• Got the Contributing Memberships stuff finally worked out and made up a thread as a sort of "How-To" to help people figure out how to participate. So if you need help figuring it out, here's the thread you need to take a look at -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3581 Thank you, everyone! Rich Z.

obstucting justice

ClockworkC5

ClockworkC5

droog
a friend (really) got arrested for dui. another friend went to go get his car so it wouldnt be towed. friend #2 tells friend #1 not to blow. the cop then arrestes friend #2 telling him he was being charged with obstructing justice. so they both go to jail. after going to the station friend #2 is given a written arrest and told to leave. now he has to go to court. what could he be facing? should he bother with a lawyer? thanks
 
Friend number 2 should not have solicted legal advice to friend number 1 while the Law Enforcement Officer was in the performance of his duties. Obviously, friend number 2 pixxed off the LEO. First degree misdemeanor, punishible by fine of $1000.00 and/or 1 year in jail. And, yes, I would want a lawyer.
 
85vette said:
Friend number 2 should not have solicted legal advice to friend number 1 while the Law Enforcement Officer was in the performance of his duties. Obviously, friend number 2 pixxed off the LEO. First degree misdemeanor, punishible by fine of $1000.00 and/or 1 year in jail. And, yes, I would want a lawyer.
Click to expand...

He's correct, but I'd like to add this.

The LEO is likely going to have to show friend 2 did more than exercise his right to free speech and expression to make the charge stick (depending of course on the Bubba scale of the jurisdiction).

Sounds like the LEO got his feelings hurt, lost his composure, and likely made a bad case.

If his coments were not inciting, thuus creating a hazard to the officer, he didn't physically interfere, I believe he'll have a relatively tough time making it stick.

I've had this happen in the past.
I ignored it, maybe told the bystanders to stay out of it, but usually just ignored it, and wen't on with my investigation.

Really. How much is idiot #2 really helping idiot #1?

If idiot #1 doesn't blow, he loses his license.

In days past, a state DHSMV administrative hearing would be held prior to the case ever making it to the court.
If the officer didn't show up, Idiot#1 usually got a temp license right on the spot!
Attorneys used to play these games all the time.

Those days are over.:NoNo:

Now, if the LEO fails to appear, Idiot #1 still has his DL suspended, and the court (or the attorney-I don't recall which at present) may/will have a hearing to determine if the officer should be held in contemt (good luck getting a judge to do that:rolleyes:).

Of course, without the BAC, the state has to actually work a proving the driver was impaired by some substance.
They have less evidence to work with. About all they have are the LEO's observations back up (we hope) by the dash cam and the officers experience.
So it does limit the evidence the state can produce in court.

That said, if idiot #1's driving was bad enough to alert the LEO in the first place, his FST was poor enough to give the LEO PC to arrest him, thus resulting in the need to call idiot #2 to come get his car, then they (LEO/State) probably have enough without the BAC to make the charge stick:lmao:

Even with a reduction, it'll still end up as a reckless with additional charges tacked on:yesnod:

It's gonna get real pricey for Idiot #1 at some point very soon;)

As they say.

you can beat the rap (sometimes) but you can't beat the ride!:D
 
Heck, I've seen LOTS of people driving whom I thought were drunk that were only just on their cell phone. This seems to be VERY common lately. Used to be someone weaving on the road was definitely drunk, but now, depending on the time of day, is normally only someone DWDOC (driving while distracted on cellphone)...
 
Sounds to me like friend # 2 did more than offer advice. I've had some folks that just wouldn't stay out of my investigation that got a free ride in my patrol car. And most of the time alcohol was involved. It's a pretty broad law though, they don't have to be physically interfering to meet the criteria.

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

I'm guessing some other words were said that led to the arrest. We can only speculate.
 
85vette said:
Sounds to me like friend # 2 did more than offer advice. I've had some folks that just wouldn't stay out of my investigation that got a free ride in my patrol car. And most of the time alcohol was involved. It's a pretty broad law though, they don't have to be physically interfering to meet the criteria.

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

I'm guessing some other words were said that led to the arrest. We can only speculate.
Click to expand...

I've used this statute several times over a LE career and even a few time recently in my process service duties:yesnod:
My response was based strictly on the information the OP provided.
My guess is you're probably correct:D.
Simply stating "don't blow" or "don't take the test" one time, would never be enough to support this charge in court. While you can't obstruct (which as 85 says, means you can't keep butting in!), you can't be denied "reasonable" freedom of speech either.

There are so many "if's" and "buts" in this that there's no way to know what's what without having been there at the moment it occured.

Thus the reference to "Idiot#1 and Idiot #1":lmao::rofl1:

jcb_njb said:
Does DWDOC = DWHUA? (Driving With Head Up Ass)
Click to expand...

Totally different "charges":D
DWHUA is much more agregious:lmao:

ClockworkC5 said:
thanks for everyones input. i knew this was the right place to ask
Click to expand...

Glad we could help. Lot of good folks here with a lot of background. 85Vette is a wealth of knowledge on various LE subjects as are a few others here:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Tell your frined to "lawyer up" or "suck it up", one or the other.
Either way, it's gonna be a hell of an expensive ride:yesnod:
 
85vette said:
Sounds to me like friend # 2 did more than offer advice. I've had some folks that just wouldn't stay out of my investigation that got a free ride in my patrol car. And most of the time alcohol was involved. It's a pretty broad law though, they don't have to be physically interfering to meet the criteria.
Click to expand...

My bet is that it was more than a quick second of advice. Usually in this day and age you get a lot mor epeople willing to buck up to the police and get their azzes in a ringer for it with a free ride to the gray bar motel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top