Wednesday, May 07, 2014

GPD Corruption Results In Mandatory DWI Testing



Because of the corrupted Greece Police Dept. under Merritt Rahn & John Auberger's leadership in 2005, a bill Sponsored by Joe Robach requiring mandatory DWI testing after serious car accidents passed the NY State Senate.

13WHAM reports: "A local family’s story could change how police handle serious car crashes.
The State Senate passed a proposed law which would require mandatory DWI testing after serious car crashes.

Nick and Cindy Oliva hope their story can help bring change. In 2005, their 18-year-old daughter Stephanie was killed when the car she was riding in turned into the path of an oncoming car.
The driver of the vehicle and Stephanie’s boyfriend at the time, Chad Kenyon, was never charged criminally. Neither was the driver of the other car.

It was a story that partly inspired a bill that would require police to take field sobriety tests and blood alcohol tests at the scene or in the hospital when there is serious injury or death.
Right now, it's up to an officer's discretion.


“Well there's no doubt, I'm totally in agreement with the law,” said Nick Oliva. “Regardless of what the circumstances are, when you have a fatality, it's imperative to get answers so you understand the complete situation.”

The Oliva family filed a federal lawsuit in November against the Town of Greece and the police department for its handlinLocal family prompted mandatory DWI testing billg of the case. The lawsuit is still pending." *

* Typos by 13WHAM

SCATS ~~ How can this be Constitutional? Isn't a warrant needed? If you want to get DWI taken seriously, then you MUST get the JUDGES WHO HEAR THESE CASES to take it seriously! Taking away a license does NOT keep drunks from driving!
  
  

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is certainly going to be challenged in the courts. I t will happen on or before the first presumed to be innocent driver tells the cops to shove it and is arrested or has his License suspended .
While a warrant in not necessary, probable cause is still needed.
Presently, any driver suspected of being impaired, that refuse to be tested , results in an automatic suspension of his or her license.
This law will not stand the scrutiny by the courts as being constitutional.

SCATS said...

To 10:36AM ~~ While I feel for the Oliva family, Robach appears to be losing it.

Anonymous said...

Whoopie doo, It passed the Senate. Now everybody who thinks the drunks in the Assembly will pass this please raise your hand.
Remember Susan Johns?

Somebody invents a test for catnip SCATS is a goner.
It blows around Constitutional muster because Driver License agreements are a civil matter between you and the State.

This is a wonderful almost law because Fiandach will make a ton of money from it.

SCATS said...

To 1:35PM ~~ It's another fuzzy feel good moment that likely will put Greece NY on the map with another SCOTUS case.

Anonymous said...

I'm no lawyer, but I would think probable cause exists if you violently slam your car into another car or a home/guardrail/telephone pole.

SCATS said...

To 8:15PM ~~ OR maybe it's because the driver is elderly, has a medical issue, is taking meds ... or was just diagnosed as diabetic ;)

Anonymous said...

My heart still goes out to the Oliva Family. We know at the time we had some real corruption going on. A young girl was killed and the GPD did not do any real investigation. If they cared at all, a blood test would have been done with the drivers. The GPD never investigated how this accident really happened? Was their drinking,was their drugs? Did they do their job? They should of been smart and caring enough to do testing at the scene, no matter if it's the law or not. Their was a young life taken? The GPD, they did what they want. A life taken at a accident is serious. Everyone who is involved with this decisions of passing the law for blood testing at the scene of the accident when a death is involved or a brutal accident. They need to look at their own families and think about if they lost a family member because of drinking or drugs. How would their life be after losing a loved one from a impaired driver. We all may have a drink but we need to think before we get behind that wheel. A blood test should be done at the scene even if it isn't the law. Everyone deserves to know if drugs or alcohol was involved. Are we saying the only ones who should pay the price is the family who lost their loved one and never know? Think about it if it was your loved one. Law or not the ones that we trust to find out how an accident happened would want to do a blood test and a investigation how that accident happened. Trust isn't with the GPD.....

SCATS said...

To 10:50PM ~~ There are LOTS of reasons why serious accidents happen that have NOTHING to do with drugs. As the law has been, it is up to the cops to decide if alcohol might be a factor & do the testing. In the Oliva case, there were so many "mistakes" made that the ensuing "investigation" was merely a sham. Don't forget that Brian Ball closed the case BEFORE receiving back the toxicology report on the one teen. He wrote that the tests were clear when in truth it showed the boy had been smoking pot. For reasons I've yet to hear explained, the court dismissed the few charges brought. Even more mysterious was the appearance of Rahn himself. We will likely never know the whole truth about this tragic case. But that's not reason enough to subject everyone involved in an accident to alcohol testing in the future. If grandma has a heart attack causing her to plow the car into a McDonald's drive-thru lane filled with cars, are we making sense by testing all the "drivers?"

Anonymous said...

It seems to be more about if it's a fatal accident and if a death occurs. If the officers feels that alcohol may have played a roll in the cause. They have to take a blood test at the scene. When coming from a bowling ally and a fatal car accident had just happened and the other driver already has a record. I would think both driver should have been tested at the scene on the Oliva case....

Anonymous said...

I believe the testing at the scene is when the officer feels drinking maybe the factor. So it's planning on a law if they feel drinking is involved then a test is required to be done at that scenes hoping the officer has good judgment and honest.

SCATS said...

To 2:08 & 2:15AM ~~ Under Rahn's/Auberger's watch, "good judgment" was a scarce commodity.

Anonymous said...

As you get older you come to understand cops do more to minimize the work they do and don't give a damn about doing their job.

How many rear end crashes at Red Lights are caused by texting? Do cops even bother to look into the cause, or do they just punch minimal information into the MDT and spit a report out? Remember, when you just crashed because you were texting to tell the cop something went wrong with the brakes, in Greece you will get to drive the vehicle away if it still runs.

Greece cops are nothing beyond secretaries for insurance carriers and it will get worse under Baby Pig.

SCATS said...

To 1:27PM ~~ Warning! You may call him "Me Chief" ... but resist the temptation to call names, please.

Anonymous said...

1:27 I tend to agree with you to some extent but to be perfectly honest it's really not their fault. It's just the way things are done now with all the new technology .they simply have no idea how to do it any other way, The new report generating system has tended to make them lazy to some degree.
Back in the day, reports were hand written and with the exception of State 104 accident reports, there were no boxes to check and litte narrative. Crime reports on the other hand, required more accurate detailed information. Reports were returned to be redone if spelling and other grammatical errors were found by the watch commander Hell, even dog barking complaints were made in written form Today, everything is coded, given a number and CR.and entered into the computer.
There is a reason for the changes. All written reports are subjecto foils. Computer reports are not written out thus no written record to foil. In addition, the FBI gets only reports of serious crimes which are in narrative form but the less serious crimes are computer entries, This has a positive effect as it falsely represent the actual crimes in terms if numbers and relative statistics.