Hays cops fired for filing a false report

Ratzilla wrote:

gibleis is right slickjay. Once a person has sobered up it's rather hard to prove in court how much he had at the time of the accident.

To take it a step further there is a time limit.

"the alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath, as measured within two hours of the time of operating or attempting to operate a vehicle, is .08 or more;"

Question gibleis.. Suppose you were sitting at the park drinking beer, but it gets a little cool so you get in the car and turn it on to warm up and listen to the stereo. Is that illegal operation if legally drunk or do you have to be attempting to drive? I was told once that if the keys are even in the ignition you may be in violation, others have said they think you must have it in motion, or be known to have been recently.

I have heard the keys in the ignition argument before, I personally would look for more than that.

If you got in it and started it then for the legal definition you operated it and could be charged. Hopefully common sense would be applied in this situation.

Is the beer in cans, or bottles?

mikecc wrote:

Is the beer in cans, or bottles?

A keg with the tap in your mouth while your passenger keeps it flowing.

Yeah gibleis, I would hope so too. I guess if they found you on the roadside legally drunk they might assume you could have just driven there. But you could be sitting at the park all day long without driving, so it might come down to judgement, or how much a specific officer likes handing out DUI's. I could see a gung ho rookie, or a cop with a score to settle with the guy in the car at least trying it even if a judge might call it differently.

Both my cousin(Denver), and a friend(Hays) got DUI's for sitting in their cars intoxicated with the keys in the ignition. Both engines were cold.

So, yeah, it can happen.

What if you drive to Gorham Ks. and stop at the stop sighn, put your foot on the break, and then pass out. You haven't been driving.

Did you put the car in park before you passed out?

mikecc wrote:

What if you drive to Gorham Ks. and stop at the stop sighn, put your foot on the break, and then pass out. You haven't been driving.

Not quite the same as sitting in a park mike.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Both my cousin(Denver), and a friend(Hays) got DUI's for sitting in their cars intoxicated with the keys in the ignition. Both engines were cold.

So, yeah, it can happen.

Ahh yes, modern America where you don't even have to commit a crime to go to jail. If Stalin were alive he'd be taking notes.

Don't think so, just for fun, lets say no.

Stopped at a stop sign passed out would be a pretty sure indicator that you were sloshed when you stopped there.

Not if you don't admit to driving there, nobody saw you drive there (drunk or sober), no video tapes exist of you driving there. It wasn't on satellite either.

mikecc wrote:

Not if you don't admit to driving there, nobody saw you drive there (drunk or sober), no video tapes exist of you driving there. It wasn't on satellite either.

Try that mike, and be sure to tell us if you get away with it.

Ratzilla wrote:

Stopped at a stop sign passed out would be a pretty sure indicator that you were sloshed when you stopped there.

Actually had that happen. Found her at 280th and Highway 40 passed out at the stop sign. When I knocked on the window she woke up and took her foot off the brake. The vehicle started going forward into hwy 40 and there were vehicles coming.

Bad thing was this was the second time I found that same female passed out in the roadway. The first time she was stopped right in the middle of hwy 183. She was lucky both times she didn't wreck and get hurt or hurt someone else.

Really nice lady, just had a drinking problem. Last I heard she had a new job and was doing very well.

I would have to assume you didn't figure she got drunk after she stopped at the sign. I'd like to see someone argue that one. We'd probably be surprised how many near tragedies happen every day on the roadways, and not just from drinking. Lotta sober numbskulls out there too.

I think the wording "operate or attempt to operate" is intentionally left in the statue (KSA 8-1567) so that DUI cases can be evaluate on a case by case basis. Don't confuse "operate or attempt to operate" with "the vehiclemust be moving". A vehicle must not be in motion to be operated as in giblies’ example.

Technically, if someone was over the legal limit of .08 BAC, sitting on the driver’s seat of a lawn-mower (motorized vehicle), engine off, and adjusting the blade level of the mower, he also could be considered “operating or attempting to operate a motorized vehicle”. Law Enforcement (I hope not) could send a complaint to the prosecutor asking that the subject be charged with DUI. It doesn’t mean that the prosecutor will charge it or the judge/jury will buy it.

The wording is meant to give leeway for thousands of DUI cases charged in Kansas each year. Court decisions set precedence as to how the law can be amended for the following year.

I think the dude at the stop sign in Gorham had his case go to the Ks Supreme Court, but I could not find the specific case. I believe his case led to "the officer has to suspect you been driving, not actually see you driving". Same as with a suspended liscense.....They don't gotta catch you in the act no more (which I think is Bullshit) If they just see you, they can mail you the ticket.

Being convicted of a crime that happens in another persons mind is horse shit.

I may be wrong tho about the above examples.

I figured "attempt to operate" is in there because they wanted to cover cases where it was the intent of the individual to drive, but never got beyond sitting behind the wheel, or passed out and came to a stop. I think it should be worded "drive, or attempt to put the vehicle in motion".

Maybe there should be something as to the level of intoxication. Slumped over or obviously in a severe state of intoxication might very well mean they could accidentally put the vehicle in motion. But a person can be legally drunk and still perfectly capable of sitting there with the heater or stereo on without being a safety hazard.

And if anyone got cited for attempting to operate just sitting on a mower or in a car without the engine running I would seriously question the officers reason for pursuing that as a DUI.

Suppose a person was at a party and decided to sleep it off in the car rather than drive home? I'd say a DUI would be very crappy thanks for them trying to be safe.

It’s been my experience that most of the situations we’re talking about are a reactive enforcement situation. Meaning a concerned citizen finds the passed out motorist, calls police, the police officer shows up, and then has to decide as to whether a crime has occurred. It’s always been a gray decision for me because I have the same reservations as most of you. I usually base my decision to arrest on many contributing factors at the scene. It’s not what you think happened; it’s what you can prove happened. I’ve taken people home and to jail on this very issue. Good common scene is a great attribute for a law enforcement officer.

deputy212 wrote:

It’s been my experience that most of the situations we’re talking about are a reactive enforcement situation. Meaning a concerned citizen finds the passed out motorist, calls police, the police officer shows up, and then has to decide as to whether a crime has occurred. It’s always been a gray decision for me because I have the same reservations as most of you. I usually base my decision to arrest on many contributing factors at the scene. It’s not what you think happened; it’s what you can prove happened. I’ve taken people home and to jail on this very issue. Good common scene is a great attribute for a law enforcement officer.

I think proof and common sense are the keys, and I've met many an SO or PD officer with those factors in mind. While I do understand modern attitudes in law enforcement that teach the LEO to see everyone as a potential threat, I don't like what we call blanket laws with no consideration for circumstances. In recent times that seems to be the direction laws have taken.

modern attitudes in law enforcement that teach the LEO to see everyone as a potential source of state income.

That's also true mike. Octoberfest has become an underage consumption, DUI, don't cross the magic line with a beer or you'll make some bucks for Hays fest. We should abolish Octoberfest for the money sucking ticket fest it's become. I don't even like to go to a Hays bar anymore. I understand getting dangerous drunks off the roads, but the march in a straight line society nowdays means the communists won the Cold War as I see it.