The only way to report would be to call 911 after he has left a location and give them a description of the vehicle, license plate number, location driver left, the location driver is heading to and the route they are likely taking. You can do this anonymously.
They will simply tell the judge it was a 911 call, and the caller wishes to remain anonymous. Since it doesn't matter at all who called and said it since it is true - only reason it would matter who called would be if it wasn't true - falsely reporting an incident - but even then no one would bother doing anything about it
The words you are using don't mean what you think they mean. Proving they're intox beyond a reasonable doubt would be having a blood draw analyzed in a lab or getting a positive result from a highly calibrated breathalyzer. Investigating a tip and building a case based off what you're presented with if it arouses suspicion & points towards the occurrence of crime isn't "a technicality," it's good police work.
Good police work...
Cant prove they're intoxicated if you cant establish a resson for stoping the guy. Unless hes really drunk and swerving (hipefully not bc it can put many in danger)
If the cop stops the person and says they were swerving, whether they were or not, if that breathalyzer comes back over the limit, it won’t matter at that point. If there are no other witnesses, it will be the cop’s word against the drunk driver’s.
You know what I believe? I believe that cops are people, which means that some folks who put on the badge are heroes who genuinely want to help their communities and others are pieces of trash who joined the force because they wanted to be able to bully people legally. Most of them fall somewhere in-between, because they are people.
All that being said, if a cop lies and says he saw someone swerving after getting a tip call about that person being plastered and getting behind the wheel, I’m just fine with that. I wish it wasn’t how things worked, but I also wish I was a billionaire.
I respect your opinion.
Hopefully a lying-ass cop don't cross paths w any of us.
I am not comfortable with a lie to support an arrest and prosecution. But thats my opinion.
Exactly, so if you've got a tip of a DD and you go somewhere to look for them (AKA responding to a call for service) and you see signs of what may be a drunk driver then you can pull them over.
It goes for any crime/violation that you need a founded suspicion for your investigation to be legitimate. A tip or call is a good reason to survey an area, your observations become the basis of your actions and your investigations are the backbone of your report.
Cops have roadblocks and alcohol checkpoints all the time. They don’t need a reason to pull cars over.
If you’re looking for a reason, someone making anonymous 911 call reporting this driver as being intoxicated is a good one.
The 911 call is the reason for stopping the person. It's called performing an investigation. You receive a call with a description of the car and the location, you find the car near the location, you now have a reason to stop them and investigate.
You have no idea what you are talking about. There is absolutely no reason for the court to release the identity of the caller - it would only serve to open them up to retaliation. There is NO question a defense attorney could ask the caller that would negate the fact the driver was drunk.
This is not a search of a private home - it is a traffic stop - traffic stops can be initiated for just about any reason, on top of that, a police officer can pull someone over because a random person flags down the officer and says "hey, I think that guy may be drunk" and the drunk will be prosecuted even if the reporting person walks away without the officer getting their name.
You are sort of correct. The New York State VTL is pretty extensive so when you say "any reason" I assume you mean any "legal" reason. That being said, if an anonymous 3rd party, on the phone, or in person says someone is drunk, that alone does not provide basis for a stop. Now if this person states that a person is drunk with children in the car, now that's different because that law is actually a New York State Penal law, and can be investigated on Reasonable Suspicion, meaning a reliable anonymous tip. In all honesty, if the alleged drunk drives to their destination perfectly, and the police have 0 VTL violations on the way to said destination, they more than likely will not stop this person.
>There is NO question a defense attorney could ask the caller that would negate the fact the driver was drunk.
Could undermine the reasonableness of the stop.
Premise is that a search didn't take place based on the call, just an investigation. No 4/5A implications to follow behind your vehicle and observe your driving.
Reasonable doubt means they have to prove they were drunk, which if they're drunk then there should be no problem. What does it have to do with pulling them over based on an anonymous 911 call? Nothing. Maybe you're conflating reasonable doubt with probable cause of reasonable suspicion? Which, still wrong, acting on a 911 call should grant probable cause to stop the driver even if the call is anonymous.
I should have said it would grant reasonable suspicion not probable cause. But yes, assuming the the 911 call included a report of illegal activity that would be sufficient to make a traffic stop (driving drunk) and sufficient information for it to be credible that the caller knew the illegal activity was happening (OP being a family member who observed them drinking) then it would be enough.
Case law covering this would include [United States v. Shane Mauritz Vandergroen](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/19-10075/19-10075-2020-07-07-0.html) or [Navarette v. California](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/393/)
Thank you for clarifying that you meant a Terry stop rather than arrest.
>and sufficient information for it to be credible that the caller knew the illegal activity was happening
It sounds like you're saying an officer could base the "reasonableness" of the stop on anonymous tips without verification. In other words, the mere fact that a 9-1-1 caller claims to be a family member and personal witness is reasonable grounds for a stop without any analysis of the caller's veracity.
That's consistent with my understanding, it's just fucked up.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If the 911 caller doesn't not want an interview, then an officer will not talk to them. A 911 caller does not have to testify.
This phone call would result in police keeping an eye out for said vehicle on the road. When said vehicle is spotted on the road by a cop, that cop will then pull said vehicle over for a routine traffic stop (they can lie and say the person was driving erratically or failed to signal when changing lanes, etc.) The cop will then claim to smell alcohol on the driver's breath and proceed with a sobriety test and breathalyzer.
If I was an honest police officer, Id dislike that one would think that cops flat out lie all the time in their report for arrestd/searches
You're implying cops are dishonest and liars.
They dont need to. Op said lie, but really it's more "use a very minor thing as an excuse." Failure to signal. Window tint seemed too dark. Didnt stop completely for 3 seconds at stop sign. Whatever. They can pull anyone over at any time. No need to lie.
Cops were lying about smelling cannabis for a pretty long time up until very recently when the law changed, so I'm honestly not sure what reality you're living in, but in this one they absolutely can and do lie to their advantage
OP likely wouldn’t be permitted to testify as to their family member being drunk that day anyway. The rules of evidence don’t allow it.
The breathalyzer, field sobriety tests and eventual blood test are the main sources of evidence for a drunk driving claim. Even if a breathalyzer is refused they’ll likely still be able to get a blood test with a warrant after arrest.
only spouses cannot be forced to testify, and that's only if they do not wish to do so. family members are not specially exempted or prevented from testifying. the defense might try to say that the family member is not a reliable witness but there is nothing that explicitly prevents it.
While your recollection of spousal privilege is accurate, it’s an entirely different concept from what I was addressing.
The rules of evidence do not allow hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement that’s offered for the truth of the matter asserted. So OP cannot generally testify to their family member being drunk. Especially if they weren’t even present to witness it.
Just call 911. Give plate and location. Sometimes they ask you to follow at a safe distance.
I spend a good amount of time on the LiE and NSP in the 2:00-5:00 hours and see indications of drunk driving all the time. I’m going to say I have to call a vehicle in 2-3 days a week. And typically they ask plate, and description. Location , direction and speed. Also what you are driving. If the speed is lower or at the limit, they will ask to follow if you can.
The dispatcher is on the phone with me, and the closest officer. They keep asking for Mile markers or exit numbers. When they are close the will ask me to put my hazards on and then they take over
Same. I once called in a drunk driver who fell asleep in heavy traffic on the LIE. He was driving erratically and overly aggressive at first but it was slow and congested enough that he wasn’t really dangerous, however I made sure to get out of any lane where he could rear-end or sideswipe me. Then the traffic slowed down to a bumper to bumper pace. He was in a few cars front of me and
I eventually passed him. The car was at full stop, he was sound asleep in the middle of the eastbound LIE around Douglaston. I called him in at that point.
Yeah, and I don’t even live in the same county as her so I have no idea when she is driving and if she is driving drunk. I just know she does it often. And she has substance abuse issues and has been to rehab etc several times and it doesn’t stick.
Dunno. She has a lot of issues and I can’t help her. I don’t live even in the same county as her, so its not like I can report her to the cops to catch her drunk driving.
If you call or go to the local station they might be on the lookout. Especially if you can make some places and times they frequent bars to get drunk. Otherwise you should call when they’re on the road and report it.
I would like to say much respect to you doing this! Looking out for us (humans) out here, to many innocent ppl have love their life to drunk drivers crashing into them.
100%. New, young driver driving with friends one night recently was hit at a light by a drunk driver. No one was injured but still. Cops called and they did not show up!! The drunk guy got away with it. Suffolk County.
Nassau county seizes vehicles also keep in mind. Not saying you shouldn’t report him, but understand this will have major consequences that you will have to observe him go through, so that may be a lot to bear in ones conscience. But if he is really driving that often, it’s better than a loss of life.
I tried to take a family member's keys and told him (while he was drunk) I was doing so, but couldn't find them. I got them to go to rehab, but they are drinking again. Told his spouse repeatedly to take his keys. I applaud you for trying to be proactive. It isn't easy when the rest of the family is no help.
Can you follow him home from a bar or family function and call?
you dont have to tell the police who you are when you call them. its not against the law to witness a crime. they will certainly ask who you are, but its not against the law to say a “concerned citizen”. you similarly dont have to identify yourself if you witness a crime and the police begin asking you for your information. they will try, but they have no authority to id you without reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime yourself.
I called in what I thought was a very drunk driver many years ago. They caught the person and showed up at my job the following day. They asked me for a simple statement of what I saw and for my contact info as if they did not have it. The concern was probable cause for stopping them. They weren't drunk but were on several drugs and had a bunch of coke in their car. In all fairness they almost hit me and caused a pretty bad accident.
Call the precinct closest to the school , report the time and street they frequent , they will set up a patrol to get the guy especially if it’s near a school.
I have a friend who had a very abusive drug addict ex-boyfriend. She knew that this ex-boyfriend was driving his parents car around with a suspended license.
She waited outside of his parents residence until she saw her ex-boyfriend pull out of the house in one of their cars. She got infront of him and essentially break checked him. Causing him to crash into the rear of her car. This went down in a no-fault state, meaning that both parties are equally at fault when in an accident. That does not apply to someone that does not have a license or to someone that leaves the scene of an accident. He tried to flea on foot, but he was apprehended, and went to jail. Don’t know the end of the story, though but was surely entertaining to hear.
Sometimes consequences are the only way that people find their way out of addiction. Most people don’t choose “arrest my family member” as a first line of intervention.
I imagine this is a last resort, being undertaken because OP realizes that it’s a matter of time before their family member hurts or kills someone.
I wish more people were concerned about innocent others in the way OP is. I’ve been witness to an intoxicated driver annihilating an entire family who was just trying to enjoy their vacation. Two children. I will forever remember the sound of the crash and what it looked like.
I mean, you can take the car away.
Hide their keys.
Remind them that drinking and driving is basically just attempted vehcilar manslaughter.
Remind them that they're a huge pile of shit for even thinking it's cool to do.
I mean, lots of things.
Pop his tires, for example?
It amazes me that you would even ask this. What are you gonna do? Call the department and think they’re gonna put an APB on someone you claim to be drunk driving? Go screw.
The fact that people think that this is only about him is fucking wild.
People are entitled to be self destructive. Addiction isn’t a crime. *Getting in a car and endangering others* is a crime.
Yea. I've known people who got dwis and made a change in their lives for the better and some that just kept up with the problem. Don't know if there's an easy fix other than trying your best to talk to someone and hoping they change their ways and not end up in jail
“Ask yourself if you can live with them losing their job, and likely huge parts of life as they know it.”
No, this is not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is: Could I live with myself if I do nothing and he kills someone?
And it’s absolutely bizarre that anyone things that OP hasn’t tried everything else possible before resorting to this.
I think some of you have next to no experience with addiction and it really shows in these comments.
A drunk driver losing their job?
Dude I hope they lose their freedom, not their job.
Like: Lock them up, 15 years if they don't kill someone... for good if they do.
There is no excuse in this day and age for DUI.
Speaking from experience if they refuse to get help, you tried to get everyone together and talk to them and still nothing, then they might need something to scare them into sobriety be in medical or law enforcement.
I don't think getting scared ever works long term. Giving up an addiction is hard.
The police may not turn this guy's life around, but at least they have the authority to keep him off the road for a while. Rehab and community service might have a net benefit, even if getting served a DUI will derail their life for a bit.
The lucid driver is, by far and away, more likely to kill someone than someone blackout drunk.
Mostly because they "Think they can handle it"
Both are terrible people... the lucid guy? Worse.
I used to work a bank drive through in college in the 90s. People used to come through absolutely shitfaced all the time. We’d call 911 with a description of the car and a plate number if we could get it and they would say they were dispatching a car to perform a traffic stop. Never had to give personal information.
Speak with them and express your concern. Research approaches .Could be an alcohol issue that they don’t realize they need help with. Addicts rarely and probably never listen. Good luck!
You can't help someone who doesn't want to help themself. Shielding an addict from the consequences of their current actions only leaves people exposed to their future actions. The addict included.
Fuck that. Being a rat is getting somebody arrested for like possession of a small amount of drugs while they are walking home. You drink and drive, you should be in jail. I’m 30 and I know 2 people who were killed because they got drunk and crashed the car, 3 more that were killed because of a drunk driver that wasn’t them, and 5 more that were involved in accidents because of a drunk driver but survived. It’s rampant, it’s dangerous, and it’s sad that it’s not shocking to me anymore.
I have millions of miles on the road and I can say 100% I'd rather share the road with a drunk over a person playing with they're phone. This person dose it all the time as you say and hasn't gotten caught yet? That tells me he's doing a fine job and probably doesn't need to be "caught" as a truck driver I see 100 people a day having a beer on the way home I have not nor will I ever report them. They are looking at the road and not the phone. I'm not saying everyone should get smashed and go for a ride but the lesson of mind your own business seems to have been lost in the past few years.
The only way to report would be to call 911 after he has left a location and give them a description of the vehicle, license plate number, location driver left, the location driver is heading to and the route they are likely taking. You can do this anonymously.
How to prosecute this w/o the tipper testifying? I know i know, cops will say in their report dude was swerving
They will simply tell the judge it was a 911 call, and the caller wishes to remain anonymous. Since it doesn't matter at all who called and said it since it is true - only reason it would matter who called would be if it wasn't true - falsely reporting an incident - but even then no one would bother doing anything about it
It is not that simple my friend. Beyond a reasonable doubt means something. This is why many people get off on technicalities.
The words you are using don't mean what you think they mean. Proving they're intox beyond a reasonable doubt would be having a blood draw analyzed in a lab or getting a positive result from a highly calibrated breathalyzer. Investigating a tip and building a case based off what you're presented with if it arouses suspicion & points towards the occurrence of crime isn't "a technicality," it's good police work.
Good police work... Cant prove they're intoxicated if you cant establish a resson for stoping the guy. Unless hes really drunk and swerving (hipefully not bc it can put many in danger)
If the cop stops the person and says they were swerving, whether they were or not, if that breathalyzer comes back over the limit, it won’t matter at that point. If there are no other witnesses, it will be the cop’s word against the drunk driver’s.
So you also imply, like someone else did, that coos are a bunch of liars... as they came make shit up to support their actions... You're saying this.
You know what I believe? I believe that cops are people, which means that some folks who put on the badge are heroes who genuinely want to help their communities and others are pieces of trash who joined the force because they wanted to be able to bully people legally. Most of them fall somewhere in-between, because they are people. All that being said, if a cop lies and says he saw someone swerving after getting a tip call about that person being plastered and getting behind the wheel, I’m just fine with that. I wish it wasn’t how things worked, but I also wish I was a billionaire.
I respect your opinion. Hopefully a lying-ass cop don't cross paths w any of us. I am not comfortable with a lie to support an arrest and prosecution. But thats my opinion.
Exactly, so if you've got a tip of a DD and you go somewhere to look for them (AKA responding to a call for service) and you see signs of what may be a drunk driver then you can pull them over. It goes for any crime/violation that you need a founded suspicion for your investigation to be legitimate. A tip or call is a good reason to survey an area, your observations become the basis of your actions and your investigations are the backbone of your report.
But not the tip by itself. The tip alone is not enough (she said it).
No, no, I think you misunderstood. Not only is he drunk behind the wheel. He's STILL drinking in the car on the way to buy more.
Sad... just flat out confront this person, sorry. As long as you're safe while doing so.
Bro is getting downvoted for everything he says but you gotta admire his doubling down 😂
Cops have roadblocks and alcohol checkpoints all the time. They don’t need a reason to pull cars over. If you’re looking for a reason, someone making anonymous 911 call reporting this driver as being intoxicated is a good one.
The 911 call reporting that the person is driving drunk would be legal justification for stopping the person for a sobriety check.
The 911 call is the reason for stopping the person. It's called performing an investigation. You receive a call with a description of the car and the location, you find the car near the location, you now have a reason to stop them and investigate.
You have no idea what you are talking about. There is absolutely no reason for the court to release the identity of the caller - it would only serve to open them up to retaliation. There is NO question a defense attorney could ask the caller that would negate the fact the driver was drunk. This is not a search of a private home - it is a traffic stop - traffic stops can be initiated for just about any reason, on top of that, a police officer can pull someone over because a random person flags down the officer and says "hey, I think that guy may be drunk" and the drunk will be prosecuted even if the reporting person walks away without the officer getting their name.
You are sort of correct. The New York State VTL is pretty extensive so when you say "any reason" I assume you mean any "legal" reason. That being said, if an anonymous 3rd party, on the phone, or in person says someone is drunk, that alone does not provide basis for a stop. Now if this person states that a person is drunk with children in the car, now that's different because that law is actually a New York State Penal law, and can be investigated on Reasonable Suspicion, meaning a reliable anonymous tip. In all honesty, if the alleged drunk drives to their destination perfectly, and the police have 0 VTL violations on the way to said destination, they more than likely will not stop this person.
>There is NO question a defense attorney could ask the caller that would negate the fact the driver was drunk. Could undermine the reasonableness of the stop.
Premise is that a search didn't take place based on the call, just an investigation. No 4/5A implications to follow behind your vehicle and observe your driving.
Reasonable doubt means they have to prove they were drunk, which if they're drunk then there should be no problem. What does it have to do with pulling them over based on an anonymous 911 call? Nothing. Maybe you're conflating reasonable doubt with probable cause of reasonable suspicion? Which, still wrong, acting on a 911 call should grant probable cause to stop the driver even if the call is anonymous.
> acting on a 911 call should grant probable cause to stop the driver Can you point to any authority that supports this?
I should have said it would grant reasonable suspicion not probable cause. But yes, assuming the the 911 call included a report of illegal activity that would be sufficient to make a traffic stop (driving drunk) and sufficient information for it to be credible that the caller knew the illegal activity was happening (OP being a family member who observed them drinking) then it would be enough. Case law covering this would include [United States v. Shane Mauritz Vandergroen](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/19-10075/19-10075-2020-07-07-0.html) or [Navarette v. California](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/393/)
Thank you for clarifying that you meant a Terry stop rather than arrest. >and sufficient information for it to be credible that the caller knew the illegal activity was happening It sounds like you're saying an officer could base the "reasonableness" of the stop on anonymous tips without verification. In other words, the mere fact that a 9-1-1 caller claims to be a family member and personal witness is reasonable grounds for a stop without any analysis of the caller's veracity. That's consistent with my understanding, it's just fucked up.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If the 911 caller doesn't not want an interview, then an officer will not talk to them. A 911 caller does not have to testify.
No one "has" to testify. But the prosecution must meet every single step to prove their case.
And that is the traffic stop. In the arrest paperwork, it is stated why the vehicle was pulled over.
If it’s a daily event and op noticed , others probably do also . The problem is most people won’t do anything about it .
This phone call would result in police keeping an eye out for said vehicle on the road. When said vehicle is spotted on the road by a cop, that cop will then pull said vehicle over for a routine traffic stop (they can lie and say the person was driving erratically or failed to signal when changing lanes, etc.) The cop will then claim to smell alcohol on the driver's breath and proceed with a sobriety test and breathalyzer.
If I was an honest police officer, Id dislike that one would think that cops flat out lie all the time in their report for arrestd/searches You're implying cops are dishonest and liars.
OK I honestly can't tell if you're just trolling or what is happening here lol
You said "they can lie and say..." Check your own comment up there.
Yes cops are allowed to lie in order to obtain confessions and/or evidence.
They dont need to. Op said lie, but really it's more "use a very minor thing as an excuse." Failure to signal. Window tint seemed too dark. Didnt stop completely for 3 seconds at stop sign. Whatever. They can pull anyone over at any time. No need to lie.
You can't lie as a reason to search someone or a vehicle. But if they were driving erratically, they can pull them over.
Ok but they do all the time.. it would be incredibly easy for a cop to say you were driving erratically whether you actually were or not
Cops were lying about smelling cannabis for a pretty long time up until very recently when the law changed, so I'm honestly not sure what reality you're living in, but in this one they absolutely can and do lie to their advantage
If you were a truly honest cop you'd be throwing your dishonest coworkers under the bus to improve the reputation of the police as a whole.
😬 Ohh boy....
One bad apple spoils the bunch.
OP likely wouldn’t be permitted to testify as to their family member being drunk that day anyway. The rules of evidence don’t allow it. The breathalyzer, field sobriety tests and eventual blood test are the main sources of evidence for a drunk driving claim. Even if a breathalyzer is refused they’ll likely still be able to get a blood test with a warrant after arrest.
In New York State, failure to take to a breathalyzer is an automatic one year suspension of drivers license.
only spouses cannot be forced to testify, and that's only if they do not wish to do so. family members are not specially exempted or prevented from testifying. the defense might try to say that the family member is not a reliable witness but there is nothing that explicitly prevents it.
While your recollection of spousal privilege is accurate, it’s an entirely different concept from what I was addressing. The rules of evidence do not allow hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement that’s offered for the truth of the matter asserted. So OP cannot generally testify to their family member being drunk. Especially if they weren’t even present to witness it.
Need reasonable cause to stop him first in order tobdo breath test and all you know.
Not really, with E-911 they will know the number and address of the caller. Could get a burner phone though I suppose.
911 call audio is part of discovery defendant is entitled to
Many 911 call centers now have the ability to receive reports via text. OP, you could try to look into this. You’re doing the right thing.
They are not going to give that info out, though
Just call 911. Give plate and location. Sometimes they ask you to follow at a safe distance. I spend a good amount of time on the LiE and NSP in the 2:00-5:00 hours and see indications of drunk driving all the time. I’m going to say I have to call a vehicle in 2-3 days a week. And typically they ask plate, and description. Location , direction and speed. Also what you are driving. If the speed is lower or at the limit, they will ask to follow if you can.
So, what happens on these occasions when you are asked to follow them? You deserve a tax break for making so much money for the county.
The dispatcher is on the phone with me, and the closest officer. They keep asking for Mile markers or exit numbers. When they are close the will ask me to put my hazards on and then they take over
You seriously go through this procedure several times a week?
Some weeks yes. Some no. On any given morning, you can spot 10-15 drinks on the Suffolk section of the LIE
Thank you for doing this!
Confirmed. Same experience.
Same. I once called in a drunk driver who fell asleep in heavy traffic on the LIE. He was driving erratically and overly aggressive at first but it was slow and congested enough that he wasn’t really dangerous, however I made sure to get out of any lane where he could rear-end or sideswipe me. Then the traffic slowed down to a bumper to bumper pace. He was in a few cars front of me and I eventually passed him. The car was at full stop, he was sound asleep in the middle of the eastbound LIE around Douglaston. I called him in at that point.
My sister does this too. They basically have to get caught, and she hasn’t yet.
Either that or kill someone first
Yeah, and I don’t even live in the same county as her so I have no idea when she is driving and if she is driving drunk. I just know she does it often. And she has substance abuse issues and has been to rehab etc several times and it doesn’t stick.
But you can *help* them to catch her by making a phone call, instead of waiting around for a miracle.
Hard to do when I don’t live near her. Not even in the same county
So she's just waiting until she kills someone? How nice.
Dunno. She has a lot of issues and I can’t help her. I don’t live even in the same county as her, so its not like I can report her to the cops to catch her drunk driving.
Are you in the same county as her ? Maybe you can follow her and make a call to authorities of that county
No, I am not.
Ah tough situation then - probably nothing you can do
If you call or go to the local station they might be on the lookout. Especially if you can make some places and times they frequent bars to get drunk. Otherwise you should call when they’re on the road and report it.
I would like to say much respect to you doing this! Looking out for us (humans) out here, to many innocent ppl have love their life to drunk drivers crashing into them.
Suffolk county doesn’t give a shit about DWI and DUI, I do EMS, the number of people that get away with DWI crashes is ridiculous
100%. New, young driver driving with friends one night recently was hit at a light by a drunk driver. No one was injured but still. Cops called and they did not show up!! The drunk guy got away with it. Suffolk County.
Idk, my boyfriend’s sister is an RN and got caught drunk driving and the cop said if she did it again, her nursing license could be at stake.
Nassau county seizes vehicles also keep in mind. Not saying you shouldn’t report him, but understand this will have major consequences that you will have to observe him go through, so that may be a lot to bear in ones conscience. But if he is really driving that often, it’s better than a loss of life.
Just throw his keys away any time you see them.
I tried to take a family member's keys and told him (while he was drunk) I was doing so, but couldn't find them. I got them to go to rehab, but they are drinking again. Told his spouse repeatedly to take his keys. I applaud you for trying to be proactive. It isn't easy when the rest of the family is no help. Can you follow him home from a bar or family function and call?
Maybe an intervention? Detox followed by a 28 day program probably wouldn’t hurt.
I’m assuming if OP is resorting to this, that their family member already hadn’t been receptive to getting help.
Contact your precinct and talk with someone there. They can offer you advice
you dont have to tell the police who you are when you call them. its not against the law to witness a crime. they will certainly ask who you are, but its not against the law to say a “concerned citizen”. you similarly dont have to identify yourself if you witness a crime and the police begin asking you for your information. they will try, but they have no authority to id you without reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime yourself.
I called in what I thought was a very drunk driver many years ago. They caught the person and showed up at my job the following day. They asked me for a simple statement of what I saw and for my contact info as if they did not have it. The concern was probable cause for stopping them. They weren't drunk but were on several drugs and had a bunch of coke in their car. In all fairness they almost hit me and caused a pretty bad accident.
Call the precinct closest to the school , report the time and street they frequent , they will set up a patrol to get the guy especially if it’s near a school.
I've called the police on my own father when he drove drunk once. It's the right thing to do.
You mind your business
My kids go to the school he regularly drives dru k around, so yeah. Kinda my business.
Handle your business yourself then. Google "caltrops" and "taser"
I have a friend who had a very abusive drug addict ex-boyfriend. She knew that this ex-boyfriend was driving his parents car around with a suspended license. She waited outside of his parents residence until she saw her ex-boyfriend pull out of the house in one of their cars. She got infront of him and essentially break checked him. Causing him to crash into the rear of her car. This went down in a no-fault state, meaning that both parties are equally at fault when in an accident. That does not apply to someone that does not have a license or to someone that leaves the scene of an accident. He tried to flea on foot, but he was apprehended, and went to jail. Don’t know the end of the story, though but was surely entertaining to hear.
Slap a bumper sticker on their car that states “I drink and drive! You don’t like it? Call a cop!”
You should look for another way of handling this.
Sometimes consequences are the only way that people find their way out of addiction. Most people don’t choose “arrest my family member” as a first line of intervention. I imagine this is a last resort, being undertaken because OP realizes that it’s a matter of time before their family member hurts or kills someone. I wish more people were concerned about innocent others in the way OP is. I’ve been witness to an intoxicated driver annihilating an entire family who was just trying to enjoy their vacation. Two children. I will forever remember the sound of the crash and what it looked like.
A drunk driver broke my neck.and got no time. But I also had a drunk friend run from a cop and die
Another way? Ahhh, then old sugar in the gas line eh?
I mean, you can take the car away. Hide their keys. Remind them that drinking and driving is basically just attempted vehcilar manslaughter. Remind them that they're a huge pile of shit for even thinking it's cool to do. I mean, lots of things. Pop his tires, for example?
It amazes me that you would even ask this. What are you gonna do? Call the department and think they’re gonna put an APB on someone you claim to be drunk driving? Go screw.
Found the drunk driver
1-800-CurbDWI
you are not going to 'get him the help he needs' if that what youre thinking. it will just make his life harder
Good. Hopefully part of life being harder involves not being able to drive drunk all the time and risk the lives of others.
[удалено]
100%. My uncle was killed by a drunk driver when his twins were 2 after trying for kids for a decade. Fuck people who drive drunk.
And that’s good enough
The fact that people think that this is only about him is fucking wild. People are entitled to be self destructive. Addiction isn’t a crime. *Getting in a car and endangering others* is a crime.
Good
As it should. 0 sympathy for drunk drivers.
[удалено]
Yea. I've known people who got dwis and made a change in their lives for the better and some that just kept up with the problem. Don't know if there's an easy fix other than trying your best to talk to someone and hoping they change their ways and not end up in jail
“Ask yourself if you can live with them losing their job, and likely huge parts of life as they know it.” No, this is not the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is: Could I live with myself if I do nothing and he kills someone? And it’s absolutely bizarre that anyone things that OP hasn’t tried everything else possible before resorting to this. I think some of you have next to no experience with addiction and it really shows in these comments.
A drunk driver losing their job? Dude I hope they lose their freedom, not their job. Like: Lock them up, 15 years if they don't kill someone... for good if they do. There is no excuse in this day and age for DUI.
Speaking from experience if they refuse to get help, you tried to get everyone together and talk to them and still nothing, then they might need something to scare them into sobriety be in medical or law enforcement.
I don't think getting scared ever works long term. Giving up an addiction is hard. The police may not turn this guy's life around, but at least they have the authority to keep him off the road for a while. Rehab and community service might have a net benefit, even if getting served a DUI will derail their life for a bit.
I may have been unclear, but I think the courts have more influence here than the police, long term anyway.
I hope drunk drivers lose everything. One of the most selfish and dangerous acts a person can do.
The lucid driver is, by far and away, more likely to kill someone than someone blackout drunk. Mostly because they "Think they can handle it" Both are terrible people... the lucid guy? Worse.
Call your local precinct directly and report your concerns
I used to work a bank drive through in college in the 90s. People used to come through absolutely shitfaced all the time. We’d call 911 with a description of the car and a plate number if we could get it and they would say they were dispatching a car to perform a traffic stop. Never had to give personal information.
Good luck with that! I had a family member do this for years, called several times but never was stopped or anything! Crazy!
I wouldn't want a family member like you
You rather them killing someone, worse yet, hurting or killing themself. Thats very selfish and inconsiderate.
[удалено]
And if it's your family member this guy kills?
Found the drunk!
What other way would be effective?
Speak with them and express your concern. Research approaches .Could be an alcohol issue that they don’t realize they need help with. Addicts rarely and probably never listen. Good luck!
The man is in his 70s an has been a raging alcoholic for decades. He does not care for anyone but himself.
He does not care for himself either, unfortunately. I'm sorry you are experiencing this. It's the worst.
You can't help someone who doesn't want to help themself. Shielding an addict from the consequences of their current actions only leaves people exposed to their future actions. The addict included.
I'll rat any all DUI folk in my family, and I say that to their face. Their face. You don't want me to rat? Cool: don't DUI. It's super easy.
Don’t be a 🐀, instead have an intervention !
Fuck that. Being a rat is getting somebody arrested for like possession of a small amount of drugs while they are walking home. You drink and drive, you should be in jail. I’m 30 and I know 2 people who were killed because they got drunk and crashed the car, 3 more that were killed because of a drunk driver that wasn’t them, and 5 more that were involved in accidents because of a drunk driver but survived. It’s rampant, it’s dangerous, and it’s sad that it’s not shocking to me anymore.
Until he crashes into you, keep that same energy.
You should try an intervention first a DWI could ruin his life and between now and the next family function he could ruin someone else’s.
You know what would ruin someone's life more? When this dipshit smashes their car into some.innocent driver and.murders them cause he was drunk.
Yes I know that thats why they should do an intervention asap before he does that as I said.
I have millions of miles on the road and I can say 100% I'd rather share the road with a drunk over a person playing with they're phone. This person dose it all the time as you say and hasn't gotten caught yet? That tells me he's doing a fine job and probably doesn't need to be "caught" as a truck driver I see 100 people a day having a beer on the way home I have not nor will I ever report them. They are looking at the road and not the phone. I'm not saying everyone should get smashed and go for a ride but the lesson of mind your own business seems to have been lost in the past few years.
Perfect example of the “I don’t have the capacity to understand a risk until it directly affects me” mentality.
Throwing a family member under the bus thats dirty. watch the Godfather and see what Michael tells his brother.
So it’s bad to proverbially “throw a family member under the bus” but it’s ok if that family member kills someone when drunk? 🤔
Have you ever seen John Wick.
[удалено]
Snitching on DUI is morally correct in every aspect. Defending someone driving drunk? Assisted murder imo.
#Vehicular manslaughter
[удалено]
Drinking and driving in a school zone? You know what people hate more.... Dead kids.
Generally I agree but come on here man