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

[Suppressed]

'The Drug Whisperer': Drivers arrested while stone cold sober
11Alive News Chief Investigator Brendan Keefe discovered some drivers are getting arrested for driving stoned -- even when their drug tests came back clean.
Brendan Keefe and Michael King , KPNX 11:06 AM. EDT May 12, 2017

COBB COUNTY, Ga. - Drunk driving arrests are down sharply after decades of aggressive enforcement, while drugged driving arrests are climbing.

Georgia now has more than 250 officers with special 'drug recognition expert' training.

But 12 News partner station WXIA's Chief Investigator Brendan Keefe discovered some drivers are getting arrested for driving stoned -- even when their drug tests came back clean.

Cobb County Police Officer T.T. Carroll: "You said you haven't had anything to drink tonight?"
Katelyn Ebner: "Not tonight, no."
Officer Carroll: "Not tonight, okay. One of the things we do is we ask people to blow through this thing, okay."


Katelyn Ebner crossed the center line, and got pulled over on the way home from work. She works in a bar, and does not drink while at work.

Officer Carroll: "Blow real hard, blow 'til I ask you to stop -- keep going, keep going -- you can stop. Okay."

No, she had not been drinking. All tests for alcohol came up empty. But the Cobb County police officer who pulled her over was not done yet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWyzPpYslYc

Officer Carroll: "I'm going to ask you a question, okay? When was the last time you smoked marijuana?"
Katelyn Ebner: "Oh, I don't do that. I can give you a drug test right now."
Officer Carroll: "You don't smoke marijuana?"
Katelyn Ebner: "I do not, no."
Officer Carroll: "Okay. Well, you're showing me indicators that you have been smoking marijuana, okay?"

"I didn't realize that you could get arrested for something that you didn't do," Ebner told Keefe. "That never crossed my mind until it happened to me."



Officer Carroll: "Watch your wrists for me, I don't want to pinch you."
Katelyn Ebner: "I'm going to jail for marijuana?"
Officer Carroll: "No, ma'am -- not possession, unless I find any in your car. I believe you're impaired by the marijuana you've smoked."
Katelyn Ebner: "Okay, so when I do a drug test, I'll be free to go, correct?"
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."

"Before you felt the handcuffs closing over your wrist, did you understand just how serious this was?" Keefe asked Ebner.

"I didn't understand," Ebner said. "As soon as I took that breathalyzer, I thought I was going home."

The waitress spent the night in jail, had her alcohol server's permit revoked because of the arrest. After four months, prosecutors dismissed all her charges -- because the blood test came back completely clean.

"You had to spend months -- and thousands of dollars --  proving your innocence," Keefe said.

"I did," Ebner said.



[...snip...]




[...snip...]

Lots more at http://www.wltx.com/news/the-drug-whisperer-drivers-arrested-while-stone-cold-sober/439081096

[Frank Cannon]

This is a delightful new scam the fuzz is pulling. Soothsaying to get an arrest. Where is the ACLU when you need them? Oh yeah. Posting travel advisories about Texas.

[ABX]

Crap like this won't stop until there are large lawsuits with financial penalties for thse types of opinion based actions.

[Sanguine]

Crap like this won't stop until there are large lawsuits with financial penalties for thse types of opinion based actions.

Penalties paid by the citizens... 

[truth_seeker]

Will there need to be valid tests, substance by substance, and valid proof of impairment at tested concentrations of said substances?

Or can we rely on officers' observations, of a drivers weaving down the road?

[Smokin Joe]

Crap like this won't stop until there are large lawsuits with financial penalties for thse types of opinion based actions.

This crap is just wrong.

The first lady got stopped during "amateur hour", the hour around closing time. It is the worst time to travel, not just because of the late-night bar closing crowd, but because police are out in force looking for those high dollar tickets. If you work at a bar, you are a target, too, by virtue of where you are leaving, and the time you leave.

For a policeman to assert he thinks you have been smoking pot, though, he should have to smell pot in the vehicle (where the smell can persist for a long time) or on your person (worse than cigarette smoke, imho) or find evidence of drugs or paraphernalia on you or in the vehicle. Without that, the assertion is merely one of opinion and without evidence. That does not mean the officer will not lie.

If screening tests can be conducted in 20 minutes (for eight drugs/classes of drugs) with a urine kit from Walmart, there is no excuse for not allowing exculpatory evidence to be produced promptly and letting the person go. I would think the courts would rule the same if suit was brought. The person has already proven they are not guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Unfortunately many states have laws on the books which allow you to be arrested and possibly even convicted of 'drunk' driving or 'impaired' driving without testing above the limit, too. Know the laws in your state, and softly remind the officer that you do know the law, and are not in violation of it.

If you can't do the field sobriety test to the satisfaction of the officer (Hold your left foot 3.5 inches above the pavement in a high and gusting crosswind at 20 below and recite the passenger list from the Titanic in reverse alphabetical order starting with the M's...) you can be arrested and the subjective charge will probably stick, even if your BAC is below the legal limit.

Unfortunately, with all the different intoxicants out there, and no reliable test or levels of intoxication established for most drugs, red eyes, a long day, and bad roadside conditions (and a cop short on quota) can lead to a life changing event if you are not permitted to take a test which shows you are 'clean'.

As a preventative measure, it pays to make sure your headlights are on (at night in town), that all lights on the vehicle are functioning (including license plate lights), and that you signal appropriately, for starters. That removes many of the excuses for pulling you over. If the stop doesn't happen, the paperwork doesn't happen, you sleep in your own bed.

Traveling, when possible, before the herd, (going home with off-sale) can get a person where they are going without complications, because it isn't DUI rush hour, and your transit will be treated much the same as any other vehicle going from point A to point B.

[Smokin Joe]

Will there need to be valid tests, substance by substance, and valid proof of impairment at tested concentrations of said substances?

Or can we rely on officers' observations, of a drivers weaving down the road?

Some "weaving" is unavoidably linked to environmental factors such as road conditions, crosswinds between buildings or across road cuts. Some is due to other distractions, some illegal, some not (headlight glare, including that set of high beams the police just hit you with from close behind), and yes, some is due to DUI. However, while weaving provides probable cause for a stop, the DUI part needs some substantiation to make an arrest stick.
With illegal substances, in all likeliness the presence of the substance will be considered prima facie evidence of impairment.

[Sanguine]

Some "weaving" is unavoidably linked to environmental factors such as road conditions, crosswinds between buildings or across road cuts. Some is due to other distractions, some illegal, some not (headlight glare, including that set of high beams the police just hit you with from close behind), and yes, some is due to DUI. However, while weaving provides probable cause for a stop, the DUI part needs some substantiation to make an arrest stick.
With illegal substances, in all likeliness the presence of the substance will be considered prima facie evidence of impairment.

And, one weave does not weaving make.  I had a DPS trooper explain to me that he would follow a driver for a bit before deciding whether or not to pull them over.

[geronl]

very similar to civil asset forfeiture in some ways

[Smokin Joe]

And, one weave does not weaving make.  I had a DPS trooper explain to me that he would follow a driver for a bit before deciding whether or not to pull them over.

True enough, but depending on where you are, every gap between buildings, every intersection or road cut, can provide a serious crosswind.

With a road cut, you have wind from one side as you enter, in the cut the wind hits from the opposite side (reflected off the far side of the cut), and as you exit, the wind again reverses direction to hit you from the same side it hit you from as you were entering the cut. That can blow you around a lot, and here we consider 10-15 mph a 'breeze'.

I have heard troopers here talk about "weaving within the lane" with no lines crossed resulting in a stop, the whole roadside dance, nystagmus gaze test, and breath test, and that level of weaving can be caused by a lot of things.

Under those conditions (gusting crosswinds), it is difficult to keep your balance on two feet, so a field test can be flunked pretty easily. I don't drink or do drugs (unless you count tobacco and coffee), but when I did drink, I was cursed/blessed with the ability to talk more fluently than when completely sober. Tongue twisters got easier for me. That, and a cool head, kept me from trouble a couple of times I may have been borderline.

[Smokin Joe]

very similar to civil asset forfeiture in some ways

The delay in providing Brady Material and exculpatory evidence is what I don't get. The whole thing could have been cleared up with a urine test, and those are administered to people on probation around here for less than 20 bucks, in less than 20 minutes. "From pee to free in ten."

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The delay in providing Brady Material and exculpatory evidence is what I don't get. The whole thing could have been cleared up with a urine test, and those are administered to people on probation around here for less than 20 bucks, in less than 20 minutes. "From pee to free in ten."

But then they wouldn't be able to thoroughly search the person and vehicle, maybe seize some assets, get fingerprints on file, satisy various bean counters by making "an arrest", get an impound fee for their buddy at the towing company, court charges (I suspect they charge you for the overnight stay as well?), and most importantly SCREW OVER SOMEONE WHO SAID THEY WERE WRONG.

[truth_seeker]

This far into the thread, no concern for those killed or injured by impaired drivers.

Question: Would you prefer that law enforcement make errors on the side of the other motorists and pedestrians that might be killed or injured by impaired drivers, or the suspected to be impaired driver?

[Smokin Joe]

This far into the thread, no concern for those killed or injured by impaired drivers.

Question: Would you prefer that law enforcement make errors on the side of the other motorists and pedestrians that might be killed or injured by impaired drivers, or the suspected to be impaired driver?

The means exist to screen for use of most of the popular classes of drugs and alcohol, in a very short period of time. When those screens come back negative, there is NO basis to assert that person is in fact "impaired" in the sense of DUI.
To arrest and detain someone in the face of exculpatory evidence is abuse of power. To fail to allow them to provide exculpatory evidence only compounds the egregious breach of the presumption of innocence. This woman was robbed of her means of making a living, in a situation which was dragged out for four months because the arresting officer(s) would not accept that she was not messed up on drugs. A blood test can be far more comprehensive a tox screen than even the urinalysis, and that came back clean.

While police and doctors assume everyone lies to them, there are exceptions. The screening could have been provided, just as UAs are provided for people on supervised probation, and the matter cleared up in minutes instead of months. For whatever reason, that was not done, and the woman was deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Those same screening tests would have found traces in the woman's system of cannabis, meth, opiates, anphetamines, and other classes of drugs, and done so and provided supportive evidence for the arrest had those metabolites been present, with the general presumption that those metabolites would indicate the driver was, indeed, under the influence of whatever drugs they had tested 'dirty' for.
Whether those levels constituted concentrations sufficient for impairment could be sorted out with a blood test if so indicated. (Alcohol procedure was a screening device, and if positive, testing with an evidentiary (usually breath testing) device calibrated to provide a BAC considered accurate enough to be evidence. The same could be done for drugs, or a zero tolerance standard adopted, which would make the process even easier for the arresting officers and the courts, with samples retained/provided for independent testing.

At any rate, in this case, the officers spent their time arresting someone who apparently was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with the result that they may have let one or more people who were under the influence drive on by.

There are enough real criminals out there that people who are not need not be rounded up and treated as guilty until proven innocent.

[DB]

All I can say is if that happened to me I'd be on a war path with the city. I'd hire a lawyer and go for blood.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

This far into the thread, no concern for those killed or injured by impaired drivers.

Question: Would you prefer that law enforcement make errors on the side of the other motorists and pedestrians that might be killed or injured by impaired drivers, or the suspected to be impaired driver?

I'd prefer they stick to due process, and use the time catching actual impaired drivers which would be better for everyone.

[truth_seeker]

The means exist to screen for use of most of the popular classes of drugs and alcohol, in a very short period of time. When those screens come back negative, there is NO basis to assert that person is in fact "impaired" in the sense of DUI.
To arrest and detain someone in the face of exculpatory evidence is abuse of power. To fail to allow them to provide exculpatory evidence only compounds the egregious breach of the presumption of innocence. This woman was robbed of her means of making a living, in a situation which was dragged out for four months because the arresting officer(s) would not accept that she was not messed up on drugs. A blood test can be far more comprehensive a tox screen than even the urinalysis, and that came back clean.

While police and doctors assume everyone lies to them, there are exceptions. The screening could have been provided, just as UAs are provided for people on supervised probation, and the matter cleared up in minutes instead of months. For whatever reason, that was not done, and the woman was deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Those same screening tests would have found traces in the woman's system of cannabis, meth, opiates, anphetamines, and other classes of drugs, and done so and provided supportive evidence for the arrest had those metabolites been present, with the general presumption that those metabolites would indicate the driver was, indeed, under the influence of whatever drugs they had tested 'dirty' for.
Whether those levels constituted concentrations sufficient for impairment could be sorted out with a blood test if so indicated. (Alcohol procedure was a screening device, and if positive, testing with an evidentiary (usually breath testing) device calibrated to provide a BAC considered accurate enough to be evidence. The same could be done for drugs, or a zero tolerance standard adopted, which would make the process even easier for the arresting officers and the courts, with samples retained/provided for independent testing.

At any rate, in this case, the officers spent their time arresting someone who apparently was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with the result that they may have let one or more people who were under the influence drive on by.

There are enough real criminals out there that people who are not need not be rounded up and treated as guilty until proven innocent.

Then we differ. The fact may be that LE could do as you say, I doubt most agencies have all of that capability.

So we are left with the original question that I posed. "Would you prefer that law enforcement make errors on the side of the other motorists and pedestrians that might be killed or injured by impaired drivers, or the suspected to be impaired driver?"

I prefer allowing LE to inconvenience a few drivers, to save lives.

I know a guy that killed somebody while impaired, and rest assured he lives out his remaining days wishing that he had been prevented.

[driftdiver]

very similar to civil asset forfeiture in some ways

Yeah they are in a rush to fix that.

[INVAR]

I prefer allowing LE to inconvenience a few drivers, to save lives.

"Inconvenience"??????

So guilty until you bankrupt yourself to prove your own innocence. 

And this is what now passes for 'Liberty' in this country - because people want to trade essential liberty for security?

Pathetic.

[Smokin Joe]

Then we differ. The fact may be that LE could do as you say, I doubt most agencies have all of that capability.

So we are left with the original question that I posed. "Would you prefer that law enforcement make errors on the side of the other motorists and pedestrians that might be killed or injured by impaired drivers, or the suspected to be impaired driver?"

I prefer allowing LE to inconvenience a few drivers, to save lives.

I know a guy that killed somebody while impaired, and rest assured he lives out his remaining days wishing that he had been prevented.

The old "If it saves just one life" argument. Sorry. I don't consider being deprived of your means to make a living for four months "worth it". Especially if this is endemic.
And especially when this sort of technology: https://www.homehealthtesting.com/home-drug-test-c-21.html?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Home%2520Drug%2520Test&utm_term=home%2520drug%2520test&utm_content=Home%2520Drug%2520Test is available, cheap, and fast, and so simple a cop can do it, if they are a parent.

the test you are looking at tests urine for 12 Drugs at the indicated Levels and Detection Periods Cocaine     2-4 Days    300 ng/mL
Marijuana     15-30 Days    50 ng/mL
Opiates     2-4 Days    2000 ng/mL
Amphetamines     2-4 Days    1000 ng/mL
Methamphetamines     3-5 Days    1000 ng/mL
Phencyclidine(PCP)     7-14 Days    25 ng/mL
Benzodiazepines     3-7 Days    300 ng/mL
Barbiturates     4-7 Days    300 ng/mL
Methadone     3-5 Days    300 ng/mL
Oxycodone     2-4 Days    100 ng/mL
Ecstasy     1-3 Days    500 ng/mL
Propoxyphene     1-2 Days    300 ng/m

in a test that takes under ten minutes and cost per kit in quantities over 300 is $4.95. I would wager that deals could be made for larger quantities at even lower prices, the test is 99% accurate, and FDA approved.
Blood could be drawn to confirm a positive result and provide evidence for prosecution and those who are not under the influence could be released without loss of jobs, vehicles, etc.

The means are there to prevent this miscarriage of justice, in less time than it takes to book one offender. That weeds out the innocent, and puts officers back on the road where they can find people who are a danger to public safety.

[truth_seeker]

"Inconvenience"??????

So guilty until you bankrupt yourself to prove your own innocence. 

And this is what now passes for 'Liberty' in this country - because people want to trade essential liberty for security?

Pathetic.

I am pathetic for my concern for life? And coming from you?

And worst of all, I don't even rate a single Bible verse. That is pathetic.

You are actually just "situational" in your concern for life.

[anubias]

The old "If it saves just one life" argument. Sorry. I don't consider being deprived of your means to make a living for four months "worth it". Especially if this is endemic.
And especially when this sort of technology: https://www.homehealthtesting.com/home-drug-test-c-21.html?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Home%2520Drug%2520Test&utm_term=home%2520drug%2520test&utm_content=Home%2520Drug%2520Test is available, cheap, and fast, and so simple a cop can do it, if they are a parent.

the test you are looking at tests urine for 12 Drugs at the indicated Levels and Detection Periods Cocaine     2-4 Days    300 ng/mL
Marijuana     15-30 Days    50 ng/mL
Opiates     2-4 Days    2000 ng/mL
Amphetamines     2-4 Days    1000 ng/mL
Methamphetamines     3-5 Days    1000 ng/mL
Phencyclidine(PCP)     7-14 Days    25 ng/mL
Benzodiazepines     3-7 Days    300 ng/mL
Barbiturates     4-7 Days    300 ng/mL
Methadone     3-5 Days    300 ng/mL
Oxycodone     2-4 Days    100 ng/mL
Ecstasy     1-3 Days    500 ng/mL
Propoxyphene     1-2 Days    300 ng/m

in a test that takes under ten minutes and cost per kit in quantities over 300 is $4.95. I would wager that deals could be made for larger quantities at even lower prices, the test is 99% accurate, and FDA approved.
Blood could be drawn to confirm a positive result and provide evidence for prosecution and those who are not under the influence could be released without loss of jobs, vehicles, etc.

The means are there to prevent this miscarriage of justice, in less time than it takes to book one offender. That weeds out the innocent, and puts officers back on the road where they can find people who are a danger to public safety.

That test is rather frightening in and of itself.  If the woman had smoked pot two weeks prior, she would have tested positive.  It doesn't prove that she was driving stoned.

Kids today best watch out if this is the new way for the cities to fill their coffers since Obama raised the speed limits. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This far into the thread, no concern for those killed or injured by impaired drivers.

Question: Would you prefer that law enforcement make errors on the side of the other motorists and pedestrians that might be killed or injured by impaired drivers, or the suspected to be impaired driver?

Good lord are you a bleep.

No personal attacks! Mod 2

[Smokin Joe]

@anubias

The test would have come up clean if the blood test did, as in this case.

If there are established limits for single drug impairment levels, then this test would serve as a screening test, much as non-evidentiary breath testing devices were used to provide screening for further testing for DUI before the evidentiary testing devices became smaller, more field ready, and hopefully more accurate. The blood test remains the best quantitative analysis, provided the chemistry is conducted correctly, but with 99% accuracy, those who are clean and sober could be released in short order with a minimum of complication and paperwork.

If screening devices were used to provide "Brady Material" and let the drivers who are not under the influence of any drugs go, it would also free officers to pursue other drivers who might be impaired. It would free up lab time and budget for the cases which were impaired, and free the labs from having to test samples which would come back negative.
All of that is a plus to the jurisdiction interested in public safety and not just racking up convictions regardless of guilt.

I am not for having impaired drivers on the roads (just another reason I am not for the legalization of Marijuana for recreational use). When I was a fireman/EMS (early 70s) we were among the first to package patients after extrication from mangled vehicles and load them on a helicopter for the ride to Shock-Trauma at Hopkins. I have seen friends die in accidents which were alcohol related, literally, and helped remove them form the vehicle, or what was left of it.
But I am not for innocent drivers living in fear of being gigged for something they did not do, either. That contributes to 'black and white fever', where a driver is paying so much attention to the police car on their six that they are driving poorly--which, incidentally, can get them pulled over...

With higher speed limits, expect more emphasis on impaired drivers. Reaction times and coordination get even more critical at higher speeds.

[INVAR]

I am pathetic for my concern for life? And coming from you?

And worst of all, I don't even rate a single Bible verse. That is pathetic.

You are actually just "situational" in your concern for life.

My family has been at the raw end of cops on a power trip, who got the wrong house - busted in without a warrant - beat the living crap out of my two early 20's daughters in their own home and then charged them with 'menacing', 'resisting arrest' and assault on a peace officer'. 

Cost us tens of thousands of dollars to "prove" their innocence.  Amazingly - the video/audio evidence both cops were supposed to have of the no-knock raid went mysteriously missing - and even after being caught lying boldfaced on the stand - the system STILL brought them right on up to trial.   The day of the trial - they dropped the charges but insisted my kids do probation, and after all this time - after spending more money to supposedly 'expunge' their records, the CHARGE of assaulting a cop is still on their records.

I lost my naiveté on how corrupt the law-enforcement/judicial system is in this country.  It was a shock, a blow to everything I thought and awoken me to how far we have truly fallen.

Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.  Talk to ANY Defense attorney who is honest and they will tell you the tis how our system now works.

Pathetic that liberty takes a back seat to the want of safety and security.