'The Drug Whisperer': Drivers arrested while stone cold sober

Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."...

...yet that's what he just did.

'The Drug Whisperer': Drivers arrested while stone cold sober

'The Drug Whisperer': Drivers arrested while stone cold sober | khou.com

Click to expand...

radcen said:

Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."...

...yet that's what he just did.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. An officer should not be able to arrest someone because he "thinks" they did something and then to get an award because of his arrest count, not conviction count is even more ridiculous. Innocent until proven guilty, no more.

The department doubled-down on their assertion that the drug recognition expert is better at detecting marijuana in a driver than scientific tests.

Click to expand...

Obviously it's not.

radcen said:

Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."...

...yet that's what he just did.

Click to expand...

I heard about this. And you know what's even more ridiculous? The department said that that officers judgment is more reliable than a scientific blood or urine test.

What the absolute ****.

americanwoman said:

Ridiculous. An officer should not be able to arrest someone because he "thinks" they did something and then to get an award because of his arrest count, no conviction is even more ridiculous. Innocent until proven guilty, no more.



Obviously it's not.

Click to expand...

I listened a news report about this on a podcast, and when I heard the department's statement, I about lost my ****.

radcen said:

Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."...

...yet that's what he just did.

Click to expand...

At 6:37, the newsreader goes into full cop apology mode. Disgusting and shameful. He must be gunning for a job at CNN with being that wrong.

This is happening in Georgia. This is the same state that encourages it's police officers to throw grenades into baby cribs. I guess incinerating babies just isn't enough to satisfy their jollies so they're training their cops to just round up innocent people. And let's not forget, if a cop is particularly bored then they can just shoot a person and claim self defense. You really have to hate human life to be a police officer. To go into a profession who's sole purpose is to destroy lives and livelihoods.

radcen said:

Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."...

...yet that's what he just did.

Click to expand...

I bet that training involves a numbers game. If you pull x amount of people over, y amount will be high on marijuana. So it's best to arrest z amount of people, because if people see how likely they are to go to jail for driving under the influence of marijuana. They won't do it.

They think this overt zealous type of police work is a deterrent. And that if they say a month long training course can do something addiction workers go to years of school for with more accuracy than a urine test (30 days for marijuana). That's them counting on the CSI effect. People believe the police have more capability than they do from shows like CSI.

The legal limit for alcohol is .08, meaning you can have a beer or two depending on your body weight and not considered impaired. It's much the same for marijuana. Depending on weight and time since last smoked, the effects could have worn off in as little as 3 hours.

Someone who is impaired by marijuana, wouldn't be able to pass a field sobriety test geared towards marijuana. Which would involved shining the flashlight in the eyes and conducting a test much like your eye doctor does when he has you follow his finger.

It's not that hard to come up with a simple solution to Marijuana DUI, law enforcement is throwing a hissy because seizures from marijuana busts are a sizeable part of their budget they don't want to lose when the laws inevitably change. If they make a big stink about how difficult it is to detect impaired drivers, it might worry people enough to hold out. Here's a question, if it's so difficult to detect impairment, is the person even impaired? There's vegged out on the couch can't move high (Impaired), and just got a head change high (undetectable).

I equate head change to 1 or 2 beers and don't consider that impaired. I support a field sobriety test, but think medical professionals should design it. And I think there should be a legal limit set.

I definitely feel like she was treated unfairly but it does raise the question of how does a cop know if someone is under the influence of a substance that can't be field tested for? After all, in the case of cannabis, if you vape it or consume it in edibles before driving there won't even be an odor on you.

It seems that the most fair way of handling it is judging whether or not they were driving wrecklessly. But what constitutes that? This lady was pulled over because she swerved across the line. It seems like if she only did that once it wouldn't merit an arrests. I am sure all drivers have done that from time to time. But what if she crossed it twice? No matter what it is going to come down to human judgement and that will always be tainted by bias. But I'm not sure what the best option is.

ThoughtEx. said:

I bet that training involves a numbers game. If you pull x amount of people over, y amount will be high on marijuana. So it's best to arrest z amount of people, because if people see how likely they are to go to jail for driving under the influence of marijuana. They won't do it.

They think this overt zealous type of police work is a deterrent. And that if they say a month long training course can do something addiction workers go to years of school for with more accuracy than a urine test (30 days for marijuana). That's them counting on the CSI effect. People believe the police have more capability than they do from shows like CSI.

The legal limit for alcohol is .08, meaning you can have a beer or two depending on your body weight and not considered impaired. It's much the same for marijuana. Depending on weight and time since last smoked, the effects could have worn off in as little as 3 hours.

Someone who is impaired by marijuana, wouldn't be able to pass a field sobriety test geared towards marijuana. Which would involved shining the flashlight in the eyes and conducting a test much like your eye doctor does when he has you follow his finger.

It's not that hard to come up with a simple solution to Marijuana DUI, law enforcement is throwing a hissy because seizures from marijuana busts are a sizeable part of their budget they don't want to lose when the laws inevitably change. If they make a big stink about how difficult it is to detect impaired drivers, it might worry people enough to hold out. Here's a question, if it's so difficult to detect impairment, is the person even impaired? There's vegged out on the couch can't move high (Impaired), and just got a head change high (undetectable).

I equate head change to 1 or 2 beers and don't consider that impaired. I support a field sobriety test, but think medical professionals should design it. And I think there should be a legal limit set.

Click to expand...

My thoughts are more sinister. I think they do it... over-the-top things like this... because they're drunk with power and it justifies their budget existence.

I keep seeing the foundation of a Police State in the USA and this is one of the glaringly obvious symptoms. The Police have been exonnerated when they are "too quick to shoot," shooting unarmed citizens, getting away with stating "I feared for my life," "I thought they were reaching for a gun," "the death by chokehold was accidental," etc. Switch the cops back to billyclubs except in the big cities, but no more "Militarized Police being trained that everybody is a potential enemy combatant." It just isn't so. Protest and more protest. A good Police Agency is an asset to a community, but an armed Police Force with a bad attitude is a detriment.

Skeptic Bob said:

I definitely feel like she was treated unfairly but it does raise the question of how does a cop know if someone is under the influence of a substance that can't be field tested for? After all, in the case of cannabis, if you vape it or consume it in edibles before driving there won't even be an odor on you.

It seems that the most fair way of handling it is judging whether or not they were driving wrecklessly. But what constitutes that? This lady was pulled over because she swerved across the line. It seems like if she only did that once it wouldn't merit an arrests. I am sure all drivers have done that from time to time. But what if she crossed it twice? No matter what it is going to come down to human judgement and that will always be tainted by bias. But I'm not sure what the best option is.

Click to expand...

I get that there's not a good field test for marijuana, but we're still supposed to be the USA with The Constitution and all that. Making up questionable "*-whisperer crap" is not supposed to be part of the deal. Lacking REAL probable cause, the most they should be able to do is issue a traffic ticket for wreckless driving.

Changing direction: The officer got an award for 90 DUI arrests in a year. We know these three were bogus, but I wonder how many total of those 90 were either beat or dismissed?

Skeptic Bob said:

I definitely feel like she was treated unfairly but it does raise the question of how does a cop know if someone is under the influence of a substance that can't be field tested for? After all, in the case of cannabis, if you vape it or consume it in edibles before driving there won't even be an odor on you.

It seems that the most fair way of handling it is judging whether or not they were driving wrecklessly. But what constitutes that? This lady was pulled over because she swerved across the line. It seems like if she only did that once it wouldn't merit an arrests. I am sure all drivers have done that from time to time. But what if she crossed it twice? No matter what it is going to come down to human judgement and that will always be tainted by bias. But I'm not sure what the best option is.

Click to expand...

If she's like every girl I ever dated, and my brother, she crossed twice changing the radio...

radcen said:

I get that there's not a good field test for marijuana, but we're still supposed to be the USA with The Constitution and all that. Making up questionable "*-whisperer crap" is not supposed to be part of the deal. Lacking REAL probable cause, the most they should be able to do is issue a traffic ticket for wreckless driving.

Changing direction: The officer got an award for 90 DUI arrests in a year. We know these three were bogus, but I wonder how many total of those 90 were either beat or dismissed?

Click to expand...

I think there needs to be a level of wreckless driving that merits arrest, or at least temporary forbidding the driver from driving. I think it should be more than crossing the line once, but I'm not sure what the threshold should be.

I completely agree about the award. If they get an award it should be for having a high percentage of arrests that lead to conviction.

radcen said:

Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."...

...yet that's what he just did.

Click to expand...

In California you can be hauled in for being "impaired", the description being what the officer says it is. The DA (wink-wink) will release them the next day without charges, and you are still on the hook for towing and storage.

reinoe said:

At 6:37, the newsreader goes into full cop apology mode. Disgusting and shameful. He must be gunning for a job at CNN with being that wrong.

Click to expand...

:lol: That's pretty funny.

LEOs in the US have been getting away with murder since time immemorial.

Why wouldn't these same LEOs be able to **** up your life with an erroneous arrest for some made up bull****?

Why should they care? It's just their job ........

MAGA ...........

And the killer here, is Trump and Sessions are pushing for more and deeper War on Drugs! More! :doh

It's total bull**** authoritarianism!

cuban smokes said:

LEOs in the US have been getting away with murder since time immemorial.

Why wouldn't these same LEOs be able to **** up your life with an erroneous arrest for some made up bull****?

Why should they care? It's just their job ........

MAGA ...........

Click to expand...

At least with technology, we have some pushback.

I have a dashcam that's extremely inobtrusive, and it records both inside and outside the car. I haven't had a traffic stop since I got it, but it will definitely be on if I am ever stopped.

As necessary and important as the police are, and the tough job they do, one would still have to be crazy to not video record all police interaction involving themselves and those they care about. Safety first! :thumbs:

If an officer sees a driver violate one or more vehicle laws, that by itself gives him the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity he needs to pull the driver over, question him, and ask to see a license and registration. The officer is even justified in using a minor violation like a burned-out tail light as a pretext when he suspects the driver is involved in a more serious violation. During the stop, the officer may see enough further evidence to give him the probable cause needed to make an arrest. If so, police usually just issue a citation and let the driver proceed, but they may also physically detain him.

I suppose a training program like this officer underwent could have so little basis in fact that the physical signs of marijuana intoxication he observed in a driver would not give him probable cause to arrest that person. It seems to me the question is how sound the scientific basis for these signs needs to be--how large a percentage of false positives is acceptable? I'm sure there are many other entirely legal chemicals--as I think the article mentioned--which could affect eye movements, etc. in much the same way marijuana does.

I could buy the field test provided that they absolutely provided a drug test immediately upon request. They could take them directly to the nearest ER vs jail and act based on results. But as is...this is pretty fricken corrupt.

Wow, first I've heard of this.

If that had happened to me, there would be a lawsuit against Cobb County.

This is total and utter bull from this officer, getting heralded for making bogus arrests, that is not fighting DUI, that is beefing up your arrest count.

In some countries they use saliva tests, this at least limits the risk of being arrested while innocent and having to fight the system to prove you are innocent.

cops like this, and departments that back them, are the reason that I never have and never will trust a cop about anything ever... a ****ing disgrace.

Thoreau72 said:

Wow, first I've heard of this.

If that had happened to me, there would be a lawsuit against Cobb County.

Click to expand...

Hopefully there are many and these cops are fired and put in jail...

radcen said:

Officer Carroll: "You're going to jail, ma'am. Okay? I don't have a magical drug test that I can give you right now."...

...yet that's what he just did.

Click to expand...

A similar thing happened to me. Well maybe not similar but in the same ball park.

I was stopped by an officer standing on the side of the street, which is how they do things in Mexico.

He said I was doing 60 KPH.

I asked him how he knew that.

He said he can just see when a car is doing that speed.

He then pointed to another car that passed and said it was doing 40 KPH.

I said he was funny and this was going to be interesting.

He asked what would be interesting.

I said he would have to prove he can estimate the velocity of an object with no reference points..

We all know there are two ways to gauge speed. Either to be going the same speed or to use math by calculating the distance traveled in a certain period of time.

I was perfectly willing, if he gave me a ticket, to take it to his superior and ask how this officer can do something no other person in the world can.

Remember he said I was doing exactly 60 KPH, not just over the speed limit.

He didn't give me a ticket. I guess he didn't think it was worth it.

This was around the holiday season, so officers here stop more cars so they can get people paying them off.

I don't do that.