David Boston on G w/ arrest vid

And you are saying that legal counsel has to be provided immediately when asked which makes no sense. If a suspect is lying in a pool of blood with a knife in his hand and asks to speak to an attorney they do not let him sit there while he waits for his attorney, giving him the power to destroy evidence. They take him to jail and then let him speak to his attorney after her has been booked. Which is exactly what my point is even with a dui they are not going to sit on the side of the road and wait for you to call a lawyer. They take you to jail, book you and then you can call your lawyer.

We're both wavering from the true point here...

The cop lied when he said that Boston could not contact his lawyer. Of course he can. At that point, the cop has 2 choices:

a) Arrest him on suspicion of DUI without performing any field sobriety test.

b) Wait for the lawyer to show up. -See edit below-

There is no c) Lie to him and say that he can't call his lawyer.

You are still completely missing my point. They have to have probable cause and even your link says that by pointing out that "The new interpretation from the high court relaxes the standard to allow a search at any time when an officer is preparing to make an arrest." Which means exactly what it says, before the office makes the arrest, keyword being "arrest". No where in this law does it state that the officer can search your vehicle for a traffic ticket nor does it state that they have free roam to search your vehicle any time they see fit as you stated. This whole article was based on the supreme court giving them the right to search before an arrest is made so that they are not in harms way. Again, that does not mean they can just search your car if you have done nothing wrong. It has to be before an actual arrest.

They can do a cursory inspection of the vehicle (and your person) for the officer's safety. I totally forget what its called, and google is failing me. One day I'll hopefully find it or find out I'm full of shit. Either way, you'll hear about it when I do.

Additionally, they can search the car from the outside using a drug dog without probable cause (now I'm just being argumentative.)

I agreed with you, yes, you have the right to an attorney and I never said otherwise. It is pretty simple to figure out that you will not be able to talk to an attorney on the side of the road or at the time of arrest in general.

Please name me one person that was able to get an attorney to show up on the side of a road during a DUI because the officer allowed them to call and waited for them. Because I can name you about 20 that got taken to jail first and then were able to speak to their lawyer.

You can keep trying to say I am wrong but honestly you have not proven a thing yet to make me believe I am wrong. The second you do I will tuck my tail and say, yes Zac you are right, like I have in the past. ;)

edit: okay, it looks like they dont have to wait for the lawyer to show up, but have to allow you to talk to the lawyer on the phone at least.

http://www.motorists.org/dui/home/what-to-do-dui-dwi-roadblock/

Assertion of Rights:

Officer, please understand:
  • I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone.
  • I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs.
  • If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer.
  • If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you.
  • If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.
  • If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.
 
We're both wavering from the true point here...

The cop lied when he said that Boston could not contact his lawyer. Of course he can. At that point, the cop has 2 choices:

a) Arrest him on suspicion of DUI without performing any field sobriety test.

b) Wait for the lawyer to show up. -See edit below-

There is no c) Lie to him and say that he can't call his lawyer.



They can do a cursory inspection of the vehicle (and your person) for the officer's safety. I totally forget what its called, and google is failing me. One day I'll hopefully find it or find out I'm full of shit. Either way, you'll hear about it when I do.

Additionally, they can search the car from the outside using a drug dog without probable cause (now I'm just being argumentative.)



edit: okay, it looks like they dont have to wait for the lawyer to show up, but have to allow you to talk to the lawyer on the phone at least.

http://www.motorists.org/dui/home/what-to-do-dui-dwi-roadblock/

All good points and I agree both of us have been wrong in statements. I did not know that they legally have to provide you with the phone call at least. I always figured that is why they have free phones in the booking section(before general pop). I personally have been through this so I am pulling my facts from personal experience, probably not the best source. Then again, going through the system and the processes it teaches you quite a bit about what they "cant" do and what they are "going" to do. I am pretty sure that while they have you in the holding area you are then suppose to contact who you need to contact. In this area the phones are free and they supply you with phone books, I am pretty sure this is your opportunity to get your lawyer involved.

I like that quote though and have seen that before as a hand off card for police. I should keep on in my wallet :fly:


BTW - I already made that drug dog point! so I was arguing it first!!!! haha

They really should have that option though because it does not involve an illegal search or the need for an illegal search if the dog does not react.
 
Last edited:
BTW - I already made that drug dog point! so I was arguing it first!!!! haha

They really should have that option though because it does not involve an illegal search or the need for an illegal search if the dog does not react.

I completely disagree. Where is FlyNavy to help me on this one...

If a new technology came out tomorrow and the police could search your house with x-rays from across town, do you think that should be legal?


fake edit: Maybe we should just stop here.
 
I completely disagree. Where is FlyNavy to help me on this one...

If a new technology came out tomorrow and the police could search your house with x-rays from across town, do you think that should be legal?


fake edit: Maybe we should just stop here.

Why stop, I actually really enjoy debating this topic with you! I dont know if its the same way on your end :fly:

IMO an X-Ray or gamma ray :p would be a breach of privacy but I see the point you are getting at. On the other hand a dog is not breaching any personal privacy's such as an x-ray would. A dog is not another human visually watching you through a wall and could not be in the same classification, if you are talking privacy.