debates and trials.
    If not through chemical tests or observation, how was your S-I-L convicted?

    SO your house is a quarter-mile from the court? While a unique statement, I don't see how that has anything to do with the conversation.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    681

    Default Re: Can I Be Fired for Drug Use Without Failing a Drug Test

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    I have said it before and I will no doubt say it again.

    CSI and Law and Order have a lot to answer for.
    No cbg, not those shows, rather Dateline and the multitude of other programs that prove scientifically and forensically that lawyers succeed with convictions that are flat out wrong. Those programs also show that lawyers have zero remorse when they lock up the wrong guy for decades, which proves it is all a big game to them. Much like the POS lawyer I went up against...all a big game. 'Anything goes to win' is their motto...lying, misleading, exaggerating and suppressing followed by a ridiculous Comedy Central Roast.

    Laws and caselaw have very little to do with what goes on in a courtroom. Maybe if you knew every facet of a court-case and watched how it played out in court, you'd know how unjust it all is. And, maybe if you were the one that was taken down by slick, deceitful lawyers you'd have a different opinion of our justice system...because nothing will teach a person how hot a flame is until you are burned by it.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Probation and Parole: Failing More Than One Drug Test While on Probation
    By SupaCG in forum Probation, Parole and Incarceration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2017, 01:24 PM
  2. Getting Fired: Can You Be Fired for Failing a Drug Test if Your Employer Permits Medical Marijuana
    By EJOhnston in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-03-2015, 07:10 AM
  3. Probation and Parole: Failing a Drug Test While on Probation
    By Ch00b in forum Probation, Parole and Incarceration
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-19-2013, 07:05 PM
  4. Paraphernalia: Caught With Drug Paraphernalia, Worried About Failing a Drug Test
    By am i screwed? in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-20-2012, 11:33 AM
  5. Probation and Parole: Failing a Probation Drug Test
    By kyleblanch2002 in forum Probation, Parole and Incarceration
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 08:03 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources