Skip to main content

13 replies

DUI hearing for Tuscumbia police chief postponed

Replies sorted oldest to newest

SherrySherryMember
This is just a case of the good ole' boy system we have in place in and around this area.
What is a better topic is whether he is going to lose his job,after all I think you still need a drivers liense to drive and his job does require travel.Or is this going to be one of those cases, where he will not be treated the same as you or I? As for me I've been charged with this crime and I know the punishment,so I'll be watching carefully to see if all men and women are created and treated equally..
S SHELDIVRPost Master
If Tony Logan was arrested while operating a motor vehicle while under the influence and subsequently failed sobriety protocol, he should be facing the same penalties any private citizen would encounter; however, he is innocent until proven guilty, entitled to the same presumption of innocence, legal representation and litigation as any private citizen. Generally, an employee, even a full blown alcoholic is entitled seek professional help since alcoholism is considered a disease.

If the Chief receives due process and is found guilty, he should be held to the same standards as the general public, BUT he should be re-instated as Police Chief.
S SHELDIVRPost Master
I have never heard any of these issues addressed, but the early indication (TD) was that Tony was arrested in his own home...as if someone looked at the damage, assumed DUI and filed a complaint. If he was, in fact, in his own home when arrested is it not possible that the alcohol was ingested there and NOT while driving?? Prosecutor/board/grand jury might conclude there are "gaps" or "holes" in this charge and choose not to pursue it.
D DaffyduckMember
Can anyone of these eye witness prove that he was intoxicated? If not they might can be sued for giving false information, who knows maybe he was reaching for his cell phone and like so many people does while not paying any attention to what they are doing? I would not give the right to be tested, if the PD, had so much of a reason, why did they not call a judge and have a blood test ordered......
dark dreamerdark dreamerOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dark dreamer:
I'm assuming if he was arrested for DUI that he was given a breath test. Does anyone know for sure whether he was or was not?


IIRC, he refused the breath test.



What happens in that situation? Don't they give you a blood test then? Sorry, but i'm just curious. Surely they have some type of proof that he was indeed intoxicated.
L lawguy07Hall of Famer
§ 32-5-192. Implied consent; when tests administered; suspension of license or permit to drive, etc., for refusal to submit to test.


(a) Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given his consent, subject to the provisions of this division, to a chemical test or tests of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if lawfully arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The law enforcement agency by which such officer is employed shall designate which of the aforesaid tests shall be administered. Such person shall be told that his failure to submit to such a chemical test will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 90 days; provided if such person objects to a blood test, the law enforcement agency shall designate that one of the other aforesaid tests be administered.

(b) Any person who is dead, unconscious or who is otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of refusal, shall be deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided by subsection (a) of this section and the test or tests may be administered, subject to the provisions of this division.

(c) If a person under arrest refuses upon the request of a law enforcement officer to submit to a chemical test designated by the law enforcement agency as provided in subsection (a) of this section, none shall be given, but the Director of Public Safety, upon the receipt of a sworn report of the law enforcement officer that he had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person had been driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that the person had refused to submit to the test upon the request of the law enforcement officer, shall, on the first refusal, suspend his license or permit to drive, or the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this state given to a nonresident; or if the person is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the issuance of a license or permit, for a period of 90 days, subject to review as hereinafter provided. For a second or subsequent refusal of such test within a five-year period, the director, upon said receipt of a sworn report, shall suspend his license or permit to drive, or the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this state given to a nonresident for a period of one year; or if the person is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the issuance of a license or permit, for a period of one year subject to review as hereinafter provided. If such person is acquitted on the charge of driving a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, then in that event the Director of Public Safety may, in his discretion, reduce said period of suspension.....

The courts now seem to allow a general search warrant to be issued on a sworn probable cause affidavit by an officer. Search warrants supposedly allow for the seizure of bodily fluids, including blood. It happens fairly frequently although some of us on the defense side interpret the law to allow for forced blood tests only in event of accidents involving serious injury or death. So far the cops are beating us....(no offense, Sassy!)
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
§ 32-5-192. Implied consent; when tests administered; suspension of license or permit to drive, etc., for refusal to submit to test.


(a) Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given his consent, subject to the provisions of this division, to a chemical test or tests of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if lawfully arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The test or tests shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The law enforcement agency by which such officer is employed shall designate which of the aforesaid tests shall be administered. Such person shall be told that his failure to submit to such a chemical test will result in the suspension of his privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 90 days; provided if such person objects to a blood test, the law enforcement agency shall designate that one of the other aforesaid tests be administered.

(b) Any person who is dead, unconscious or who is otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of refusal, shall be deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided by subsection (a) of this section and the test or tests may be administered, subject to the provisions of this division.

(c) If a person under arrest refuses upon the request of a law enforcement officer to submit to a chemical test designated by the law enforcement agency as provided in subsection (a) of this section, none shall be given, but the Director of Public Safety, upon the receipt of a sworn report of the law enforcement officer that he had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person had been driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that the person had refused to submit to the test upon the request of the law enforcement officer, shall, on the first refusal, suspend his license or permit to drive, or the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this state given to a nonresident; or if the person is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the issuance of a license or permit, for a period of 90 days, subject to review as hereinafter provided. For a second or subsequent refusal of such test within a five-year period, the director, upon said receipt of a sworn report, shall suspend his license or permit to drive, or the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this state given to a nonresident for a period of one year; or if the person is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the director shall deny to the person the issuance of a license or permit, for a period of one year subject to review as hereinafter provided. If such person is acquitted on the charge of driving a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, then in that event the Director of Public Safety may, in his discretion, reduce said period of suspension.....

The courts now seem to allow a general search warrant to be issued on a sworn probable cause affidavit by an officer. Search warrants supposedly allow for the seizure of bodily fluids, including blood. It happens fairly frequently although some of us on the defense side interpret the law to allow for forced blood tests only in event of accidents involving serious injury or death. So far the cops are beating us....(no offense, Sassy!)


None taken Big Grin The judges are requiring strong probable cause, and circumstances where charges other than just DUI are likely. But those circumstances typically are present in most alcohol related crashes.

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×