2006-11-26 02:45:56 · 8 answers · asked by litared 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
"Suspected" is not "actual". If an officer released a driver after a roadside test or interview in the belief that the driver was under the limit, I do not think any liability would attach to an error on his part.
Then there is the margin of discretion. Or special issues like diplomatic immunity where the officer could prevent the driver from continuing (but not ticket or prosecute; that's for the Department of State Protocol Office to deal with), or let the driver go, or call the embassy or consulate to come and get him/her, etc.
2006-11-26 02:52:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you pour yourself out of your vehicle, throw up on my shoes, and announce that you are drunk; and then I don't take you to jail, my department & I are liable for any accident, injury or death that you incur while you are DUI.
Now if I stop you and suspect that you are drunk and after interviewing you and or doing a field sobriety test I let you go, and you are actually DUI and cause an accident. I had better be prepared to articulate why I felt you were not DUI when I stopped you. There may still be some liability.
That is why, when an officer suspects someone of being DUI, they arrest them and take them to the station for further tests. If they are not DUI, then they are released. The officer has done everything they can do, and has hopefully released the Department from any liability.
2006-11-26 03:03:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None, unless the state legislature had passed a law allowing for a lawsuit in such instances. Governmental immunity otherwise bars a lawsuit. Police officers have a "duty" to the office they hold, but typically do not owe a duty to a particular person or class of people.
So, if you look at my state's government immunity statute, it addresses "gross negligence" as an exemption to officer conduct:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yuwqm3blw3oo2zysqjg3utz4))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-691-1407
The first question is: Was the officer grossly negligent by releasing the drunk driving suspect?
The next question would be: Was the officer's decision to release the intoxicated driver the "proximate cause" of the injuries?
A classic example is a person being beaten in an alleyway while a police officer strolls by, ignoring the crime. Even if that's a dereliction of the officer's duty, the injured person cannot sue the cop.
William Maze
2006-11-27 07:33:22 · answer #3 · answered by William J. Maze 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a officer has proof, not merely suspect, that someone is a DUI driver they can be held liable for allowing them to drive.
If they don't arrest, they would have to make them go home with someone else, have someone come pick them up, or let them sleep it off at the station.
There is no real requirement that they have to arrest, but a liability to allow them to keep driving.
2006-11-26 02:51:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The worse liability is having to live with the knowledge that I should have sided with caution and taken the driver off the street but, since it was borderline, I let him go and he killed or maimed a family a few miles away. It's my call and I assure you that no "criminal" system could implement that kind of punishment. You would have a hard time charging me for making a decision based on my observations since they are not written down anywhere and I don't call in that I'm stopping a drunk and he failed SFST (field sobriety tests), etc. You could always name me in a suit but it would be hard pressed to get a win.
2006-11-26 03:45:46 · answer #5 · answered by spag 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if the driver was over the "LEGAL" limit and an officer was to let him go.. there would be civil and criminal charges against the officer if the driver got into a fatal accident... if the drunk was killed or the ones in the other vehicle, the families could sue the officer, the department for failure to incarcerate the driver....
2006-11-26 02:57:43 · answer #6 · answered by Jorge R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
UNLESS he performs a FST, you can't determine if a person is intoxicated justfrom smell alone. Now if he does a FST and lets the guy go, then prove that it even happened?
2006-11-26 04:43:31 · answer #7 · answered by kram_7777 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone would probably try to sue for not getting them off the road if there was an accident after he let them go.
People sue nowadays if their feelings get hurt....
2006-11-26 04:46:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋