Here's my comment (in part) that I posted on the Impaired Driving Forum in reference to a discussion on the significance of "green coatings" and "raised taste buds."
"At the most, a green - or any color for that matter - coating on the tongue means that the person ingested something. That "something" could have been marijuana, mints, toothpaste, or anything else. Certainly, if someone is regularly smoking something, the person's tongue may show signs of being irritated. And if someone is smoking a hand-rolled marijuana cigarette, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some of the marijuana debris has been deposited in the person's mouth.
"As far as "raised taste buds" goes, the most I would do in court is testify to my observation that the person's tongue looked to have small bumps on his/her tongue. And that was consistent with people I have seen who I believed were smoking marijuana (or crack, or meth, or something else).
"Both these "signs" are simply observations made by officers during many DRE evalutions. At the most, they are signs of possible drug use, and not drug influence."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read, and I read a lot of ridiculous things.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, it's horrifying to think that any police officer would testify to such nonsense as this:
"that was consistent with people I have seen who I believed were smoking marijuana (or crack, or meth, or something else)."
"Raised taste buds" are consistent with eating, drinking and smoking cigarettes or cigars. You might as well say that breathing is consistent with people who you believed were smoking marijuana.
Any "green tongue" that you see that is not attributable to lemon-lime Gatorade, a green Life Saver, green Jello, or the like, is a figment of your overactive imagination. People SMOKE marijuana, they don't EAT it by the fistful.
https://www.scribd.com/document/322518168/1-23-03-0204-13755-CBX-DUI-Arrest-Police-Report-Sacramento-Ocr
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3phLsGzX0EY
DUI arrests, even those not leading to convictions of DUI, can have extremely far reaching consequences. the trial linked to is for an admission to practice law in the State of California. The application was denied, due in large part to the judge finding applicant's assertion that he was not under the influence at the time of arrest, differed markedly from the police report and Officer Jeff George's testimony (which occurred four years after the DUI arrest was pled out as a dry reckless. Why George felt the need to come and lie some more and get the law license denied, after he already got the applicant fired from his law firm job and sent into twelve step cult hell, is really not clear, however, George admits in his testimony that he was recognized five times by Mother's Against Drunk Driving for DUI cop excellence (some whom have received these awards were later fired and charged with perjury, so, here's hoping that happens to George). The judge, Patrice McElroy will not let George testify to much of anything that compares his records for DUI arrest against the average cops...George trips up and first said he suspected intoxication and drug influence, only to later claim he didn't suspect intoxication and did not administer a breath test in the field, prior to making and arrest (he trips up in detailing what discussion he and the lawyer in waiting had about taking a breath test after the applicant had plainly passed all his stupid field sobriety tests (George could not do his hustle anywhere that required these stops be filmed by dash cams): https://www.scribd.com/document/322518168/1-23-03-0204-13755-CBX-DUI-Arrest-Police-Report-Sacramento-Ocr Judge McElroy denied Couglhin
Seeking advice on the online world. Lastly found this, thanks for the writer who wrote this amazing post about law and lawyer. Awaiting for more.
ReplyDeleteSingapore civil litigation lawyer
Great and I have a super supply: Whole House Reno sustainable home renovation
ReplyDelete