Le Roy PD hosts class for officers seeking certification with breathalyzer

That explains why I saw a Steuben Co. Sheriff drive past the house yesterday....At first I thought, "hmmm?"

And the irony is, whenever a cop is arrested for a DUI, the first thing they do is refuse the breathalyzer. Let that be a reminder for all you civilians. Take the 5th, refuse the breathalyzer, take your lumps, don't incriminate yourself.

It's easy enough to get into trouble with how low the BAC is for a DUI. If you go out to dinner and have a couple beers or a couple glasses of wine, you could find yourself at risk during your drive home.

I wonder who pulls the police over when they cross a double solid yellow line or when they speed through a village. A Sheriff was in front of me on Rt 5 @ about 5:15 the other morning going east through the village of Le Roy. The car wandered over the double yellow lines in front of the NAPA store and was also speeding through the village. I was at a speed between 30 and 35 MPH and the sheriff was steadily pulling away from me.

Alot of double standards Doug...The one that gets me is that texting is against the law and it should be but they ,the police,ride around with laptops and such and use those items while driving..

I couldn't guess how many times I've seen a cop holding a cell phone to his ear while driving. That would cost anyone else 100 bucks or more if we get caught.

There is an exemption in the telephone while driving law for law enforcement and ems personnel in the performance of their duty.

Those laptops you speak of Mark are not the police sending casual emails or surfing the net, they are connected to the license plate readers, the COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH [CAD} system which transmits preplanned and situation reports and GPS directions to incidents when a car is dispatched, many fire departments use them as well. The officers for the most part are not messaging back and forth other than receiving critical data for the incidents they respond too.

It is not a double standard in anyway, and it is not a free internet access wifi point

Mark i realize that those laptops are for police business,my point was more that is was as unsafe for them to be using while driving just as texting is unsafe while driving..

Actually Mark, they are MUCH safer than the old hot sheet system where officers had to fumble through papers on a clip board while driving.

For the most part, they are not reading messages while driving other than GPS and BIG BOLD ALERTS if the license plate readers go off

Mark B. I am tired of the double standard, and that's exactly what it is.

"As their experience increases, police officers may come to regard themselves as invincible. Well-intended laws that allow officers to engage in hazardous behavior from which others are forbidden to participate may contribute to that feeling, do more harm than good to officer safety, and contribute to the perception that officers engage in hypocritical behavior by enforcing the same prohibitions against driving while texting or making handheld cell phone calls that they appear to flout."

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=displa…

Great link Dave...Exact point i was trying to make..The police can be just as distracted by these devises ,cell phone ,laptops ,and radios and such, as the public can .And it can be hazardous for both groups...

Again, Howard it's a double standard. if it's a stupid law, then it shouldn't be in effect. When everyone has to abide equally, then we are freer. I truly have a real problem BTW with the term"lawfully entitled" . Imagine how much better it could be if eveyone had to follow the same rules.

What about other people that have to cover many miles and need the phone to do their job? They use hands-free devices. Civilians are held to a different standard it seems. Criticizing them for being allowed to do something that civilians aren't ,doesn't make us any freer, but I do believe we should be allowed to voice our displeasure at double standards.

Howard it is a distraction to use those things while driving..I agree with the law...The texting and cell phone law should be on the books..It is just a dangerous for the police to do as is for the public...Daves link made a good case of this ...

Doug, I pulled this from the NYS DMV site.

"A chemical test, such as a breathalyzer, shows the Blood Alcohol
Content (BAC), which is the amount of alcohol by percentage
in your blood. Your license will be suspended if you are arrested
for DWI, DWAI, Zero Tolerance, or any other alcohol or drugrelated
charge, and refuse to take a chemical test. If the refusal is
later confirmed at a DMV hearing, your license will be revoked
for at least one year and you will be assessed a civil penalty of at
least $500."

http://www.dmv.ny.gov/broch/c-12.pdf

How would refusing the test benefit you at all? I completely understand your logic, but losing your license for a year has a huge impact. Under the "implied consent," driving a vehicle is a privilege and when you get on the roads you "agree" to submit to testing when pulled over and that's why the penalties exist.

Just for the record, I'm not arguing with you but curious if you knew the penalties and if you'd still refuse knowing that.

you have to have a warrant to get a blood test for dwi....

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/04/no-warrantless-blood-tests-for-dui/

You get the penalty if you refuse the breathalyzer. No warrant is required for that.

I think they still have to prove that you were, in fact, driving under the influence, Amanda. People who refuse the breathalyzer test, either then agree to a blood test or wait for the warrant, which takes a while, giving time for the alcohol level to diminish. Plus it's more accurate, I believe.

I'm just kinda spouting here, I don't know for sure.

My personal choice is to not drive when I've had a few.

I don't drink at all so it's a non-issue for me personally, but I was curious.

That's good, I am sure I learn something almost every day her on The Batavian.

This lawyer sponsored Blog deals specifically with New York State, It explains very well the blow or not to blow choice and the pluses and minuses

http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer-blog.com/2011/09/dwi-dui-in-new-york-s…

Amanda.....the penalties kick in if you refuse the test and then are convicted of the dwi in court. Then they hit you with those. If you get no conviction then NYS DMV can do nothing.

Thanks Kyle.

That is NOT exactly true Kyle,

"New York law is very strict on refusals. If you refuse to blow, your license in New York will be revoked for a year (subject to a Refusal Hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles). It is critically important to recognize that even if you are ultimately acquitted of the DWI, your refusal is not automatically dismissed, and at the very least, you will incur significant additional legal cost "