en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/263516 Comments by natecode4 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/128033793.html#IDComment184446075 There is no difference between police and citizens. The difference in this case is there wasn&#039;t even probable cause to arrest him (the officer) at any point. For those citizens you are referring too...their ARREST records are released. You have to be arrested before you can go to trial. IF the officer was arrested it would be released. That&#039;s the way the law is. You are comparing BEFORE trial and AFTER arrest to (in this case) BEFORE arrest and AFTER investigation. Two totally different standards. I hope this makes sense Fri, 19 Aug 2011 01:29:45 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/128033793.html#IDComment184446075 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105495748.html#IDComment105374161 The average rate of &quot;burn off&quot; of alcohol in the bloodstream is .015 per hour (assuming no more alcohol has been consumed). Since she did not have anything to drink since the accident her BAC would be higher than it was at the time of the crash. This would put her blood alcohol level (BAC) at around .115 at the time of the accident. Put another way, an individual will eliminate approximately 1/2 to 2/3 of an ounce of 100-proof whiskey in an hour. Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:18:20 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105495748.html#IDComment105374161 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105495748.html#IDComment105374064 Section (b) specifically says that the prosecutor only has to show the driver is &quot;affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug&quot;. People are prosecuted all the time for DUI even though they are under the limit. Plus, the average rate of &quot;burn off&quot; of alcohol in the bloodstream is .015 per hour (assuming no more alcohol has been consumed). Since she did not have anything to drink since the accident her BAC would be higher than it was at the time of the crash. This would put her blood alcohol level (BAC) at around .115 at the time of the accident. Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:17:13 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105495748.html#IDComment105374064 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105495748.html#IDComment105373689 Actually the BAC is a test using breath that measures your blood alcohol level. It measures the breath from the deep lung tissue which is saturated with blood. The results are actually going to be the same. The average rate of &quot;burn off&quot; of alcohol in the bloodstream is .015 per hour (assuming no more alcohol has been consumed). Since she did not have anything to drink since the accident her BAC would be higher than it was at the time of the crash. This would put her blood alcohol level (BAC) at around .115 at the time of the accident. These have been studied over and over nationally and the results are the same. This information is according the NHTSA the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:13:27 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105495748.html#IDComment105373689 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102013370 Failure to Sign Infraction is not currently arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. At the time if the driver didn&#039;t sign (after numerous warnings) the officers had no choice (they were required by the courts) and had to arrest the driver. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:14:11 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102013370 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102012773 Failure to Sign Infraction is not currently arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. At the time if the driver didn&#039;t sign (after numerous warnings) the officers had no choice (they were required by the courts) and had to arrest the driver. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:08:53 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102012773 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102012052 Failure to Sign Infraction is not currently arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. At the time if the driver didn&#039;t sign (after numerous warnings) the officers had no choice (they were required by the courts) and had to arrest the driver. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:05:52 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102012052 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102010929 You are partially correct that Failure to Sign Infraction is not arrestable. BUT....in 2004 (when this occurred) it WAS an arrestable offense. The courts changed that in 2006. The disenting judge only looked at current law and not the law that was in effect at the time of arrest. If it was a lawful arrest the officers are justified to use the minimum amount of force neccesary to effect the arrest. Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:00:56 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/104207714.html#IDComment102010929 http://www.komonews.com/news/offbeat/101532498.html#IDComment95509514 I thought this one was funnier. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NPKuyDWt4k" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NPKuyDWt4k</a> Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:22:40 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/offbeat/101532498.html#IDComment95509514 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/96200749.html#IDComment79836118 Oprah&#039;s has 6 bedrooms and 14 bathrooms. Gates has 7 bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, 6 kitchens, and 6 fireplaces. Trump has 17 bedrooms, 15 bathrooms, and 8 half baths. Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:44:37 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/96200749.html#IDComment79836118 http://www.komonews.com/news/national/95319439.html#IDComment78117869 Miranda rights are different than your constitutional rights. Constitutional rights are required for every arrest and they are 1. You are under arrest. 2. You have the right to an attorney. Miranda Rights are only required to be read, if you are going to ask any questions to the suspect and he is in custody. Sometimes the officer may not ask any questions oror the person is not in custody and either of those cases Miranda Rights are not required to be advised. Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:52:19 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/national/95319439.html#IDComment78117869 http://www.komonews.com/news/national/95319439.html#IDComment78116222 Current law (before this ruling) Miranda Rights cards issued to officers have two questions after they are read by officers to suspects before any questioning can begin.. 1. Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? 2. Having each of these rights in mind do you wish to speak to me now? Officers are trained at the academy they cannot ask questions if the suspect does not understand and/or says he does not want to talk. If the suspect says he understands his rights and then remains nuetral on question 2 then officers may proceed with questioning until he chooses to answer question 2 or invokes his rights. This law really doesn&#039;t change anything that is already current law. Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:45:44 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/national/95319439.html#IDComment78116222 http://www.komonews.com/news/national/95319439.html#IDComment78115467 Current law (before this ruling) Miranda Rights cards issued to officers have two questions after they are read by officers to suspects before any questioning can begin.. 1. Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? 2. Having each of these rights in mind do you wish to speak to me now? Officers are trained at the academy they cannot ask questions if the suspect does not understand and/or says he does not want to talk. If the suspect says he understands his rights and then remains nuetral on question 2 then officers may proceed with questioning until he chooses to answer question 2 or invokes his rights. This law really doesn&#039;t change anything that is already current law. Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:43:00 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/national/95319439.html#IDComment78115467 http://www.komonews.com/news/problemsolvers/94900129.html#IDComment77174909 Bellevue has 120,000 residents and Tacoma has approx. 200,000 residents. I think the reporter meant to say something else. Wed, 26 May 2010 10:50:53 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/problemsolvers/94900129.html#IDComment77174909 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/93863629.html#IDComment75724141 You are incorrect. Seeing dialated pupils and talking really fast would only amount to reasonable suspicion (Terry Stop)at the most. Read Terry v. Ohio. If someone matches the description of someone seen leaving a burglary police have a reasonable suspicion he may be involved. That means the police have the authority to stop that person and verify (if possible) if they are innocent or involved. An officer cannot stop someone because they &quot;Think&quot; anything. They have to have at a minimum reasonable suspicion that a crime has, was, or is being committed based on specific articutable facts. This includes being an illegal immigrant. Police cannot stop someone just because they believe that person is an illegal immigrant. But if during the course of contacting someone for something else the officer has specific articutable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe this person may be an illegal immigrant then police can question further. Just so you know there are only four states that illegal immigrants can get a drivers license. Washington is one of them. If someone has a driver&#039;s license that will be enough to show they are in this country legally for this law. Sun, 16 May 2010 23:42:47 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/93863629.html#IDComment75724141 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92283979.html#IDComment71103171 Seeing your history of posts I have come to the conclusion that you are not capable of backing a police officer. This case is clear cut abuse of power by the mayor and the Chief will be cleared of wrongdoing in the end. At this time, there are 27 posts and yours is the only one that is supportive of the mayor. Looks like your the one that lacks common sense. Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:02:53 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92283979.html#IDComment71103171 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92143159.html#IDComment71031285 Since your using the media you obviously know that the Chief informed the mayor the night before the arrests? Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:13:43 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92143159.html#IDComment71031285 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92143159.html#IDComment70756007 Good find +1 Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:41:03 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92143159.html#IDComment70756007 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92045874.html#IDComment70577895 I believe there is an option for a Recall but not sure. Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:59:05 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92045874.html#IDComment70577895 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92045874.html#IDComment70553959 Many people do not know that &quot;Butch&quot; Derosier (former mayor arrested for dealing pot) was the campain manager of the current mayor Saleem Haroon. Someone needs to start a petition to RECALL the current mayor. Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:03:08 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/92045874.html#IDComment70553959