TacGuy911

Just thought I would put it out there.. Had a job come in.. Possible burglary attempt (in progress)... Guy heard someone in yard and heard noises at the back door and window.. Called 911 and stated he heard someone in the yard and thinks they are trying to break.. Dispatch sent numerous officers on the call.. Caller states that he (the homeowner) is armed with a handgun and just wanted officers coming to be aware of it.. We get on scene and it was not a burglary or anything of the sort... Just a local drunk who was already passed out when we got there.. So here is the summed up version of the convo Sgt: Ok, where is the drunk Me: They are loading him into the ambulance now.. Sgt: Ok.. Where is the homeowner Me: Inside Sgt: Ok.. He said he had a handgun.. Where is it and did we check all paperwork.. Me: (laughing) Are you serious? Sgt: What's funny? Get the paperwork.. I want to make sure the gun is legal.. Me: Where is there reason to believe the gun is not legal? The guy informed us he had it and was protecting his family inside and NEVER EVEN SHOWED THE GUN!! Last time I checked criminals don't tell cops about their illegal guns...(smart a** voice) Sgt: I want to make sure the gun is legal All the while the homeowner was only a few rooms down with other Officers giving info for the report.. Homeowner must have heard and ran upstairs and got all of his paperwork.. He went to give it to me and I said "I don't need to see that" and walked away.. The Sgt. ended up looking it over and was highly upset with my behavior.. So...I have this strong feeling that I will be on the walking post lol.. Just thought I would share the story.. The only good thing is that EVERY officer that I have spoken with said they would have done exactly what I did.. Just annoying when you get the one dope who is somehow your boss lol...

Just brought back so many memories...

My first gun was purchased for my job.. The rest because I watched Dawn of the Dead....lol

Amen to that.. As stated if you pass the field sobriety tests "with flying colors" then you will probably be sent on your merry way.. As Kpdpipes stated.. With the exception of underage drinkers, I have yet to lock someone up who didnt fail field sobriety tests..

Really.. I am not even going to get into this.. Went from DUI/DWI to complaint of taxes...

First of all an Officer simply can't say "take the breathalyzer or you are going to jail".. With the exception of PBT's a person CANNOT be put on the alcotest machine without first being arrested for DWI/DUI... When you got your license you found that with this privilege you must submit to the alcotest if arrested for DWI.. You can refuse but in essence you are pleading guilty.. So its not a matter of "take the test or you go to jail".. You are being arrested and then asked if you want to take the alcotest.. Which you are stupid if you dont take it.. Again while you personally might feel checkpoints are a violation it has been ruled in the courts that they are not and are acceptable..

But now you are going to regulate how companies spend their money.. So how about I dont feel that the Sprint store around the corner should have 5 employees working.. Does that mean they should fire 3 of the employees since everytime I walk in 3 out of 5 and just sitting there and talking amongst themselves? After all their pay checks are coming out of my pocket..

Overtime does not get put towards pension.. You pension is based off base salary which would be calculated at what your would make according to the specified work schedule.. Again overtime is not included towards pension.. As for the guy using a flag to direct traffic.. It was determined that for insurance purposes and safety purposes that an officer must be on scene.. That is just the way it is.. And yes.. as stated DWI details are paid with grant money from various state/federal departments... Yes taxpayer money.. I didnt say it wasnt essentially taxpayer money.. However its not the pd/city that is paying.. It is given from the federal/state level and only given to pay for officers to specifically target DWI/DUI offenders..

So I see a guy walk into your backyard.. I follow and observe him with a credit card in hand attempting to get your door open.. I arrest him for attempting to break into your home.. Now there are no cameras in the area, no witnesses that saw him go back there.. Now what.. We just let him go? You are not making any sense and are trying to prove a point that can't be proven.. Cops don't lock up people because they feel "bitchy".. I cant just lock you up for DWI/DUI and see how it goes.. And if the courts see that a cop is locking people up with constant 0.00 bac you will have issues.. No cop is going to just lock people up for DWI for no reason.. The instrument will show what your BAC level is and that will backup the officers observations.. If you refuse to take it then that is you pleading guilty to the DWI.. If you take it and you blow a .08 you are drunk in the eyes of the state.. if you blow a .07 or below you may not be drunk according to the state but you are can still be too impaired to drive and judge will rule based on ALL the facts..

Well let's see.. Road construction jobs are not paid by the "taxpayers".... So I am confused.. So how is it a slap in the face to taxpayers?? During road construction jobs the company doing the construction contracts the police department and the company pays for the police to be there.. The DWI details are normally done with grant money.. The actual pd/city doesn't pay for it.....The police contracts have the salary listed for the time worked.. So in my contract is says that for the amount of hours worked I will be given such salary as compensation.. A police officer's job cant be compared to a private sector salary job..

I am not getting what you are talking about here.. You are driving erratically.. I pull you over and based on your driving, my observations of you, etc I arrest you on suspicion of driving while impaired.. I take you back to HQ.. you can A) refuse the alcotest at which point your are basically pleading guilty, or B) take the test at which time we will see what your BAC is.. .08 or above and automatically guilty by being above the per se.. .01-.07 shows that you have alcohol in your system which can cause impairment.. 0.00 and you possibly could have been under the influence of some kind of drugs or such.. The "proof" is the totality of the circumstances.. My observations plus the alcotest results... Observations include your driving, observations of you speaking and how you conduct yourself, and observations of how you perform the field sobriety testing.. I have yet to have a DWI case where the alcotest results were below a .08.. With the exception of those under the age of 21...

The city I work for has many events throughout the year where officers volunteer their time.. I don't want to get into specific events but we have roughly 10 community events throughout the year where officers volunteer their time and help out.. It is not mandatory to do but many officers do participate in the events.. But as stated you can't compare different professions that have nothing to do with each other..

How could you get pissed? If I see someone attempting to break into your car and stop them in the act where is the evidence, other then my word of what happened? Do I have to hope there is a camera in the area or another person who witnessed you doing it? No.. So why should it be any different in a DUI case.. I report what is observed..

Please don't get me started on this.. First of all there are plenty of functions where police volunteer their time throughout the year.... Also, last time I checked teachers werent working every holiday and around the clock.. But I am not getting into this argument.. I don't bash teachers.. they have their own job to do.. You cannot compare the job of a teacher to that of a police officer.. It is two completely different professions.. My suggestion is that if they don't like doing it then they find another place to work or work on a raise for the added hours..

If you blow under a .08 you can still be charged with the DUI, HOWEVER you do stand a better chance of having it dismissed.. It will depend on the judge, your lawyer, and prosecutor arguments.. As stated it has been well documented that people can blow well under the .08 and still be too impaired to drive... If you refuse the alcotest you automatically are pleading guilty..

Depends on the place.. When you are fresh out of the academy your must start at step 1.. However if you transfer from one department to another they sometimes will take into consideration your experience and start you on a later step.. I work in a civil service town.. We have a 6 step program.. Step 1 is while you are in the academy, step 2 starts when you graduate, and thne every year you go up to the next step.. Now if a guy was at top pay in Newark and got laid off our department might/could hire him and start him at step 4 if they wanted to..

Wait wait wait wait.. Ok.. So first of all this was 1986.. It is physically impossible to go from a .10 to a .02 in 30 minutes.. The burnoff rate for alcohol is .015 per hour.. So if you blew a .10 at the stop then 30 minutes later you would have blown a .093 if anything.. How old were you when you got stopped? On a side note the summons is not being issued for a non offense.. I arrested you because I felt that you were too impaired to drive.. Just because you blow less then a .08 does not mean you are not impaired.. You have a better chance of getting it thrown out but a Judge can still rule against you based on observation..

What are you referring to when you say "routine patrols".. Are you saying that more DUI arrests are made by the patrol division then by the DUI checkpoints? Or are you talking about DUI only patrols aka roving units? Because if you are referring to the patrol division you are talking about a division working 24 hours a day and 365 days a year vs. a checkpoint that might be setup once a month for 5 or 6 hours.. So 8,760 hours vs. 72 hours... And if you are referring to the roving units, those can be set up and done whenever the department wants and are usually done more frequently.. so guys might be called in for a roving DWI/DUI detail multiple times a month if the city wishes.. I know where I work we do the roving details about once or twice a month while checkpoints are usually done around certain holidays... So again.. You will get more lockups during the roving detail as it occurs more frequently..

When and where did this occur?? First of all if you are being arrested and brought to the station for suspicion of DWI/DUI your car MUST be towed by state law (John's Law).. Second.. Even if you showed a 0.00% BAC on the machine you still get the summons for DUI. We don't just lock people up because they say they had 2 beers.. I find it hard to believe that an Officer, let alone his supervisor, would allow you to just leave with a seatbelt ticket after everything is said and done.. Either you are not telling the truth or leaving out some other information..

Well the courts have ruled that being interviewed for the short time(usually less then 30 seconds) that it takes to speak with the officer does not infringe on any rights of the people.. Furthermore I would point out the obvious that for safety reasons you would not have a checkpoint on a highway where the legal limit is 65 but average speed is higher.. There is more of a risk to public safety by putting a checkpoint in the middle of the turnpike or parkway.. Such roadways would be better suited for a roving DWI detail...

This is where I disagree.. The right to own and keep arms is written in the constitution.. There is nothing in the constitution about driving and cars... You are not searching or seizing anything in a dui checkpoint... You are mere interviewing the driver for a short period and releasing them on their way as long as they are not visibly intoxicated... I do not agree with ALL gun laws but do believe that a person should be checked to ensure they should be able to obtain a gun.. I do not feel that it an infringement to ensure the person purchasing is not a convicted or wanted felon... I also find that the monitoring of guns purchases is not an infringement.. This will help prevent 1 person purchasing 10 handguns in a state that does not regulate the sale and then selling them on the street to those not supposed to own a gun.. I disagree with the whole Conceal Carry process in this state.. I do believe law abiding citizens should have the right to carry and not be told that they cannot simply because they don't have a good enough reason to need to carry.. I think the problem is that most people can't find common ground and sort of like our current Governor want it their way or no way..

Nothing wrong with profiling.. It's racial profiling that is the issue...

Driving a motor vehicle is not a right, its a privilege.. You are not being stripped searched or having a pat down.. You speak with an Officer and are on your way... I don't see how your rights are being violated.. You are not being taken out of the vehicle and having your vehicle or persons searched.. You simply roll down the window and speak with an Officer.. The best are the guys that roll up with their windows lowered about half inch and say they did nothing wrong and ask if they are being detained, blah blah blah.. Meanwhile his vehicle easily has 10 mv violations.. Yea.. Real smart.. Each checkpoint is authorized and overseen by the prosecutor to ensure everything is done 110% correctly.. If it was illegal then we wouldn't be doing it and wouldn't get convictions in court..

Payoffs?? LOL.. What does that have to do with State Police Overtime.. To be honest I don't feel that its necessary to show each individual Officer's overtime check.. Each persons salary.. ehh whatever.. But overtime shouldn't be included.. At least not individualized.. As a whole sure.. but to show who is making what in overtime is getting out of hand..

There is a simple solution.. Don't drive drunk.. We do the checkpoints in my town.. We do the "every x car".. A simple Hi, how are you and you are on your way unless of course you are or appear to be drunk.. No harm done.. If you don't have a habit of driving drunk you shouldn't have a problem with it.. Its amazing the people that are against cracking down on drunk driving deaths/accidents..