Heres a video of a Hero copping a feel fondling the breasts of an attractive blonde woman whod called police (bad mistake) after her car was rear-ended by another vehicle:
The woman was injured and shaken by the accident which the Hero used as pretext to accuse her of being drunk (she wasnt, as subsequently determined by blood tests). The despicable cop paws at her breasts you know, because a slight blonde woman might be a threat to officer safety.
Lesson?
There is no problem that calling a cop wont make worse.
Remember: They are not there to help. They are there to bust people. And cop a feel, when the victim is an attractive woman.
If another driver struck her car from behind, then there was not probable traffic violation giving the cop probable cause to do a sobriety test. Like with the guy who was struck by the fleeing suspect in the Utah nurse case, no probable cause existed for this woman being drunk.
Whether her car was drivable after the accident may be a factor as if it wasn't then she wasn't about to get back into the car to go anywhere.
If another driver struck her car from behind, then there was not probable traffic violation giving the cop probable cause to do a sobriety test. Like with the guy who was struck by the fleeing suspect in the Utah nurse case, no probable cause existed for this woman being drunk.
I'm not sure we have enough video of the incident to determine whether the woman behaved erratically enough to give a cop probable cause to suspect impairment.
Like with the guy who was struck by the fleeing suspect in the Utah nurse case, no probable cause existed for this woman being drunk.
Even drunk drivers can get rear-ended by another vehicle. The Idaho truck driver hit head-on by the speeding Utah driver was on fire when he exited his truck and had been hit hard head-on and was massively burned. So there is considerable difference in these things when we try to compare them.
Even drunk drivers can get rear-ended by another vehicle.
Drunk driving or not, probable cause is required, excluding those sobriety checkpoints that are supposed to randomly administered. You don't go testing all drivers at every accident scene for impairment unless there's reason to believe a driver was at fault.
The Idaho truck driver hit head-on by the speeding Utah driver was on fire when he exited his truck and had been hit hard head-on and was massively burned. So there is considerable difference in these things when we try to compare them.
In terms of proper legal cause to test for impairment, no, there's not. Neither was perceived to be at fault in the accidents. The amount of injury is immaterial.
Drunk driving or not, probable cause is required, excluding those sobriety checkpoints that are supposed to randomly administered. You don't go testing all drivers at every accident scene for impairment unless there's reason to believe a driver was at fault.
We didn't see all of her behavior at the accident scene.
I'm not clear on what we're debating here. Are you objecting to any accident victim being observed and possibly tested/arrested for impairment or are you objecting to the slight brush of the woman's breast when the cop was clumsily trying to check her for a weapon concealed between her breasts?