Dennard arrested for DUI

[Jackson 2]

I searched throughout the internet for the terms of his probation, I was not able to find them as the post conviction documents were sealed upon request of the defense. Where did you find or hear the terms of his probation?

On WEEI this morning , Dale Arnold (and it killed him to say it) quoted a Nebraska probation official familiar with Dennard's case saying the prohibiting of alcohol use was not one of Dennard's probation requirements. Just going by what I heard on the radio.

 

[zydecochris]

Exactly. For those who didn't pay attention in class like PatsWickedPissah (or, perhaps you are an engineer or scientist?), n would be the amount of gas (usually measured in moles).

Clearly Patfan.com needs to upgrade its equation editor so that that we can have more physics discussions.

P*V=n*R*T 10 characters

 

[Joker]

Exactly. For those who didn't pay attention in class like PatsWickedPissah (or, perhaps you are an engineer or scientist?), n would be the amount of gas (usually measured in moles).

Clearly Patfan.com needs to upgrade its equation editor so that that we can have more physics discussions.

uh...that would be a no....I have too much brain hurt already just trying to read football posts. Revisting engineering physics, chapter five-Thermodynamics is something I thought I put behind me back in the 70's...so, equation editor= null sign...:frusty:

 

[Brady6]

On WEEI this morning , Dale Arnold (and it killed him to say it) quoted a Nebraska probation official familiar with Dennard's case saying the prohibiting of alcohol use was not one of Dennard's probation requirements. Just going by what I heard on the radio.

Ok cool, that's great news. Thanks man!

 

[supafly]

And just because 2 sworn officers say something doesn't mean a damn thing. They do need the video evidence to corroborate their story.

They don't "need" any video evidence to gain a conviction. Plenty of DUI cases in this country are convicted on things that do not include video evidence. The video evidence is normally used to bolster their case, but it's not entirely necessary. The prosecution has convicted plenty of DUI offenses prior to even having video evidence available, otherwise we'd have no DUI convictions prior to the last 20 or so years.

The sworn testimony of a police officer goes a long way. The sworn testimony of TWO police officers goes even further. In that regard it certainly "does mean a damn thing."

The main point of contention for both sides will obviously be the probable cause of the traffic stop to begin with, but straddling the line is certainly probable cause for any traffic stop in this country. Odor of alcohol on the breath of the driver is also probable cause for a roadside sobriety test, and the results of the sobriety test would be probable cause for the breathalyzer.

As I said last night, normally the probation officer and the judge will wait until the legal process plays out before slapping VOP charges on you--unless you're a scumbag who has shown a tendency to ignore the guidelines set forth and you keep repeating the same offense(s). The only other example would be for a serious charge. In that case they normally don't screw around and they'll often place a detainer on you with no bail for the immediate future (until the original maximum of the initial charge is completed, or until the process has resolved itself). Some states like Hawaii offer bail still on VOP charges in certain situations, but many/most do not.

The judge, the P.O., and the probation supervisor normally will do a little research into the "new" charges to see what kind of evidence there is, so I personally don't see the choice to set a VOP hearing so early on as anything of a good sign. Perhaps you feel differently though, but normally in this kind of instance they will allow the process to play out. They did not make that choice this time, so take that as a hint if you wish.

Nebraska is an "implied consent" state. And contrary to Pat68, Nebraska CAN ask you to take a breathalyzer or blood test PRIOR to your arrest. However, you can refuse either before or after and they cannot force you, though it does result in suspension of your license.

All 50 states in our country are implied consent states. Nebraska is no different from any other state, so not sure why you're bringing that up?

Refusing to take the test before or after not only results in a automatic suspension (usually 6-12 months, much more than the DUI conviction), it also results in an automatic DUI charge too. If you want to refuse the test, fine; but be prepared to fight your automatic DUI charge in court, which is exactly what Alfonzo Dennard will have to do.

 

[supafly]

As far as any beef that we have lately, DaBruinz--let's just agree to quash it now and move forward.

I'm not sure how/where it started or in what instances I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way, but I do apologize for my part in it.

I don't believe in using the "ignore" function for ANY poster here. I believe in just working it out like adults and moving forward, so let's just learn from any mistakes and move forward. I do enjoy your posts and thoughts, and always have.

There are certain instances where it's best to agree to disagree and/or just ignore certain posts where you don't necessarily see things the same way. After all, we're all here to relax and talk football, along with sharing our love of the NEP--so in essence we're basically all "family."

 

[Jackson 2]

As far as any beef that we have lately, DaBruinz--let's just agree to quash it now and move forward.

I'm not sure how/where it started or in what instances I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way, but I do apologize for my part in it.

I don't believe in using the "ignore" function for ANY poster here. I believe in just working it out like adults and moving forward, so let's just learn from any mistakes and move forward. I do enjoy your posts and thoughts, and always have.

There are certain instances where it's best to agree to disagree and/or just ignore certain posts where you don't necessarily see things the same way. After all, we're all here to relax and talk football, along with sharing our love of the NEP--so in essence we're basically all "family."

I'm with you, Supa. To me, the ignore function is a coward's way out. If you don't have the stones to deal with someone, just don't do it. Ignore is like hiding in the closet with a blanket over your head. Man the f*** up...

 

[Joker]

I'm with you, Supa. To me, the ignore function is a coward's way out. If you don't have the stones to deal with someone, just don't do it. Ignore is like hiding in the closet with a blanket over your head. Man the f*** up...

 

[Jackson 2]

Joker, goddam you're quick. LMFAO...

 

[Joker]

Joker, goddam you're quick. LMFAO...

Jacks...don't we KNOW this guy???? Brady2Moss maybe??

 

[Jackson 2]

Jacks...don't we KNOW this guy???? Brady2Moss maybe??

Holy s***, you could be right!

 

[Rob0729]

And according to both officers involved, Dennard was swerving, smelled like alcohol, and failed the field sobriety tests.

You are actually making a lot of assumptions based on the information.

First, the police report states:

The vehicle, traveling directly in front of the marked police cruiser, was seen straddling lane lines.

That isn't neccessarily swerving. I see plenty of people straddle lane lines when they are sober. I see it all the time. He could have been just partially in the other lane of traffic.


Second, they do not say whether he passed or failed the field sobriety test. The report states:

Upon contact, the driver, 23 year old Alfonzo Dennard, emitted an odor of alcohol and displayed signs of impairment. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests were conducted at the scene. Alfonzo Dennard was then transported to Cornhusker Place for a formal breath test.

He could have passed the field sobriety test, but still have been brought into the police department just because he smelled like alcohol and showed signs of impairment.

 

[PATS68]

For Dabruz

The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday limited the power of police officers to take blood samples from suspected drunken drivers without getting a search warrant.

The 5-4 decision in a Missouri case could jeopardize current practices in Minnesota, where state law makes it a crime to refuse a blood alcohol test. Police here also take blood samples without a court order in cases involving serious injury or death.

A pair of recent rulings by the Minnesota Supreme Court said that was permissible because of the risk that blood alcohol levels could dissipate in the time required to obtain a warrant, but the majority in Wednesday’s federal decision rejected the idea that the fear of delay justified going ahead without a warrant in all cases.

“Consider, for example, a situation in which the warrant process will not significantly increase the delay before the blood test is conducted because an officer can take steps to secure a warrant while the suspect is being transported to a medical facility by another officer.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion in Missouri v. McNeely. “In such a circumstance, there would be no plausible justification for an exception to the warrant requirement.”


Supreme Court Backs Warrants For Blood Tests In DUI Cases




by Nina Totenberg

April 17, 2013 7:10 PM


The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test. The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter.


A photographic screen hangs in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is undergoing renovations. On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments in a case that asks whether police without a warrant can administer a blood test to a suspected drunken driver.

Law

Can Police Force Drunken Driving Suspects To Take Blood Tests?


Supreme Court Weighs Warrantless Blood Tests In Drunken-Driving Cases

Tyler McNeely was pulled over late at night after a state trooper observed him driving erratically. When McNeely refused to take a Breathalyzer test, the officer drove him to a local hospital and ordered blood drawn for an alcohol test. The officer did not seek a warrant, even though he had done so in previous cases. The state of Missouri contended that because alcohol naturally dissipates in the bloodstream, each passing moment means valuable evidence is being lost, and so a warrant is never required for a blood draw.

Sounds like Dennard stop doesn't it jack

The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that in most circumstances there is adequate time to get a warrant. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said that in the modern world of technology, police can often obtain a warrant quickly by using their cellphones or by email, and that in most jurisdictions a magistrate is available at all hours to grant a warrant request.

If an emergency requires officers to dispense with the warrant requirement, Sotomayor said, that determination must be made on a "case-by-case" basis and later justified in court. In addition, she noted, because officers must typically take a suspect to a hospital for the blood draw, some delay and some dissipation of alcohol is "inevitable."

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito, wrote separately, agreeing in part with the majority but taking a different approach. They said that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not necessarily justify forgoing a warrant, but said that law enforcement officials need clearer rules and guidelines for when they are out in the field. They would have given the law enforcement officer greater discretion.

In dissent, Justice Thomas agreed with Missouri that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol constitutes an emergency that exempts law enforcement officers from the general requirement of a warrant.


This is not divorce court my friend! The law has changed for the country and this is the proof of why it has changed.

You of all people should know you can't conduct a SEARCH without a warrant or a signed consent form. That is why every state is a implied consent state and we all fall under the same case law.

Also in order to get a search warrant a crime has to already been COMMITTED and evidence of that crime will be found in that location IE YOUR BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

I work with cops that worked at different police departments all across the country and it is done the same way in every state.

 

[NormZauchin]

Is it possible to acquire an on-line law degree from following the Hernandez/Dennard threads on PatsFans.com?

 

[PATS68]

Is it possible to acquire an on-line law degree from following the Hernandez/Dennard threads on PatsFans.com?

It is all in good fun, I just have to correct him like I have to correct my three year old son on daily bases.

 

[supafly]

Is it possible to acquire an on-line law degree from following the Hernandez/Dennard threads on PatsFans.com?

Many here have experience in the field of law or criminal justice, so those are mainly the ones who have commented. It'd be the exact same if people experienced in the medical profession were commenting on an injury.

It certainly doesn't make anyone an expert, but it's always good to hear those who have studied the subjects and/or do it for a living, no?

 

[supafly]

That isn't neccessarily swerving. I see plenty of people straddle lane lines when they are sober. I see it all the time. He could have been just partially in the other lane of traffic.

We know certain facts, and are speculating on others, but one thing's for sure--Dennard is behind the eight ball in this case. That is for certain. Violating probation is a very bad thing, especially when there is jail time that has already been sentenced, and the judge has allowed you special provisions as it is.

Like I said before, most of the time the judge/prosecutor/supervisor of probation allows the legal process to play out prior to filing VOP (violation) charges against any defendant. They do a bit of a background search on the "new" case against the probationer and find out just how strong the evidence is prior to filing formal violation charges.

If the case was 1/2 as shoddy as some are making it they'd likely have allowed Dennard the luxury of being proven innocent/guilty first instead of immediately running and filing charges for a court hearing 3 weeks after his violation. To me that speaks volumes about the potential of the case that they have, but again--we're just bouncing ideas off of each other.

We may get lucky and find the judge to be in a good mood and simply throw in some additional smaller punsihment(s) or stipulations for Dennard, but it isn't necessarily looking too good at the moment based on the immediate filing of the violation charges (IMO).

You may feel differently of course. We can only hope that it all works out.

 

[supafly]

You are actually making a lot of assumptions based on the information.

First, the police report states:



That isn't neccessarily swerving. I see plenty of people straddle lane lines when they are sober. I see it all the time. He could have been just partially in the other lane of traffic.

Whether you define "swerving" as straddling the center line or not probably isn't as important as the fact that the police officers had sufficient probable cause to pull the vehicle over.

Getting the original stop thrown out is Dennard's best bet, wouldn't you think? The main point of contention for the defense will be starting at the original traffic stop, so the only point of whether or not he was swerving or straddling the center line is whether or not he committed an act that allowed the police to investigate the crime further.

Second, they do not say whether he passed or failed the field sobriety test. The report states:



He could have passed the field sobriety test, but still have been brought into the police department just because he smelled like alcohol and showed signs of impairment.

Well again, the term "probable cause" or "sufficient/reasonable suspicion" is very important here in the fact that they need one thing to happen to allow them to look into things further.

They seem to have had that "reasonable suspicion" one way or another, and if 2 officers will lie on the stand and claim that Dennard failed the sobriety test when he in fact actually passed it--that's a shame, but it does happen.

That's why we can only hope that there's video evidence in this case that proves Dennard's innocence. This way there is actual PROOF that he may be innocent, and obviously--we all hope that he is.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Whether you define "swerving" as straddling the center line or not probably isn't as important as the fact that the police officers had sufficient probable cause to pull the vehicle over.

Getting the original stop thrown out is Dennard's best bet, wouldn't you think? The main point of contention for the defense will be starting at the original traffic stop, so the only point of whether or not he was swerving or straddling the center line is whether or not he committed an act that allowed the police to investigate the crime further.




Well again, the term "probable cause" or "sufficient/reasonable suspicion" is very important here in the fact that they need one thing to happen to allow them to look into things further.

They seem to have had that "reasonable suspicion" one way or another, and if 2 officers will lie on the stand and claim that Dennard failed the sobriety test when he in fact actually passed it--that's a shame, but it does happen.

That's why we can only hope that there's video evidence in this case that proves Dennard's innocence. This way there is actual PROOF that he may be innocent, and obviously--we all hope that he is.

I don't doubt the correctness of this being the rule, however, I keep a healthy dose of skepticism on it being the reality that evening.
In my mind the manufacturing of probable cause does in fact occur. For traffic stops I'd bet my paycheck that 'I observed a car swerving in their lane' as one of the most abused 'probable cause' (another one, though maybe outdated, was 'I smelled marijuana'). Does it happen enough for it to be widespread? Probably not. Yet ANYTHING that is left up to a human being as their own 'judgment call' will almost certainly be abused by some. It's just the nature of the human condition when given absolute power.......

Interesting read: Look up police union contract negotiations with cities. Look up police stops of the city leaders on the opposite side of the negotiations (during a prolonged, contentious negotiation). Look up activities by police during that time period beyond just traffic stops. Does it seem like abuse of power by the police is an aberration?

 

[supafly]

I don't doubt the correctness of this being the rule, however, I keep a healthy dose of skepticism on it being the reality that evening.
In my mind the manufacturing of probable cause does in fact occur. For traffic stops I'd bet my paycheck that 'I observed a car swerving in their lane' as one of the most abused 'probable cause' (another one, though maybe outdated, was 'I smelled marijuana'). Does it happen enough for it to be widespread? Probably not. Yet ANYTHING that is left up to a human being as their own 'judgment call' will almost certainly be abused by some. It's just the nature of the human condition when given absolute power.......

Interesting read: Look up police union contract negotiations with cities. Look up police stops of the city leaders on the opposite side of the negotiations (during a prolonged, contentious negotiation). Look up activities by police during that time period beyond just traffic stops. Does it seem like abuse of power by the police is an aberration?

I think that you make a great point regarding potential abuse of police power, and in many instances they will indeed make up their sufficient probable cause to initiate a traffic stop.

After all, many investigations of crime start at the level of a routine traffic stop where a broken tail light, failure to use a turn signal etc has happened. That often leads to discovery of drugs, an impaired driver with the potential for DUI, an outstanding warrant, weapons in the car, etc...

That's also why I am hoping for Dennard's sake that there is indeed video evidence available to hopefully prove his innocence. In the meantime, one must be extra cautious when on probation, especially if they were in an altercation with one of the local police force's officers at an earlier point in time

There is a very strong bias that can occur in a situation like this, and it does happen everyday (not claiming that ALL or even many cops are this way, b/c they aren't). You don't mess with one of the boys in blue on that kind of level without an expected retaliation if you are continuing to put yourself in the target zone of their power. Whether Dennard only had one drink etc, he probably shouldn't even be driving late at night in Lincoln, Nebraska anymore.