RE To RTFM wrote on Jun 9, 2008 5:35 PM:
" What have you been smoking? So an officer can just pull me over for whatever and search my vehicle? Wrong Barnaby Jones! They could search if its pursuant to an apprehension. This was not the case according to the article. Had she refused to let them search her vehicle they would need a warrant as they would not have found the weed. Maybe you should read the article hero! "
You misunderstand wrote on Jun 9, 2008 7:18 AM:
" Because apparently the dream catcher was the reason for the stop.
My point is, that there are probably other things that happened at this incident that weren't included in the article. You're trying to find a reason to let this woman go without having all the information.
Maybe there was something "suspcious" about the person's driving, and the officer used the dream catcher as the cause for the stop, so he could find out more. There's nothing legally wrong with that. I'm not saying that's what happened, just suggesting the possibility that you and I don't know everything.
And yes, marijuana will dilate the pupils, but there are numerous other drugs that will cause them to constrict. Many of them are prescription drugs, like Oxycodone for example. Maybe the driver was smoking pot and also had a prescription for something else. Maybe the driver was smoking pot, and also abusing a prescription medication as well. Drug abusers will typically get their fix wherever they can find it, so it's not unbelieveable that a pot smoker would also buy second hand prescription drugs as well. And FYI, driving while on prescription medication can still be a DUI violation.
When the results of the blood test come back, they'll either let the woman go or not. Either way, the people on the road near her that morning were probably safer because she wasn't driving too. "
In Re to PD vs MD wrote on Jun 8, 2008 8:24 AM:
" If that is your logic about this then why is the story conflicting?? It said her pupils were constricted, now you say if you smoke pot they are dilated, which is it??? Let me guess, the tribune got the story all wrong. No mention of "smell of marijuana", "erratic driving" so why wasn't this info published if that was the REAL reason, not a "dream catcher" in the window........ "
It wasnt wrong. Cheap but not wrong. wrote on Jun 8, 2008 7:02 AM:
" The stop had nothing to do with the driver's ability to see out the back window. There was something hanging from the rearview mirror which obstructed the driver's view out the windshield. It's a pretty cheap way to get pulled over, but it's still technically a violation. Nice try though. "
To traffic stop was WRONG wrote on Jun 8, 2008 6:58 AM:
" I have to agree with you on that one. Harrassment was more like it in this case, just because they knew her. The article mentions no "erratic driving" or the "smell of marijuana in the vehicle", what, are these AFTER facts??? It's time people spoke up about these types of things happening in Monroe County. The press has given it to us and let's all use it to voice our opinions, that is the ONLY way to be heard....... "
The traffic stop was WRONG wrote on Jun 7, 2008 5:41 PM:
" Maybe the cop needs to learn the law.
If you have 2 side mirrors you don't even need to have any sight out the back window and a matter of fact some vehicles have no back windows
TPD has been playing these games for years, although the person is probably a bad risk to be driving they cannot fabricate laws to pull people over.
This goes back to the systematic problem with Police in Tomah, it's always been this way and probably always will, but if you happen to be related to the right person in Tomah and you get pulled over for a violation it can be easily swept under the rug
Any good attorney will get this dismissed "
RE PD vs MD wrote on Jun 6, 2008 12:10 PM:
" Your assumptions are WRONG....the only people I've had a beef with in Monroe County was over children, custody, divorce and THAT was enough!! Finally you got rid of Judge Abbott who SHOULD have retired years ago. I also know of some incidents that have been "swept" under the carpet because of who they were and their parents status in Tomah. I am however upset over the lack of empathy for people such as the stabbing outside of Diminsion's, the near drowning at the Holiday Inn, need I say more??? "
RE PD vs. MDs wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:46 AM:
" You don't need to be a doctor to be able to tell if someone is operating while under the influence of an intoxicant. The "pupil stuff" is a police officer's job. They're trained to be able to observe indications that you're committing a crime, which OWI is.
If you're facing the sun, your eyes can constrict, if you're smoking pot (which I assume you do) your eyes will dilate. It's the officer's job to differentiate between environmental factors and impairment by use of drugs/alcohol.
You don't know all the circumstances. Was the driving erratically? Did the inside of the vehicle smell like smoked pot? All kinds of other things you have no idea about.
The officer stopped her for a traffic violation, and the driver seemed impaired by something. He asked if he could search her car and she said OK. He searched and found the pot. He suspected the driver was under the influence of alcohol/drugs and then has every right to obtain whatever evidence (i.e. blood draw) is required to either prove that the crime was committed, or that the person was not on an intoxicant. This is not "new law" it's the way things have been done for decades, so the "precedent" is already set.
Obviously you have a problem with law enforcement, so you're going to argue with everything I've said, but I suspect that's because you've had several run-ins with the police, because you're probably a small time criminal and a drug user, but that's your problem not mine.
The officer did everything right. Get these people off the road and make it safer for the rest of us. "
PD vs MDs wrote on Jun 5, 2008 6:16 PM:
" So, basically they can have any reason to invade your personal space and do a 2 hour test on small pieces of dirt or what they think to be cannibis in your car. Then they can lie in court about anything too to justify their cause. The PD is NOT trained MD's so leave the pupil stuff to the people who's job it is. Pupil constriction was weak evidence as is the dream catcher. If you are facing the sunlight, what will your pupils do??? And if you are smoking cannibis, what will they do??? So basically they can pull anyone over and just because THEY think the "pupils" don't look normal to them, they get free reign to do as they want?? Is this a new law?? Are you trying to set precedence in this case?? If you get away with this then it will become "case law" and another right taken away as an individual!! Most of the PD I am sure only had a 6 week drug course. People can have irregular pupils from diseases and injuries. Granted she was dumb enough to have pot in the car but this all sounds like bs to me. Harrassment is more like it, a personal harrassment to this woman. The cops will lie and the DA will go along, neither are professional MD's so they do not have a CLUE about medical info to make that call and most people don't know their rights either or when the police are stepping over their bounds.
Example, death in Sparta. Autopsy/toxicologies do not take 6 months, the man died from injuries caused by the physical altercation or he died of "natural causes" ie: heart attack. The family should know this by now. What is wrong with this picture???? "
RE Mr. Logic wrote on Jun 5, 2008 11:06 AM:
" The article says that she had contricted pupils. There are dozens of other drugs, prescription and otherwise that are opiates/derivatives, that would contrict pupils. If she had taken one of these drugs, she would be guilty of OWI. She could have been on Codeine, Morphine, Hydrocodone, Methodone, Heroin, Opium, Oxycodone, or dozens of less common drugs.
But, we all know that someone who smokes pot wouldn't try another drug, right? Because pot doesn't have any negative effects. "
RE Thanks wrote on Jun 5, 2008 10:51 AM:
" You can be convicted of OWI if you're operating your vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or a controlled substance analog. The prohibited controlled substances are found on the Schedule I & Schedule II lists. I't s pretty extensive list, so you can check them out in your free time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_I_drugs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs "
Thanks for explaining.... wrote on Jun 4, 2008 8:28 PM:
" So if she had smoked the night before, would they have enough evidence to convict her the next day, or do they specifically test for the "delta-9" to convict for an OWI offense?? Or for all of the other chemicals that stay in your blood stream. Which would mean you couldn't drive for 2 weeks...does any other "drug" do this?? If so, if you are on prescription meds and they test you like this, you can get an OWI?? Lots' of people on pain meds drive....so now are they going to arrest 1/2 the county?? Just because you have a "dream catcher" on the mirror??? I guess she is lucky they found the pot outside of post or she would be facing federal charges. Not bright in either aspect. "
To RTFM wrote on Jun 4, 2008 4:12 PM:
" I think you may be watching the wrong cop shows. Law enforcement does not need a warrant to search your vehicle--your home or office, yes--but not your vehicle. The vehicle is moveable but, unless you work from and/or live in your car, your home or office are not. Therefore, any potential evidence in your vehicle is fair game and subject to immediate search. You probably shouldn't pass out free legal advise unless you know what you're talking about. "
RE Mr Logic wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:35 AM:
" No. There are 3 components in the body after the consumption of Cannabis. Two of the of the components are waste-by products (Carboxy and Hydroxy) the third is the "delta-9." The third component is the restricted controlled substance, it's what get you high. It leaves your blood stream and is gone within several hours. The waste by-products will stay in your fatty tissues and slowly released into your blood stream for weeks, depending on how saturated your fatty tissues are (aka: how often to you smoke...) "
Mr. Logic wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:53 PM:
" So, Sullivan did not show signs of intoxication, but they pressed charges based upon a blood test that would show cannabis use sometime in the last few days?
Cannabis stays in the system for a long-time, but the intoxication only last several hours. So, is is accurate to say that if I smoked weed 7 days ago, and got pulled over, I could potentially get a DUI? "
Oh my.... wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:09 PM:
" Oh my don't bring up measuring pupils with a pupilomenter, last time they did that in Sparta school, well, we all know what happened. "
Right on wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:05 PM:
" Thank you 9:01 poster....you are correct. Maybe the police need more medical training if they want to publish such details. Also, RTFM, that is how they make money!! Any one who has a record or is colored will be searched vs the "soccor mom" or the "business man". They will search for ANY evidence.... "
Thought you may like to know... wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:01 PM:
" The only "drug" that constricts pupils are narcotic analgesics, which are derivatives from the opiate family. With Cannabis, the pupils can be either dilated or normal. "Meth" and all other central nervous system stimulants will always dilate the pupils.
P.S. Sunlight, or any light for that matter, also constricts pupils too; that's why pupils need to measured with a pupilometer in a controlled environment. "
RTFM wrote on Jun 2, 2008 5:55 PM:
" Sounds like pretty weak probable cause to me. Pulled her over for a dream catcher in the window? You pulling over all the idiots with baby on board signs too? Here's a tip people NEVER give permission to search your vehicle whether you have anything to hide or not. It requires them to explain their probable cause to a Judge to get a warrant for that search. More often than not the police will come up empty on the search anyway. "
wrote on Jun 2, 2008 2:00 PM:
" I thought the pupils would be dialated, not constricted if she was on marijuana, sure this isn't another "meth" case?? "
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
