A federal jury has awarded an Iowa man more than $100,000 after police detained him for driving under the influence when he was completely sober.

The ruling is part of a pattern of police in Iowa stopping and even arresting drivers for OWI when they were completely sober. The ruling shows it is the taxpayers who may ultimately pay the price.

  • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 month ago

    Experts say the standard practice for law enforcement is to err on arresting and detaining a sober driver rather than risk letting someone under the influence back on the road.

    Sounds like new training is needed then. The 4th amendment exists for a reason. If they can pass a field sobriety check (which is bullshit btw) and blow zero on a breathalyzer, they should be let go outside of some extenuating circumstances that I couldn’t cite at the moment.

    • Cypher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      Field sobriety tests shouldn’t exist when there are better methods like breathalysers and test strips that detect drugs.

      They exist solely so that cops can abuse their power.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        This confuses me a lot. Here you’re either blowing into that breathalyser, or you’re getting escorted to the nearest hospital for a blood test (you can collect your car later at the impound after paying the ridiculous fee).

        A gymnastics course in the middle of the night off the side of some road is just awkward.

    • auzy1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Here in Australia, we just skip straight to breathalyzer. No idea why you guys piss around with anything else

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 month ago

    It should never be policy to arrest innocent people for fear of letting the guilty go.

    Quite the opposite, it should be a willingness to let the guilty go for fear of arresting an innocent person.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    The ruling shows it is the taxpayers who may ultimately pay the price.

    Ok… But what about the people falsely imprisoned? Even if they hire a lawyer and win their case, they’ve still paid a massive price in time and misery.