My question is: How had the Vice Mayor voted on the recent out-sourcing of the San Carlos Police Department which was absorbed to a man into the Sheriffs Office, and did he happen to recognize any of his arresting officers from their previous beat?
Seems like at least Wagstaff recognized something... finally.

Michael Stogner: Surely you realize by now that Wagstaffe NEVER prosecutes any one who is high up in county government...Maltbie; Munks; Foucrault; Klein and any number of sheriff deputies who have committed criminal acts.

Why waste a jury's time with a .07 BAC case? Or, are you alleging evidence tampering??

If Klein had prosecuted, it would have been for political reasons -- holding the Vice Mayor to a higher standard.

You guys see a shadow behind every corner. It would be highly entertaining if it weren't for Stogner's repeated attempts to get on the Board of Supervisors. This thread is illustrative of his credibility gap.

Alderman Gibbons, says
"Why waste a jury's time with a .07 BAC case? Or, are you alleging evidence tampering??"

First off Mr. Wagstaffe can't charge anybody with a .07 it's not illegal.

I'm asking how did it go from .08plus to .07 that's all.

CHP is excellent in this subject, do you think if they saw a .07 they would have transported him?

Also I am happy for Andy, I just want to understand the difference between two law enforcement agencies readings and Steve Wagstaffe

If you weren't so conspiracy oriented, Mr. Stogner, you would seek a reasonable explanation. Instead, you sensationalize at every opportunity.

My guess is the .08 reading came from a portable sensor. Those are not as accurate as the (non-portable) breath measurement devices located at the booking facilities. Blood, likewise, is another test which is more accurate than the portable screening device.

The CHP probably arrested Klein based on the probable cause (the constitutional standard for arrest) developed from the screening device and their observations of his field sobriety tests.

The DA has to meet a different standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Wagstaffe was not convinced he could win a case with a .07 BAC.

To be clear, .08 BAC is the presumed level of impairment. Had Klein been observed driving (I believe he stopped to use his cell phone), it's possible he still could have been prosecuted for DUI. The witness would have to convince a jury that he was impaired and driving.

There's the perfectly reasonable explanation. You must, however, be a reasonable person to understand it.

Chemical tests are far more accurate in determining guilt in DUI cases While breathalyzer tests are administered on site to individuals
suspected of driving under the influence they do not always provide accurate readings and can show a higher reading due to alcohol in the mouth. Blood tests are considered to be more accurate as well as being able to test for other drugs in the system and a suspect must be taken back to the police station to draw blood.

I agree with Mr. Gibbons in that Mr. Stogner tries to find issues with law enforcement where they don't exist.

If there is that much difference maybe it is time to stop using the breathalyzers. I have no problem with Andy not being charged even if it was at .08 which is the minimum. I have no problem with the CHP or the Sheriff on this issue.

The question is the difference is big here, thats all

There's not enough information here to make any kind of a reasonable determination. .08 bac is the presumptive bac for dui. One can be convicted for dui with a lower bac, but the arresting officer will have to be able to testify to objective symptoms of impairment. In this case was the .08 registered in a hand held device as another poster posited? If so, they are not as reliable, nor are they acceptable alone for the bac. It could very well be that he was borderline, there were no observed signs of impaired driving and the fst's were done well enough to not indicate impairment. I hypothisize from experience that even with that lack of evidence a .08 on the field testing device had the officers taking the driver in for a more accurate test. If he blew less than an .08 bac and did not display clear symptoms of dui there wasn't a jury that would have convicted him.

I once went to trial with a dui that had a .10 bac and had drivin up over a curb before we stopped him. In his first trial it was a hung jury because he was an alcoholic that was able to do reasonably well on his fst's. We got him in the retrial. The second jury didn't like the fact he had a bunch of open beer bottles rolling around on the floor of his car. Go figure.

Again, you pretend speak with authority about an area where you have no apparent knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with the breath test. There's a ton of scientific proof documenting its accuracy.

Here are some questions to ponder:

BAC drops over time. Was Klein a .08 at the scene and a .07 by the time he got his accurate test (blood or breath)? How much time had elapsed between the last drink and the time of the test? How long had he been driving?

What's critical is the BAC level when driving, not when tested. The above questions illustrate that it's not as black and white as you make it seem.

The fact is Klein may have been driving above the presumed level of intoxication. He either lined up a good attorney or got lucky the DA didn't file.

The problem with the Alderman's atitude is he assumes just because someone is arrested, they are lucky if they aren't charged, or got out of the charge through a good lawyer. While this can be true, it is certainly not necessarily true all the time. There is a presumption of innocence in our system, and the Alderman's attitude shows he has a presumption of guilt when someone is arrested. My hunch is the Alderman is a cop with a poor attitude. These concepts are really important, many people fought and died for them. And of course, they're just words in a book until it happens to you, if ever, and then you appreciate the difference. There's a legal standard of 0.08. Maybe the Alderman would say that if someone was measured at 0.05, they're still "lucky" because the cop didn't do the test 30 minutes earlier when they were 0.09.

The basic point here is that Andy Klein was not guilty of anything according to the law. He's in the public eye, donates his time for public service, and should not be smeared with "he's guilty anyway."

Mr. Stogner, keep it up. Many of us appreciate you asking these questions. No one is right 100% of the time, including you, but less than 1% of people are willing to ask these questions, and they're important. And they improve the system.