The DWI Arrest of the Wife of Allen West...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...=1490&ito=1490

Thoughts so far?

He did ask for ''special treatment''. Any other arrestee would have had CPS called to take the 3 month old Grandson. And West complaining at 3:00 a.m. that he was not allowed to see his wife in jail, or a Supervisor, is absurd. Nobody could. On radio this morning, West kept referring to his wife as having a P.H.D., as if her status confers rights that other citizens don't necessarily deserve, even as he insists he is calling out the Cops so others can avoid abusive treatment going forward. He says the PF Chang's receipt '' proves'' his wife was sober. No it doesn't. It may purport to show she did not consume alcohol there.. But her Lawyer (West made sure we understood his wife was having dinner with a Lawyer) may have ordered drinks, that his wife consumed. None of us know.

West is running for Governer, and it wouldn't surprise me to later learn that Abbott ''supporters'' set this DWI arrest up, to extricate West from the Race.

Hopefully the Body Cam and breathilyzer results will be released quickly. But if they are, West is getting special treatment. You and I would not be afforded the same.

I agree about West's complaint that his wife must immediately obtain an alcohol detecting device for her car. That should be for those adjudicated as guilty, not simply for those arrested, let alone not even charged yet.

Yea and rumor has it she wasn't drinking/ or dunk Hum ,,, This is gonna be very interesting

CT - I agree with You -

West has no right to any special treatment for - or against him/his wife.

If the alcohol blood test is within limits - his wife should be released
i agree with you about the stipulation she use an alcohol monitor with no judicial conviction

I am not a lawyer - but wonder what legal rationale for that action might be.



As a public figure - i disagree that releasing the Alcohol tests is special treatment - they should be released to the public after being made available to the accused and attorneys.


Well written, CT~!

If the alcohol blood test is within limits - his wife should be released.... Originally Posted by oeb11

A charge is merely an accusation.

Thoughts so far? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

All I know on the matter is that they'd left a restaurant and produced the receipt.. water only. The cop hauled her in and she passed the blood test... no alcohol. Now I wonder why the cop hauled her in, as she passed the field test, and the blow test... was it politically motivated? (Cops run the plates... Allen Wests name is going to come up)

It had the intended effect: The headline reads
"Republican Texas gubernatorial candidate Allen West's wife is arrested for 'driving while intoxicated with her young grandson'"

NOT

Republican Texas gubernatorial candidate Allen West's wife is arrested despite negative blood test and negative breathalyzer for 'driving while intoxicated with her young grandson'

Has a whole different spin with that little tidbit in it, doesn't it?

I venture to say that if this had been a Black Democrat, BLM would be screaming about Cops targeting Black politicians... and we'd be talking about how shitty the cops are..

Oh and $10 says the arresting officer was Black... they don't like people straying off the plantation.

Are those blood and breathalyzer tests reported negative ,TA????

She had blood drawn and a breathalyzer test?

Oh! Apparently no blood drawn, but it sounds like a portable breathalyzer.

I'm wondering if the vehicle registration is in Mr. West's name.

Tran .... you asked. Try it.

My information is that Allen West said she passed the breathilyzer test, but that is opinion only. He said himself the results are up to two weeks from getting released. She may have been arrested based on a field test. We don't know yet.

Also, for the record, the receipt shows only Lemonade. The water is ''complimentary'', thus not on the receipt.

And yes, the arresting Officer is a black woman.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...=1490&ito=1490

Thoughts so far?

He did ask for ''special treatment''. Any other arrestee would have had CPS called to take the 3 month old Grandson. And West complaining at 3:00 a.m. that he was not allowed to see his wife in jail, or a Supervisor, is absurd. Nobody could. On radio this morning, West kept referring to his wife as having a P.H.D., as if her status confers rights that other citizens don't necessarily deserve, even as he insists he is calling out the Cops so others can avoid abusive treatment going forward. He says the PF Chang's receipt '' proves'' his wife was sober. No it doesn't. It may purport to show she did not consume alcohol there.. But her Lawyer (West made sure we understood his wife was having dinner with a Lawyer) may have ordered drinks, that his wife consumed. None of us know.

West is running for Governer, and it wouldn't surprise me to later learn that Abbott ''supporters'' set this DWI arrest up, to extricate West from the Race.

Hopefully the Body Cam and breathilyzer results will be released quickly. But if they are, West is getting special treatment. You and I would not be afforded the same.

I agree about West's complaint that his wife must immediately obtain an alcohol detecting device for her car. That should be for those adjudicated as guilty, not simply for those arrested, let alone not even charged yet. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/v...2-fcb5a24c0278


Yes, if passed, the infrastructure bill would eventually mandate alcohol monitoring systems in cars

The Verify team looked into social media claims that the massive 2,700 page bill includes a section mandating alcohol monitoring devices in new cars. This is true.
THE QUESTION


Does the infrastructure bill mandate that new cars include alcohol monitoring systems, as claimed online?

THE SOURCES

• Text of the Infrastructure Bill, H.R. 3684
• Xan Fishman, Director of Energy Policy and Carbon Management at Bipartisan Policy Center
• Stephanie Manning, Chief Government Affairs Officer for Mothers Against Drunk Driving

THE ANSWER


Yes. The bill mandates that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must create rules mandating that alcohol monitoring systems be required for all new cars. However, the text in the bill does not support the use of breathalyzers.


The policy is outlined in section 24220, titled "Advanced Impaired Driving Technology," starting on page 1,066.

The policy dictates that within three years, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, should do the following (bolded by WUSA9): "issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard... that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology."

According to the bill, this technology should do the following:

• "Passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;"
• "Passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected."
• Or a combination of the two.

The police officer was overly cautious because if there was any doubt about her being over the limit, there was no way she could allow West to drive off with that young child in the car.

We will see.

You can be ARRESTED for failing a DUI field test (which is subjective), but you can't be CHARGED unless you flunk the breathalyzer test. If she blew less than a 0.8%, she should have been released immediately since the result exonerated her.

My information is that Allen West said she passed the breathilyzer test, but that is opinion only. He said himself the results are up to two weeks from getting released. She may have been arrested based on a field test. We don't know yet.

Also, for the record, the receipt shows only Lemonade. The water is ''complimentary'', thus not on the receipt.

And yes, the arresting Officer is a black woman. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

There are different types of breathalyzer tests ... portable on the street or a large unit back at a station facility ...

.. the field sobriety test if done correctly and reported correctly presents probable cause. The officer has to have had training and certification for the field sobriety test to be of value. FYI: They also are required to have training on breathalyzer equipment used on the alleged violator.

Before all that comes into play .... there has to be a reason to make the traffic stop in the first place. A common mistake often made is the officer fails to issue a citation on the traffic violation that created the justification for the stop. On the other side ... a common mistake is for the driver to run down and pay the citation on a guilty plea or "no contest" if he or she received a citation. That's probable cause to make the stop in the first place and they just admitted to the facts (or didn't contest them) that justified the stop.

Tran it doesn't matter the race of the officer.

Race and skin color are the Only Thing that matters to Racist DPST marxists!

You can be ARRESTED for failing a DUI field test (which is subjective), but you can't be CHARGED unless you flunk the breathalyzer test. If she blew less than a 0.8%, she should have been released immediately since the result exonerated her. Originally Posted by lustylad

I believe you should revisit your sources.

An issue that is often overlooked in discussions is the language of the statute. The discussion is anecdotal.

Sec. 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

(b) Except as provided by Subsections (c) and (d) and Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, with a minimum term of confinement of 72 hours.

(c) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that at the time of the offense the person operating the motor vehicle had an open container of alcohol in the person's immediate possession, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor, with a minimum term of confinement of six days.

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that an analysis of a specimen of the person's blood, breath, or urine showed an alcohol concentration level of 0.15 or more at the time the analysis was performed, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor.


Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 14.55, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 960 (H.B. 1199), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2011.




Sec. 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WITH CHILD PASSENGER. (a) A person commits an offense if:

(1) the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; and

(2) the vehicle being operated by the person is occupied by a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.


Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 787, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

"Intoxicated" means:

(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or

(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

With respect to the "breathalyzer" whether one takes it or not or "passes" it or not is not a determination of the charge. They can still be prosecuted, because if they refuse to take it the prosecution can still rely on (A).

LL- Thank You.

It will be interesting to see what sorts out of this matter.