WRTV's "Good Morning Indiana" anchor Marc Mullins was arrested Saturday morning for suspicion of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated according to the
Indianapolis Star. An IMPD officer stopped Mullins around 2:00 a.m. Saturday morning for making an illegal turn at the intersection of Meridian and Washington. After noticing a strong odor of alcohol, the officer administered a portable breathalyzer test. Mullins tested just under the legal limit at 0.072. He was then transported to another location where a certified breathalyzer was located. This time his blood alcohol level registered 0.113. Police then took Mullins to the Arrestee Processing Center where he was booked on a preliminary charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
10 comments:
The State thereby admitted in whole that it cannot prove Mullins was drunk at the time of the arrest.
There are two different statutes for prosecuting someone for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. One is based on the blood alcohol level. The other is based on a police officer's observations of the person's impairment. As long as the police officer had probable cause for making the stop, then it would have been common procedure to administer a test with a machine as opposed to relying solely on the portable testing device.
PBT results are not admissible in court. They are used as a screening method, along with observation, field sobriety tests, etc. to determine whether to take the person for a certified breath test.
His employer will stand by him superficially for maybe 4 to 6 months and then ease him out of his job.
Sure. The problem for the State is that he wasn't drunk when arrested but became drunk while sitting in police custody.
"PBT results are not admissible in court."
Not for proof of guilt as direct evidence by the State, but they can be used to impeach the State's evidence.
If you get a fair court, that is. In Indiana, everyone is guilty just on a cop's say-so.
The Indiana Certified Test is practically proven that the operator is guilty.
Cato obviously has not read the law.
Anon 7:28 - Laugh!
So someone in police custody is offered a few brews to "get drunk while sitting in police custody?" If that's your defense...good luck with either a Judge (who would be required to submit your name to the Disciplinary Commission) or a Jury (which would require virtually no time to deliberate your outrageous 'defense').
The State need not prove that he was "drunk." it need only prove that he was intoxicated, which is defined as "an impaired condition of thought and action."
6:47, We're all laughing at you. In any other state, you're so dumb that you'd be laughed out of the room so badly that you'd never open your mouth in public, again.
Try learning about defense work before opening your dumbhole. Or are defense attorneys not allowed to put on a defense in Indiana?
In real cities, the kind of places that send teams like the Patriots to Indiana to beat up the Colts and their fans, defense attorneys look for any angle to prove reasonable doubt.
Saw him out tonight, drunk and obnoxious. What a tool.
Post a Comment