Public Intox While A Passenger In A Car

[cdwjava]

Maybe a quota exists somewhere, but I have never worked for an agency where one has existed, and where they try to rear their ugly head by any other name, they are usually revealed and brought down from within ... sometimes, from without.

In any event, the problem with a "catch and release" of a drunk is that there is no legal responsibility of a friend or family member to keep such a drunk from harm once the police turn the drunk over to them. The drunk can slur his intention to walk off or even drive, and the friend or family member has little recourse unless they want to pummel the drunk down.

So, said drunk then takes a short step off a tall curb and falls flat on his face cracking a few teeth ... now, WHO do you think gets sued for THAT one? the friend? or, the agency that let a drunk go for which they had probable cause to arrest? (Though in my state there sometimes exists the option of sobriety centers as well.)

Likewise, if the person got into a car and then hurt or killed his or her self or someone else, who do you think gets sued? Yep - the cops. In fact, about a dozen years back I believe it was the Torrance PD that got hit with such a suit and they even looked at criminal charges for the officer(s) involved ... the facts are hazy, but it pretty much changed how many agencies did business.

- Carl

[BOR]

When you are pulled over the vehicle and the passengers are in the temporary custody of the officer. I think it's called a "Terry Stop" from State v. Terry and allows the officer to investigate, within reason, where he/she thinks a crime is being committed. You are neither under arrest nor free to leave.

The actual case is a SCOTUS one: Terry v. Ohio. I am familiar with it though, thanks. The recent Brendlin case confirms that ALL passengers are seized when a motor vehicle is. The ruling clarified confusion amongst the inferior courts.

You never know why the officer really arrested you, BUT, the officer had Probable Cause to arrest you and did it legally

.

I was not asking Carl about MY arrest,I have never been arrested. I was asking him concerning the original posters facts. I don't know if you confused my Q as pertaining to me or not??

[usedbranflakes]

Was not familiar with the newer case...

Ohio loves to push the laws to the limit. Terry v. Ohio; I had forgotten it was Ohio. My favorite was a case from the Sixties; Mapp v. Ohio. This is completely OT, but I wonder how our Supreme Court justices of today would lean? Towards the easier arrest and conviction or towards the rights of the private citizen?

Back OT -
Sorry....was addressing the original poster. I should have made that clearer.

[BOR]

Was not familiar with the newer case...

Ohio loves to push the laws to the limit. Terry v. Ohio; I had forgotten it was Ohio. My favorite was a case from the Sixties; Mapp v. Ohio. This is completely OT, but I wonder how our Supreme Court justices of today would lean? Towards the easier arrest and conviction or towards the rights of the private citizen?

I am familiar with Mapp. The 4th AM was made applicable to the states In Wolf v. Colorado, 1949. In Mapp though, the court extended Wolf to include the exclusionary rule to the states.

Considering thier decision in the Atwater case out of Texas in 2001, I have no doubt the court is continuing on it's path to expand police powers, which I favor, however, I "strongly disagreed" with the Atwater decision.

Back OT -
Sorry....was addressing the original poster. I should have made that clearer.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were, just was not sure, thanks for the clarification.