Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rough_Magician_8117 t1_jdcg4zu wrote

Reply to comment by L-V-4-2-6 in North Hampton Chief Leaves After Investigation Into Questionable Arrest by L-V-4-2-6

It seems like the officers were arresting her on the premise she admitted to having a few drinks before driving home. Which is stupid because she also said she had a few drinks once she got home so any alcohol test results are pointless because there is not a way to determine if the impairment occurred before or after she got home. The article doesn’t state what the arrest was filed as, unless I missed it. I guess the officers wanted to make extra sure to violate some rights by taking pictures of the interior of her home for some reason, not sure what the angle was with that.

TLDR the police screwed up hard all around on this one and the chief did nothing to reprimand them.

EDIT: OP clarified in comment below. I misinterpreted some language in the article.

10

nixstyx t1_jdcla2g wrote

There's one important lesson to be learned from all of this: The police are not your friends. They are not looking out for you. They are not protecting you. Do not talk to police. DO NOT. TALK. TO POLICE.

17

L-V-4-2-6 OP t1_jdcgy16 wrote

"Officers returned to Loud’s home to further question her. They noticed the unclean condition of the home. Loud later told officers she had not cleaned in 10 years, according to the police report.

Asked if she had been drinking, Loud said she stopped off after work and drank a few beers before coming home to watch baseball. She said she might have had some hard lemonade at home."

There's no indication, at least in this article, that she drove at all. She simply said she came home. Those sorts of technicalities are huge in courts. To your point, you're absolutely right in that alcohol and its resulting effects take time, so any testing done (especially when they came back to her house a second time) should have absolutely no standing.

10