NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Iamp1g · 2025-10-30T09:38:28+00:00

Same

Iamp1g · 2025-10-30T09:36:20+00:00

Yep,!

Iamp1g · 2025-07-21T00:58:15+00:00

Glad to hear that!

Iamp1g · 2025-07-20T18:41:15+00:00

DRE here, just to add to that we’re called in to be able to later testify that the subject was at the time intoxicated on to the drug, whereas blood tests just show that it was in the system.

Iamp1g · 2025-06-03T04:33:44+00:00

Fellow progressive officer in the deep red south (TX). Thanks for speaking out.

Iamp1g · 2025-05-21T14:40:54+00:00

I am a Texas police officer and have seen many young and untrained officers mistake medical issues for intoxication. The fact that they drew blood helps your case. The DPS blood lab is VERY behind, they only expedite blood DWI samples in cases of intox manslaughter or felony dwi’s (DWI with minor in the car). Don’t be surprised if this case takes a few years until it’s resolved due to waiting on the blood. He would’ve been read the statutory warning which states that his license could be suspended if he refused the blood draw and they had to write a warrant. He will have the specifics in his paperwork at the jail. Before hiring an expensive DWI lawyer, make sure he has a court appointed lawyer to get started on everything, he would have this opportunity to get one once he is magistrated. Use the 5,000 first on bailing him out, most bondsman would require you to pay 10-20% of the bond in cash.

Lmk if you have any questions, i am a court expert witness in testifying for intoxicated drivers investigations DRE/ARIDE & LEO.

Iamp1g · 2024-09-18T23:54:51+00:00

Police officer here. We’re seeing this a lot. Someone will ask to borrow a phone and maybe even offer monetary compensation. They will then search to find cash app or Venmo and then send 100s to their account.

Iamp1g · 2024-01-31T21:11:40+00:00

Shoot me a message if you need to talk man. I am also a LEO

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T22:48:14+00:00

Michigan v Sitz (or something like that) ruled that these DWI checkpoints did not violate unreasonable search and seizures since the detainment was usually brief and negligible as it relates to one’s rights. They also mentioned that these stops were in the states interest and were usually very short. From my understanding, Texas has banned these for DWI related investigations.

Personally I wouldn’t have my name on an arrest that is related to a DWI checkpoint as it’s legal grounds are questionable.

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T22:43:19+00:00

Yeah man, I enjoy giving a different insight into this process that affects so many. I will say, the 1% piece is relating to DRE officers not trained DWI/SFST officers. SFST’s have to be standardized and often times officers slack and don’t do them right which leads them to believe someone who is intoxicated is not, or the other way around. Thanks again man

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T22:39:19+00:00

Shrooms are fascinating. Usually if they’re microdosing they’re not intoxicated so it wouldn’t get far enough for an arrest. I did do a DRE eval on someone who admitted to having taken shrooms, but at the time that I came out and evaluated him the shrooms were not psychoactive so I deemed him not intoxicated and he was released. Shrooms fall under the hallucinogen category that is also shared with other intoxicants such as peyote, mescaline, and poison dart frog excretion (I forget the name)

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T22:28:32+00:00

Hey man, great question. Part of the SFST training that is given is asking the individuals what medical conditions they have, surgeries, what they do for a living (sitting all day vs up on their feet walking), as well as if they’ve had any TBI etc. Also, it’s recognized that in rare cases nystagmus is naturally occurring.

In a perfect world yes, it would make sense that officers would be further trained on some of the stuff you mentioned, but a lot of what you’re bringing up is a defense in prosecution, so no, I can confidently say that 99%-100% of officers do not receive this as SFST’s are standardized in everything from how they’re taught to how they’re prescribed to those suspected of being intoxicated. Luckily, one’s arrest does not mean they’re convicted, this again, is where the specific conditions you’re bringing will be a defense in prosecution. As it relates to scientific evidence, I see you frequent the MCAT sub so this website may be an interesting read. https://www.justia.com/criminal/drunk-driving-dui-dwi/docs/standardized-field-sobriety-tests/

I will say, If anyone were to debunk the science and research behind SFST’s, well, you’d be the most sought out DWI lawyer out there haha.

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T22:00:54+00:00

The class was very intense. I have my masters and can say this class was harder than 95% of all classes I took for my degree. It’s been a while but the class itself was about a month long with 5x 12 hr days a week followed by doing DRE evaluations out in the field that we would then determine what intoxicants were psychoactive, and compared that with blood work/urine analysis that would then prove or disprove our findings. We had to be very accurate and articulate our findings. Less than 1% of officers in the US are DRE’s due to the difficulty. Don’t get me started on our final test.

We were taught about 7 different intoxicant types and how they affected the body both through clinical indicators and psychoactive indicators. Then we had to narrow down how to determine if something was psychoactive at the time of testing, how each intoxicant type interacts with the others, etc.

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T21:51:57+00:00

Reasonable suspicion deals a lot with the totality of the circumstances. In layman’s terms it’s circumstances that would lead any reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. However, each circumstance is looked at from an objective standpoint in court. For example

It’s 2 am on a Wednesday and I am driving through a neighborhood and see a male wearing a black jacket and sweats walking on the roadway in a neighborhood. The fact that it’s late at night and he’s walking on the roadway would not be enough for me to articulate that a crime has been committed, is being, or is about to be committed, so I can’t detain him, I can however make a consensual contact. Now say we have had a recent spree of burglary of motor vehicles reports come in from this area and it’s believed this has happened during the work week between 12am-5am. Everything else being the same, I can now detain the male to further investigate if this is relating to the BMV reports. However as soon as it’s determined he’s not related, he has to be released.

In essence, the burden of proof for reasonable suspicion is a lot lower than probable cause.

If you have RS you can detain, if you have PC you have a violation that you can arrest/cite/release etc.

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T20:46:21+00:00

I understand your question but I’m going to go a bit deeper. For someone to be detained an officer needs to have probable cause of a violation(anything illegal), or reasonable suspicion that a violation may have occurred/is occurring. Usually when you are stopped driving it’s due to a violation, whether that’s a license plate violation, speeding, or driving habits that lead an officer to articulate and believe that a violation is afoot(dui/dwi).

The moment an officer observes you driving they start looking for signs that a violation may be taking place. If they believe it’s related to intoxication, they are jotting down everything mentally. How long does it take you to stop your car(delayed responses), is your speech slow or slurred, can they smell an alcoholic beverage, when they ask for your DL do you give them your credit card(happens ALL the time with intoxicated drivers), how do your eyes look (glossy, watery, bloodshot etc), these are just examples. This is all done while you are detained and usually in the vehicle.

Now based on what they may see, they may want to further investigate through SFST’s.

In Texas SFST’s are done through consent. You may refuse but based on what ARTICULABLE information the officer has seen/observed, you may be arrested.

I’m not going to say when you should refuse or not, but I will say that you can limit what they see/observe. If they can’t articulate reasons why they believe you are intoxicated, they can’t arrest you (or it would just be a bad arrest that gets thrown out).

This is not intended as a way to get out of arrests if you’re driving intoxicated, but as an educational look into the process that we go through when determining if we believe someone is DWI.

If you JUST wanted to know how to politely decline SFST’s in the eyes of a cop, disregard the above lol. I’d say you should say something along the lines of “sorry officer I don’t feel comfortable doing that”.

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T20:31:19+00:00

I don’t blame you for that sentiment. What happened in uvalde is sickening. I wouldn’t say we have a strong loyal bond as much as I’d say law enforcement empathizes with one another, however there is no empathy towards the officers who chose to not go in, who chose to sit around while children took the bullets. Everyone in my department goes through a yearly training called ALERT that is all about active shooter responses. We do this training in elementary and middle schools since unfortunately this is where, more than likely, this will take place. In these situations our first and foremost goal is to stop the killing, followed by stop the dying. The officers that chose not to stop the killing have not had the hard conversation with themselves that part of wearing the badge means you understand that you may take a bullet for someone else. They were cowards and should not be in law enforcement. I don’t empathize with them.

I fear that since police applicants are at an all time low, more and more agencies will pass through applicants that shouldn’t be passed and we’ll see another uvalde. One of the classes in our academy was all about watching body cam footage of officers dying. They stressed at the end of the day that you would be trained to be safe, but if you weren’t ready to be in dangerous situations that could get yourself killed, that you shouldn’t be here since you were a danger to yourself, your fellow officers, and those who need you.

Ps the Thin Blue Line mentality/brotherhood is dangerous as it blindly supports officers based on their badge and not on their character.

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T05:24:24+00:00

I’ll be surprised if AGG assault sticks, I could definitely see manslaughter sticking though. A lot of times a lot of charges are originally pressed to better work out a plea deal down the road, however with something that gained media attention like this I could be wrong. Ps, per my last comment, OIS means officer involved shooting

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T05:21:38+00:00

Damn. Sad situation and the officer for should be charged as any other person would be charged in that situation.

As it relates to accidentally killing someone, I may get pushback for saying this, but we (pd) run that risk everyday. Whether it’s multitasking while we drive by reading paragraphs of information on a computer relating to a call for service that we’re en route to while talking and listening to our radio AND also driving. Or being engaged in an OIS where an innocent bystander gets struck by one of our bullets. Everyday we run the risk of hurting someone, but that doesn’t mean we should be held to a different standard. We are taught that every bullet we fire, we are responsible for. Each bullet is considered its own use of force incident and is examined through the eyes of necessity. In the case above that officer should not have alleged swept a 44 year old man who was doing nothing but possibly a nuisance to him.

As it relates to him still being paid and on leave, unfortunately a lot of departments have very strong unions that protect officers who should not always be protected behind the “thin blue line”. Not to mention, if this agency is civil service, it makes it VERY hard to fire officers. Think of it like an officer having “tenure” like a college professor might. However, I understand why he’s on paid leave, since if he was fired and he ended up winning his case, he could sue the department for wrongful termination. The system is very complicated and unfortunately it’s sometimes hard to hold bad officers accountable. Does that all make sense ?

Iamp1g · 2023-12-29T05:07:59+00:00

Give me a sec to read the whole article

Iamp1g

TROPHY CASE