2007-07-08 18:56:27 · 14 answers · asked by Kathy V 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
It might be able to be used after the fact if the situation was serious enough, but not for probable cause. If that were the case, then just have Officers stationed inside of every bar. I'm sure if the person is under the influence, they will be spotted.
2007-07-08 20:30:28 · answer #1 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a tough question to answer without more facts. If the officers were to observe a person on video drinking heavily and within a short time frame observe him driving then they could use the information from the video as probable cause to pull him over. At that point they would need to run sobriety tests on the driver to have enough for an arrest. If the officer merely sees a video of a person drinking and found out from a witness that he drove after that but the officers did not witness him driving then they could not make an arrest merely on that information.
If the person were to say be in a hit and run accident where there was great bodily injury or something extenuating and the officers were to obtain a video of the driver right before the accident that showed him drinking heavily than in that case they would probably make an exception and add a charge of felony DUI.
2007-07-08 19:18:32 · answer #2 · answered by flafuncop 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so.
There would have to be a witness that actually saw them driving. Secondly, there would have to be a basis for the stop, ie: crossed over center line, swerving.
The accussed also would have to afforded the opportunity to take a Breathalyzer test.
The only exception I can think would be a fatal hit and run accident. Still there would have to be proof the accused drove. A time table would be set up on time drinking and how long before they drove. A witness would be needed, unless there was physical evidence like car parts at the scene or piece of victim's clothing under car.
2007-07-08 23:34:35 · answer #3 · answered by detectivetom 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people say yes, but I'm not too sure about it. If the police didn't catch the person while he was driving, then they didn't actually see him drive drunk. So that makes it second hand evidence. They didn't run a breath test on him, so his lawyer could say it was only colored water, or the video was a fake one.
I doubt if the police would get involved with it, however they may be on the look out for this person in the future.
2007-07-08 19:05:03 · answer #4 · answered by Fordman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they could definitely be arrested...convicted is a different question. If a person was falling down drunk, it would be clear that he/she was over the legal limit. If the person was merely tipsy on camera, a lawyer could argue that while the person had been drinking, he/she wasn't legally drunk.
you might also be able to argue that a long time had passed between when the footage of the person drinking was shot and when the footage of the driving was shot.
2007-07-08 19:19:57 · answer #5 · answered by wucheckmate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
looks rather unlikely, yet whilst the cop had sturdy testimony from a collection of eyewitnesses which you have been of course drunk once you obtain into your automobile and drove off, this is a threat which you would be able to be arrested hours or perhaps days later and a court could desire to rule it as valid evidence. cops often count on on-the-spot sobriety exams to make the value stick, yet different sorts of evidence are admissible, and there is not any rule which says a drunk driving force could purely be arrested if the cop catches him on an identical time as driving.
2016-10-01 04:43:44 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The police would still have to ascertain that the person driving was drunk according to the law. The video by itself is not adequate evidence.
2007-07-08 19:34:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not normally the proof that the police would like to use. They would prefer to observe the person driving and then test them for alcohol.
It's difficult to authenticate videotapes that are not shot by the police.
2007-07-08 18:59:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you drive after you are sober and without problem then?but if you are driving in California with 0.08% (BAC) and being stopped by authority,well just kiss goodbye to your license.you don't need an additional evidence,jail you go.
2007-07-08 19:09:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be hard to prove what your alcohol level was by a film, they could only prove you were drinking, but would have a hard time by film alone convincing you were above the legal limit.
2007-07-08 19:07:17 · answer #10 · answered by danielss429 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋