erolz66 wrote:People should educate themselves, myself no less than anyone else (but not you Paphitis - you know everything about everything without having to make any effort so you get a free pass)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_dri ... able_cause"Probable cause" is established by obtaining evidence from the police encounter sufficient to meet the "probable cause" standard for arrest. "Probable cause" is not necessarily sufficient to obtain a conviction, but is a prerequisite for arrest.Examples of "probable cause" for a drunk driving arrest includes:
1. Observation
2. Confession of having consumed alcohol in the recent past.
3. Documented test results
In Brooks' case there was no observation other than a dive of 15 meters not on a public highway but from the drive thru line to parking spot undertaken at the instruction of a police officer. There was no probable cause and thus no means to arrest unless 2 and or 3 could be obtained by the officers. Brooks repeatedly claims that he was dropped off at the Wendy's by a different driver in a different car and that the rental car he was found sleeping in was already at the Wendys when he was dropped off. The police needed him to confess and submit to sobriety test in order for them to be able to arrest him and get their 'result' and that is what they were after. As the wikipedia article explains they used standard Police tactics to trick such confessions out of suspects.
The confession is the easiest way to establish "probable cause", and police know that social convention encourages people to respond to police questions. While it is inadvisable to lie to police, the suspect has the option to "respectfully decline" to answer questions.[62][63]
The suspect is typically not given Miranda warnings at this time because the encounter legally has not gone from "investigatory" to "accusatory", and because the police want the suspect to believe the questions are not being made to gather "probable cause" evidence. At this point, the suspect is not required to provide more than identification and vehicle information.
This is what they did in this case. They wanted Brooks to believe that he was not in fact helping them to give them the power to arrest him but was in fact just trying to placate them so that they would let him go about his business. An example of the kind of lies they routinely use and used on Brooks to get what they want would be "I want to make sure you are OK" . I believe it was the shock of Books discovering that all his helpfulness (beyond what he was legally obliged to give) gained him was the police suddenly trying to handcuff and arrest him, combined with his general confusion and that he was in a strange city and the fact that this was a week or so from images where a black man gets handcuff and then executed in broad daylight by police with people watching, that led to him panicking and trying to get away and the fatal consequences of that. I genuinely believe if at any point the Police had clearly explained to him the true situation, along the lines of 'we want you take a sobriety test and PBT and if you agree and fail we will handcuff you and arrest you and if you pass we let you go, or if you refuse to take the test we will handcuff and arrest you' then this incident would not have ended up with someone dying. That they did not make this clear is part and parcel if the standard procedure of trying to trick citizens in to making their lives easier because they so often do not understand what their rights are. We should all educate ourselves what our rights are because you can be dammed sure the Police will NOT tell you what they are and will in fact try and mislead you and sometimes even just blatantly lie. This kind of shit should be taught mandatory in schools along with the reason why it is every citizens civic duty to not just automatically give in to any police request in any situation regardless of what the law requires. If this was done Brooks would be alive today and we would have a better more accountable police force to boot.
This is what a lawyer would advise anyone to do
https://larryformanlaw.com/why-you-shou ... ety-tests/
Plenty of probable cause there and I seriously doubt that if the exact same situation were to occur in Sydney, melbourne, Brisbane or Adelaide with another "Brooks" found sleeping in a take away drive through which all have cameras in Australia (should be no different in the USA) and the police attended to clear it, that they would have told him to park the car.
I have no doubt that they would have breathalyzed him, and done a drug swab test. The only difference is that I have never seen Australian Police do sobriety tests like they do in the US. You get the breath test, drug swab test, they will do a registration check, identify the man, check for warrants, and question him.
The man would be arrested, and taken in to the station for a sleep. If he resisted, the most likely thing that would have happened here as he pointed a tazer at them is they would have tazed him, with a small possibility that they would even shoot him because a tazer is a weapon and police won't take a chance. However, Australian Police are a lot more measured in their action. But still can’t rule out that they would shoot him.
If you think you got the balls, then come down under and try it. No way in the world the police down here would let any person get away with it.
The other thing they would do is get a warrant to search his vehicle, obviously looking for narcotics. They can't just do the search without a warrant, but they would guard the car make a phone call to a court clerk which are 24/7 for things like this and get the appropriate clearances. They would search the vehicle and probably bring in some sniffer dogs.
