It was a disgrace.

is pretty much SOP for them. They are a pretty sloppy outfit. I avoid Sanford when i can.

with the police should be drug/alcohol tested without probable cause?

Or do you just set the limit of probable cause so low that it is utter meaningless, because of course in that state it will never be abused?

No, not even the most jaded ambulance chaser is going to sink to that level of barratry for a quick buck.

Remember they didn't even bother arresting him, the OP is advocating for the police power to drug test on mere interaction with LEOs and their liability to civil suits if they fail to do so.

Being able to drug test a person who has just taken another life is a lot different than drug testing a person based on mere interaction. I am opposed to drug testing in most cases and even I can see that it would be justified in this case, this was no mere interaction he had just killed a person.

and what is being presented is drug testing outside of arrest without probable cause with civil liability to ensue if not done.

As he claimed self defense, his state of mind would be at issue and if it was impaired that is relevant.

We have become a fascist state when people are arrested for peacefully refusing to leave the state legislature building - the people's building - and not arrested for shooting and killing unarmed children.

Of Ohio I can't refuse a test if I'm pulled over yet a man who shot an unarmed kid isn't? It boggles the mind.

I'm shocked by the way peaceful protest of unethical legislators are being treated but I probably shouldn't be. Guess I need to stop being so optimistic about people.

It could help prove one's innocence, or guilt, at some
point and shouldn't even be a question.

HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRUG TESTED

but the law is very clear, unless he consents, he can't be forced to submit to a test without a warrant and the request for a warrant has to have probable cause evidence that he was impaired that night, and, AFAIK, no police officer on the scene that night expressed any concerns of impairment.

Not saying it's right, it's just the way the law is.

THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A WARRANT THAT SAME NIGHT

and there was no evidence to suggest that he was impaired.
Please, don't mistake me for defending him, I'm just citing the law.
Sometimes the law sucks, but we're stuck with it until it's changed.

The police came over, saw a dead black male on the ground, Zimmerman holding a gun... and they dusted Zimmerman off, shook his hand, and sent him home.

Maybe they offered him the number of a good taxidermist, while they were at it. Wouldn't surprise me.

all I'm trying to do is educate people here on the law as far as drug/alcohol testing.

You do understand that, right?

but if you kill them with a gun you cannot?

that you're under the influence of drugs/alcohol.

but the law is very clear on this and the courts have ruled that, barring any evidence to the contrary, you can't force a person who isn't in custody to take a drug/alcohol test without a warrant.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way the law is.

Now in some states, you lose your license if you refuse a blood test, because of implied consent that you gave when you signed to get your license.

Help me connect the dots in your *cough* logic.

So far I've been told that I don't care about Trayvon being deceased, I don't know the law, and, I'm a Zimmerman defender without any proof of it.

and defend himself, not once did I say that.
He most certainly did have that right and the law would be on his side.
Please don't accuse me of something that's not true. We're pretty much on the same side here.

They'd have a much more informed opinion about how the law works, how police investigate crime, and what is required to bring charges, etc.

it would be an eye opener for many people.

in order for the police to force Zimmerman to take a drug/alcohol test, they would have to apply for a warrant and have to back up the application request with probable cause evidence that Zimmerman was impaired, no LEO that night expressed any concern about him being under the influence of any drug or alcohol.

human being to death should not be tested for drugs, etc.? Are you seriously arguing that shooting another person to death does not constitute probably cause?

If I'm in a car accident they will drug test me with or without evidence of impairment.

Are you seriously trying to say an accused murderer has more right to privacy?

they can only test you if there's evidence that you're impaired, like slurred speech, glassy eyes, uncoordinated body movements, drugs in the vehicle, etc.

We can't even refuse a test if a cop believes we're Under the influence (which could be any reason he comes up with.).

I don't know whether to more disgusted that swerving in my car affords me fewer rights than a murderer or at the infringement on civil rights overall.

to take a dui test to put in his report, so in essence, he's inventing probable cause for whatever reason.

A car accident on the other hand a lot are caused by impaired driving. Self defense shootings very very few. The police would have to suspect drugs or alcohol. The statistics show ccw holders are far more law abiding than the general population. I have heard of very few self defense shootings that were drug or ALGOL tested unless the suspicion was there.

impairment doesn;t mean every single of these questionable shooters should be tested. with privilege, comes responsibility- to put your fucking gun away when drinking. In reality- very few gun owners bother.

Link please?

he chugged half a bottle of cough syrup. he was on too many legal "meds" too. had problems getting violent while drinking before- both with police and his ex. there was a legal history of him getting in trouble while intoxicated.

he sounds clear enough to me, and his past legal troubles are not relevant to a drug/alcohol test.
This is the first I've heard of any cough syrup and "legal meds".
Got a link for that?

A lcohol
T obacco
F irearms

I'll bring the chips!

Yeah, not funny to me.

I have had a ccw for 19 years. If i drink i do not carry. I also keep a locked case in my car in case the need arises.. Remember law enforcement statistics show that ccw holders are much more law abiding than the population at large. that is a proven fact.

Dead body.

Thanks for playing!

on city streets.

someone who gets a permit and carry's is just as law abiding as someone who gets a permit and doesn't carry, both are obeying the law, so, how is one more law abiding than the other?

Hundreds of millions of people could get a permit but choose not to pollute society with guns. They are just as law-abiding, likely more law-abiding in my opinion, than some yahoo with a gun or two strapped to their body.

one is just as law abiding as the other despite your dislike of firearms and those who carry them.

there are trolls, possibly being paid to troll

Remember, it was ruled as a justifiable homicide that night, the probable cause would be, did the subject display any indications of impairment, drug or alcohol, to support the issuance of a warrant, and since not one LEO on scene that night expressed any concerns of impairment, there was no probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.

I'm going to take a wild guess that Trayvon was tested for drugs and alcohol.

It's a judgment call for the police, they get the initial story, compare it with the scene, talk to potential witness', and then decide whether or not to make the arrest.
The police can ask someone to take the test, however, absent evidence of impairment, they can't force them to and no judge is going to issue a warrant without probable cause evidence.

Hope that helps.

he was minding his own business and was pursued and KILLED by a gun-toting vigilante

Two fools met up one night one is now dead and the other is on trial. If i was zimmerman i would have never got out of the truck. Hell if I was zimmerman i would have never gave a shit what martin was doing. Unless he was hurting somebody or actually committing a crime. But nothing zimmerman did was illegal nothing. So it comes down to the shooting. The facts support zimmerman whether you like it or not. I keep telling people do not put your hands on anybody. Why because depending on the laws of your state you may cook your own goose. Most not all self defense laws are written rather liberally. If you think for whatever reason that somebody needs a beat down, you may kill yourself.

...but if you're interacting with the police because you just killed someone, it should be routine.

If your story seems straight and there is no suspicion that you are high or drunk the police can not just start drug and alcohol testing you.

Let us say you are driving a commercial vehicle down the Interstate. You run over a piece of metal on the road that you did not see and blow out a front tire. You run the vehicle into the ditch, causing no damage to the vehicle - it remains upright, the suspension doesn't get messed up, anything. They drag you out of the ditch, put a tire on and you're ready to go again. It is obvious to one and all what happened - shit happened and it happened to nail you. No crime at all was committed. But according to federal law, you will be taken to the nearest hospital and tested for drugs and alcohol.

If you can be forced to take a drug and alcohol test for driving into a ditch, you sure as HELL can be forced to take one for killing a human being with a gun.

Shooting someone IS probable cause.

carrying a gun on city streets.

Time some laws are changed.

other than that, I don't care what you think.

in an unarmed person is probable cause.

the shooting was ruled a justifiable homicide that night, he wasn't arrested, there was no evidence of him being impaired.
The law is very clear on this, absent of any evidence by LE, a person cannot be forced to take a drug/alcohol test, the police can ask someone to, but if the person refuses, then the police hands are tied.

In many jurisdictions, reaching back for 100+ years, the police have been held not liable for providing police protection, not avoiding harm, not doing their jobs..

South v. Maryland (1858)

Cocking v. Wade (1896)

Riss v. City of New York - 1967

http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

[div class='excerpt']Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

[div class='excerpt']The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[div class='excerpt']The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)

[div class='excerpt']In 1986, the Maryland Court of Appeals was again presented in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County with an action in civil liability involving the failure of law enforcement to enforce the law. In this case, a police officer, Freeberger, found an intoxicated man in a running pickup truck sitting in front of convenience store. Although he could have arrested the driver, the police officer told the driver to pull the truck over to the side of the lot and to discontinue driving that evening. Instead, shortly after the law enforcement officer left, the intoxicated driver pulled out of the lot and collided with a pedestrian, Ashburn, who as a direct result of the accident sustained severe injuries and lost a leg. After Ashburn brought suit against the driver, Officer Freeberger, the police department, and Anne Arundel County, the trial court dismissed charges against the later three, holding Freeberger owed no special duty to the plaintiff, the county was immune from liability, and that the police department was not a separate legal entity.
...
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that, "absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers." Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..

I could go on.. Bowers, Chapman, Castle Rock, DeShaney..

eta: Looks like CT's torrington case was about women generally, as a protected class, and not any particular person.

That you have no rights to police protection. Their responsibility is to the community as a hole not to you as the individual. That would place an impossible burden on the police. Hence the rise of ccw laws. This has been ruled by the applet courts over and over and i think but not sure the supreme court. If not the supreme court has let the lower court decisions stand.

In most cases it would be considered probable cause for murder or at least manslaughter arrest when the body of a dead unarmed teenager is found and the person who shot him was aggressively following him minutes earlier. If you don't see this you are willfully blind.

.. that would lead the police to suspect impairment due to drugs. Was his speech slurred? Was the smell of alcohol present?

I was not there so I can't comment on whether or not he was impaired, if the police had actually done their job then I would be able to comment.

probable cause for in the scenario you describe?

For over a month was that the police could not poke holes in his story. He should have went to a grand jury but they skipped that because he would have been no billed. They took this to trial because they were trying to head of riots. THe evidence is not there and they wanted to say please do not burn the city down we tried! I hate to say it but this was not about the the law it was all about trying to stop civil unrest.

A drug and alcohol toxicology report was done on Trayvon Martin, why did Zimmerman get off without a similar test?

Now you say they don't need probable cause.

People are impairment tested on a regular basis for far less serious incidents than causing the death of someone, it's a regular part of a great many investigations. Simply being in an accident is considered probable cause for drug testing in a lot of cases.

tested on a regular basis when involved in a work accident or driving accident, why do you think those exceptions to the 4th amendment exist?

Let me clarify--the police do not need probable cause to investigate a death.

They would not need probable cause to test Martin for anything because any testing would be incident to autopsy.

There was not probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, (according to the SPD) so why would there be probable cause to run a drug test?

there has to be a reasonable suspicion of impairment by a LEO to test someone.

While I'll defer to someone who can provide the relevant case law, a drug/alcohol test without any probable cause to think Zimmermam was under the influence would probably be ruled a 4th Amendment violation and tossed out.

I work temp jobs through SOS Temps...

If anything happens during one of those jobs, everyone involved gets drug tested mmediately.

Drug testing is the norm in the new and improved Amerika... The idea that Zimmerman wasn't tested defies all logic and contemporary norms.

TYY

thing rather different here.

...that Zimmerman should not be drug tested after murdering someone?

Try wrecking your car and see if you don't get drug tested.

TYY

then why would you think that they had probable cause to drug test him?

As for getting drug tested after a car wreck--that is an exception to the 4th amendment that is allowed because driving is a privilege granted by the state, not a right. I can still refuse that, however.

TYY

Sounds horrible, I know, but that's the way it simply is.

Unless a person is in police custody, the police cannot forcibly have a person take a drug/alcohol test without a warrant, and no judge is going to issue a warrant without probable cause evidence to back it up.
The police can ask the person to voluntarily take that test, but if the person refuses, the police hands are tied.

You have every right to refuse to take an employer mandated drug test. Of course this will almost certainly result in you losing your job.

The only way you could be forced to take a drug test under the conditions you stated above is if a criminal act took place that you were involved in and if the police had probably cause to think you were under the influence.

In virtually all cases it is illegal to follow and then shoot unarmed people, it is sad that I even need to justify this because any sane person would think there is probable cause to arrest someone who killed an unarmed teenager he had just chased down for no real reason.

They would probably need a warrant, probable cause or consent to take a blood sample. IIRC no Sanford police officer ever thought that Zimmerman was under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol, so they had no probable cause to take the test or ask for a warrant.

The only reason that Martin had a blood test is because that is standard procedure in an autopsy

This link suggests that blood tests are not normally taken during an arrest:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-happens-during-booking.html

we have a winner. The police would absolutely have to get a warrant for a drug/alcohol test and they would have to back up the request for such warrant with probable cause to believe he was under the influence, and no LEO that night ever even suggested that he was impaired.

They could not have forced him to submit to a test without a warrant, but they could have tested him if he gave them permission. Cops ask people to consent to searches all the time when they have no probable cause. "You mind if I take a look in your trunk?"

I think even if they didn't have grounds for a warrant to test, they should have asked him. If he said no, so be it. We'd know they at least tried.

and I addressed that upthread.

Thanks. Some people here are convinced that he could've been forced to be tested that night even though no police officer on scene that night expressed any concern that Zimmerman was under the influence, when I tried to point out that to force him, the police would have to get a warrant and back up the application for a warrant with probable cause evidence, I was told that I didn't know the law despite my 30+ years in Law Enforcement.

A lot of people don't understand their rights and how to exercise them, and it's a damn shame.

At any rate, I think they should have asked Zimmerman for consent to dodrug and alcohol testing, even if he wasn't showing any obvious signs of intoxication or impairment. Some of his behavior at the time seems to have been somewhat bizarre.

It's amazing to me how many people think Trayvon is insignicant.