OT: CBS Announcer Tony Romo Arrested

[Shane]

Woman cops are a detriment to society.

And never do field sobriety tests.

This is gonna get tossed.

I have had many refuse field sobriety…. Don’t matter the blood and breath tell all. Not that it apparently matter in Wisconsin with such petty repercussions. The sobriety tests are just a way to develop PC to do the blood test if you refuse PC is automatic.

 

[602 Native]

I have had many refuse field sobriety…. Don’t matter the blood and breath tell all. Not that it apparently matter in Wisconsin with such petty repercussions. The sobriety tests are just a way to develop PC to do the blood test if you refuse PC is automatic.

No doubt about the blood breath is also sketchy. Field is trash and in this case she had very little probable cause to instigate arrest which she did.

 

[Adrian]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Adrian]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Adrian]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[MadCardDisease]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

OMG! Just brutal! LOL

 

[Adrian]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[some dumb guy]

Woman cops are a detriment to society.

And never do field sobriety tests.

This is gonna get tossed.

WTH, is this the '30s?
And I was kind of surprised Shane didn't defend his sisters in law enforcement. And then epiphany...Shane also didn't respond to the AI generated picture of him as "Taylor Swift"...........Shane is working undercover at the Chicken Ranch Brothel......well, hopefully undercover. I suppose there are other opportunities....LOL

 

[Sandan]

I have had many refuse field sobriety…. Don’t matter the blood and breath tell all. Not that it apparently matter in Wisconsin with such petty repercussions. The sobriety tests are just a way to develop PC to do the blood test if you refuse PC is automatic.

Shane you know I think DUI penalties are for too lenient in the US but FST are unacceptable in the modern world for several reasons.

They are subjective
They assume the officer (and dept) is honest and professional, most are but many are not

I would never agree to a FST, I have no problem with a breath test. If the officers don't carry handheld units one has to ask why and the answer is it is an intimidation ploy. Take or we have to take you into the jail

Mobile unit for PC were standard equipment in the UK went I left in 1985 ( 40 years ago), in 2026 there is no excuse not to have one.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

That’s messed up.

 

[gimpy]

Shane you know I think DUI penalties are for too lenient in the US but FST are unacceptable in the modern world for several reasons.

They are subjective
They assume the officer (and dept) is honest and professional, most are but many are not

I would never agree to a FST, I have no problem with a breath test. If the officers don't carry handheld units one has to ask why and the answer is it is an intimidation ploy. Take or we have to take you into the jail

Mobile unit for PC were standard equipment in the UK went I left in 1985 ( 40 years ago), in 2026 there is no excuse not to have one.

Well, Sandan. I don't know what your background is, law enforcement? Attorney? Or? I also don't know much about how the system works in the UK .

As for the part where they are subjective. I guess you can say they are. But for me, unless something the officer says or does to the contrary, I would believe the officer everytime over the civilian person. I would assume most modern day officers are trained, at least to some degree, in looking for DUI's and recognizing and giving a person the fst's. If you ask Shane, I think he would probably say there are a few more reasons to giving the fst's? Such as driving behavior, speaking, look and smell. Of course I could be wrong.

I don't understand how a handheld breath test would be considered an "intimidation plot"? Especially if it shows that he has little or no alcohol in his system.

My .02 only.

 

[oaken1]

Well, Sandan. I don't know what your background is, law enforcement? Attorney? Or? I also don't know much about how the system works in the UK .

As for the part where they are subjective. I guess you can say they are. But for me, unless something the officer says or does to the contrary, I would believe the officer everytime over the civilian person. I would assume most modern day officers are trained, at least to some degree, in looking for DUI's and recognizing and giving a person the fst's. If you ask Shane, I think he would probably say there are a few more reasons to giving the fst's? Such as driving behavior, speaking, look and smell. Of course I could be wrong.

I don't understand how a handheld breath test would be considered an "intimidation plot"? Especially if it shows that he has little or no alcohol in his system.

My .02 only.

there is no way in hell I would submit to a field sobriety test...take me in, lets do a blood test..or get a breathalyzer out here whatever...but no way on the FST.
I dont drink. But I cant pass one of those on my best day...between broken back, worn out knees, and RRMS... no way...they would drag my arse straight to jail certain I was drunk, lol.

I did have a cop buddy that let me in on a secret though... a big part of that FST is not to determine if a guy is impaired...but to get them to admit it.
he says they keep getting more and more rediculous...and at some point a lot of subjects will say something to the effect of, "Holy crap really?? Damn, no way...I cant do that when Im sober!"

 

[Shane]

there is no way in hell I would submit to a field sobriety test...take me in, lets do a blood test..or get a breathalyzer out here whatever...but no way on the FST.
I dont drink. But I cant pass one of those on my best day...between broken back, worn out knees, and RRMS... no way...they would drag my arse straight to jail certain I was drunk, lol.

I did have a cop buddy that let me in on a secret though... a big part of that FST is not to determine if a guy is impaired...but to get them to admit it.
he says they keep getting more and more rediculous...and at some point a lot of subjects will say something to the effect of, "Holy crap really?? Damn, no way...I cant do that when Im sober!"

Conducting FST’s and doing them properly takes a lot of practice. I see more people over the years getting off from cops screwing up the FST‘s more than anything. That’s generally where the defense lawyer will attack. One mistake or missed step and then the Lawyer can have the results after the fact thrown out such as blood of breath. Obviously there are more signs that point toward impairment, like the smell of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot and watery, eyes, slurred, speech, etc..

Once you decline, the FST’s PC is automatic and you’re automatically booked and either blood or Breath is done there’s nothing for the Lawyer to attack that the cop could’ve screwed up to get you to that point.

I’ve had countless people over the years that voluntarily do the FST’s and passed them with flying colors and are free to go. Even with signs of impairment.

 

[602 Native]

WTH, is this the '30s?
And I was kind of surprised Shane didn't defend his sisters in law enforcement. And then epiphany...Shane also didn't respond to the AI generated picture of him as "Taylor Swift"...........Shane is working undercover at the Chicken Ranch Brothel......well, hopefully undercover. I suppose there are other opportunities....LOL

As someone who has family and friends that are LOEs you would not believe the stories they tell about female officers.

Shane for sure knows if he’s n experienced officer but might not say here.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

 

[some dumb guy]

As someone who has family and friends that are LOEs you would not believe the stories they tell about female officers.

Shane for sure knows if he’s n experienced officer but might not say here.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

I'm just guessing you meant LEO's..Law Enforcement Officers
LOE's...Lots Of Estrogen?

 

[oaken1]

Conducting FST’s and doing them properly takes a lot of practice. I see more people over the years getting off from cops screwing up the FST‘s more than anything. That’s generally where the defense lawyer will attack. One mistake or missed step and then the Lawyer can have the results after the fact thrown out such as blood of breath. Obviously there are more signs that point toward impairment, like the smell of an alcoholic beverage, bloodshot and watery, eyes, slurred, speech, etc..

Once you decline, the FST’s PC is automatic and you’re automatically booked and either blood or Breath is done there’s nothing for the Lawyer to attack that the cop could’ve screwed up to get you to that point.

I’ve had countless people over the years that voluntarily do the FST’s and passed them with flying colors and are free to go. Even with signs of impairment.

yeah I did it once when I was a kid..dont get pulled over too often, lol...especially for DUI..
but with my health issues now, there is no way I could pass one.
stand on one foot?? Yer forkin jokin....right??

 

[gimpy]

yeah I did it once when I was a kid..dont get pulled over too often, lol...especially for DUI..
but with my health issues now, there is no way I could pass one.
stand on one foot?? Yer forkin jokin....right??

Well, oaken1, I don't think police pull you over and ask you to do fst's just for the heck of it. Normally, there are other driving conditions that you are stopped for, i.e., speeding, weaving, slow driving, accident, plus many more.
Then, there is the encounter with the officer, the smell of liquor on your breath, slurred speech, disheveled appearance, balance.

And probably more things than I am missing. So, I would venture to guess, that when you are asked to do the roadside fst's, that the officer is probably real close to already arresting you whether you do them or not. Maybe Shane can confirm or deny that?
Once again, my 2 cents.

 

[BooksOrangePlanet]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media