THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULING 02/05/09
The Supreme Court of Illinois has denied the Lodge’s petition for leave to appeal the case of People v. Carey. As has already been reported, the Appellate Court ruled that the use of an administrative breathalyzer examination at a criminal proceeding is permissible. The Lodge filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking an opportunity to argue our position. The Supreme Court denied our request. Accordingly, the ruling of the Appellate Court remains in effect. Evidence obtained by IAD, whether for a criminal case or an administrative case, will be admitted into evidence at any subsequent criminal proceeding, as long as the recovery of the evidence does not violate the exclusionary rule. To be clear, the fact that evidence was obtained administratively does not in and of itself violate the exclusionary rule and will be admitted into evidence. The Lodge will continue to monitor what it believes was an incorrect ruling by the Appellate Court and will inform the membership of any new developments.
It is the right of a law enforcement officer to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. The basic thrust of the Garrity Rule is that a department member may be compelled to give statements under threat of discipline or discharge but those statements may not be used in the criminal prosecution of the individual officer. The courts have held that choosing to work in a police department does not give a person a “watered-down” version of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Apparently a citizen has the right to refuse to submit to a breathalyser and a police officer is not afforded the same protection. In essence evidence is gathered from the officer because he is compelled to incriminate himself while under duress.
How is this not a violation of Garrity?
This is in no way an endorcement of drinking and driving.
6 comments:
this is a no brainer--if they ask you to blow say you feel like killing yourself and need to be admitted for psych eval---f the department
Why doesn't the FOP get off there ass and file a petition for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court? This case obviously has a federal question dealing with the confrontation clause and it might be an issue they decide to take up. YOu never know til you try.
"this is a no brainer--if they ask you to blow say you feel like killing yourself and need to be admitted for psych eval---f the department"
Whoops- and then the department says- oops- you don't qualify for an FOID card- oops you don't have a job.
Maybe you turn in your crackerjack j.d.
You won't find this reported in the US MSM. Please look at what is happening in our country right now. The BBC did this report and every American needs to see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ognwuKGOKB4&feature=related
Police officers should set an example to the general public and not be drunken buffoons. You're supposed to be the cream of the crop, not the crap off the bottom of the bowl.
True to the 13th @7:58, but we should also not lose our jobs because we used the rights granted to us by the United States Constitution, which we are sworn to protect. There is a difference between work and not. Everyone says police are on duty 24/7. That is true to a point. We do not get paid to be on duty 24/7 and should have a higher Moral Code...if you can explain that. We have a duty to report crime, not to stop it. Most of us go out of our way to stop crime off duty. That does not mean that we represent the department 24/7. We do drink and get drunk. Some of us do drive when we have had too much. No one should drink and drive. It is dangerous and illegal. That is not the question. The question is: Can an employer violate your Constitutional Rights? Be careful before you say yes. That would mean that the your job now becomes a facilitator for the government and is a coercive force in your prosecution. Imagine being pulled over and you work for a bank. I am the person who pulled you over and I call your manager and have him tell you that if you do not complete a breathalyzer, you are fired. Is that right? No. You were coursed into submitting that breathalyzer for fear of losing your job. You were not working. Does that matter? Now imagine that you worked for RC Cola. They have, as part of your contract that you can not be seen in public with anything from a competitor and can not possess illegal drugs. You sign the contract and get the job. 10 years in, you get a knock on your door from your supervisor who says that you have smelled like pot in the past and if you don't let them search your house, you are fired. You allow it and they find a joint in the ashtray. They then call us; the police. Are you going to plead guilty to possession? NO! It is an unreasonable search and should be thrown out. That, as a police officer, is all we are asking. That the two re different. You can't use one to facilitate the other. If that is the case, then when I pull you or your friends over, I want a judge to tell me it is OK t call your employer and have them force you to lose your job for not blowing....
Post a Comment