On September 21, 2013, a police officer in York County spotted a motor vehicle without a light to illuminate the license plate. Because it was during the early morning hours, the police officer actually shut off his patrol car lights to verify that there was no lighting for the license plate itself. Because failure to have a properly illuminated license plate constitutes a violation of the Vehicle Code, the police officer decided to conduct a traffic stop.
During the stop, the officer interacted with the driver, Stephanie Salter, who had glassy and blood shot eyes as well as the odor of alcohol emanating from her breath. Based upon these observations, the police officer asked Salter how much alcohol she had consumed, and she replied that she had two glasses of wine. Based upon these observations and her admission, the police officer had Salter step out of the vehicle and conducted 4 separate field sobriety checks. Based upon the officer’s observations, Salter was arrested for suspected DUI and a subsequent test revealed a blood alcohol content over .16%.
Salter attempted to suppress the evidence by arguing that the traffic stop was improper as the police officer failed to testify as to his inability to read the license plate outside 50 feet. Salter was making a technical argument – the statute and regulations require a license plate to be illuminated so that it can be read from 50 feet. The police officer testified that he was approximately 75 feet away when he noted that it was not illuminated, but he failed to testify that he could not read the license plate from 50 feet or less. Salter also argued that there was no suggestion that she was impaired while driving – so the officer lacked the authority to seek a chemical test to measure her BAC level. The lower court agreed and suppressed the evidence – and the Commonwealth appealed.
The Superior Court rejected Salter’s argument relating to the traffic stop – noting that the testimony that there was no license plate illumination reasonably established that it would not be visible from 50 feet at 3:00 a.m. in the darkness. At that point, the Superior Court concluded that nothing more was needed to support the traffic stop – there was probable cause for a Vehicle Code violation for failure to illuminate the license plate.
The Superior Court also rejected the lower court’s conclusion that there was no basis to request a chemical test of Salter’s blood. The Superior Court noted that the erratic driving is not a “super-factor” in these cases, i.e., some intoxicated drivers may not exhibit erratic driving prior to the traffic stop. When the police officer observed glassy/bloodshot eyes coupled with odor of alcohol on the Salter’s breath, the Superior Court concluded that the police officer could rely upon his “experience and training relating to DUI stops” to conclude that an arrest and detention were warranted.
The Superior Court also took the lower court to the woodshed for questioning the reliability of field sobriety tests. The Superior Court noted that the courts have repeatedly accepted these tests as indicators of impairment that would affect the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Field sobriety tests are simply tools used by police officers to gauge the level of impairment to determine whether to seek a chemical test of the driver’s blood. Admittedly, it is not a perfect science – but this is where the officer training and experience play a big role in assessing whether impaired driving has occurred. In this case, the Superior Court noted that the totality of the circumstances supported the police officer’s decision to seek a chemical test of Salter’s blood.
This case provides an interesting analysis for DUI enforcement and prosecution. This case involved a minor traffic violation – which supported the initial traffic stop – coupled with the officer’s personal observations regarding alcohol consumption and impairment, which were confirmed with field sobriety tests. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the police officer properly sought a chemical test which revealed a high level of alcohol in the driver’s system. The lower court sought to challenge and criticize each step of this process individually – while the Superior Court emphasized that they must be viewed collectively. Each traffic stop is different – and each driver exhibits different indicia of intoxication – and officers have to be able to articulate in court the different signs they relied upon to seek a chemical test.
Please submit any questions, concerns, or comments to Susquehanna County District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, Pennsylvania 18801 or at our website www.SusquehannaCounty-DA.org.
The news media is held in unusually low regard these days, and deservedly so. I generally agree with that assessment. In my weekly commentary, “While America Slept,” I try to point out stories that the news media ignores, marginalizes, or otherwise misinterprets.
But recently, while covering a story I was “called out” as being something other than a reporter. The attacker launched “argumentum ad hominem” against me in a public meeting on the basis that I had misspelled her first name in a prior article, that I had misrepresented what she had said during the course of a prior public meeting, that I was expressing opinions and commentary in stories, and that I was a “muckraker,” not a “reporter.” She further argued that my writing was “incendiary” rather than factual.
Had she not been in such a heightened state of agitation, I might have been able to disabuse her of whatever fallacies of logic held sway in her mind. But as it was not the proper forum and she seemed in such a state of confrontational rage, I held my tongue and kept my distance. No doubt my “incendiary” (AND factual) writing had lit her fire; I did not wish to engage her while her mind was so far removed from calm reason.
I think my regular readers understand what I do here, but I’ll summarize. I cover local borough council meetings, one school district’s regular meetings, and occasional special events, as well as write commentary in my regular column. Even in my commentary I express a viewpoint which can be sustained from facts readily available to readers. In covering governmental meetings, I strive neither to write “just the facts” as in meeting minutes, nor do I merely “hit the high points” that one would find in a regular daily or weekly newspaper. Instead, I try to give you, the reader, a flavor of what you could readily observe and conclude had you been able to attend the meeting in person.
Now I can’t cover every detail at every meeting, and readers would be uninterested if I did. If I covered “just the facts” with no creativity the story would be dry as dust and no one could stay awake to the finish. So I use selectivity in choosing what I write about. I determine (quite subjectively) the most important events of the meeting and issues of general interest which would grab my audience’s attention. My story may take five, even 10 minutes of your life--time you will never get back. If I write an article of no consequence I have just wasted your time and, thereby “stolen” invaluable--but quite finite--life energy from you. You can never regain that time, and therefore you are much the poorer for having read my article when you could have employed your time more profitably doing something else. I’ve no wish to be a time-thief in your life; we have far too many of those already.
But getting back to the issue of selectivity; selectivity necessarily connotes subjectivity. Every news report is necessarily subjective--not objective, protestations to the contrary by those who can’t be intellectually honest. Every single line I write is subjective, because it is the product of my environment, my mental capacity, my level of education, my mood, and my direct observations, as well as my emotional and intuitive responses to the body language and voice inflections of the principals. If the paper sent 100 reporters to cover a story, there would be 100 very different stories--unless a puppeteer pulled strings to ensure all the stories came out the same. If anyone doubts this, a look to rival newspapers covering the same story reveals we end up with very different products.
If a reader wants “just the facts” she needs look only to a borough’s meeting minutes. Minutes provide a skeleton with no muscle, no skin, and no life-blood to animate or give context. A journalist strives to breathe life into her story, even when the meeting is bucolic, collegial, and filled with matters routine and uncontroversial. When the meeting is polarized and filled with matters of import and controversy, much more consequential that the story capture the drama and impart what transpired, as well as what logically issues from it.
The importance of reporting is that the journalist NOT serve as a transcriptionist for the powers that be, but marshal the facts, and construct a coherent narrative that flows, ever enticing readers to persevere to story’s end, and leaving readers hungering for more-- or at least eager to welcome next month’s “episode” in the ongoing series.
Now as to the ad hominem attacks. If I misspell a person’s name in a column it’s not because I’m a muckraker. I readily admit that it is not uncommon that Christian names with variations, be they common or uncommon, can and are misspelled in columns. Interestingly, “K-R-I-S-T-E-N” was the spelling of the name on the borough council’s agenda for their August 3rd meeting. “Kristen” was the name I had written in my news coverage. Might there be further high dudgeon over one wrong letter in future council meetings? We’ll see. For the record, the complainant spelled her name in the course of the August 3 meeting: K-R-I-S-T-I-N!
Another complaint was that I had written comments not true, i.e., comments not made by the principal about whom I was referring. A review of my notes from previous meetings does not support those allegations. I stand by my articles, as reported. I can only conjecture that the complainant’s words had an impact not intended, though conveyed by the tenor and tone of her voice. Nevertheless, the impact of her words is reported with fidelity. Moderation and temperateness always become one making public comment. Aggressive personalities might carefully consider such before speaking publicly; everything is grist for the mill.
The charge that I am a muckraker has been made before, though it was in the context of a compliment and in comparison to Ida Tarbell. I was naturally proud, but humbled by realization of my modest skills in comparison to Miss Tarbell‘s. The original term “muckraker” was meant to be one of derision and derogation. Like the original muckrakers I wear the appellation as a badge of honor. “Muckrakers,” it is to be noted had no compunction at exposing the evils of the crony monopolists--Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie--at the turn of the 20th century. Muckrakers were the reformers who pushed for truth, honesty, and the virtues seemingly forgotten in a time rife with corruption. Are we not in an age similar today?
Ladies and gentlemen, as your eyes in various meetings I strive to present to you what you may have observed had you been able to be present. What you see is filtered through my eyes, my ears, my intellect; it will always be subjective. The color commentary I write into these stories is what observant and thoughtful attendees themselves might have perceived and concluded had they been there. If it wasn’t clear to you before, this is how reporting works. I hope it’s as good for you, the Reader, as it is for me, the Writer; for I pour my heart and soul into every article. Were it not up to my standards you wouldn’t be reading it. And if my standards aren’t high enough for you, I hope you’ll be joining our Staff soon; you could be the Reporter we’re looking for.
If I take Xanax, will I sink into addiction?
For months now, Ben, 35, felt like the walls were closing in on him. He could not breathe. His job as a manager of a supermarket department was beyond stressful. The store manager was on his back. The district manager cut him no slack. If he did not have a wife and 2 kids, he would take the next plane to the Bahamas and guzzle daiquiris on the beach. But that was not possible. Mortgage, tuition, groceries, liquor. Liquor? Yes, Ben made himself feel better with alcohol. But Ben knew he had an anxiety problem and decided to ask his pharmacist about a drug that could help.
“My brother-in-law was addicted to Xanax for years and loved getting high from it,” he told the pharmacist, “But will it help me or hurt me?” The pharmacist replied that taking Xanax – the brand name for alprazolam – could only help with his anxiety if his physician deemed it incapacitating.
Alprazolam is a benzodiazepine (or “benzo”) prescribed to treat panic disorder and serious anxiety. It calms a person by depressing the aspects of the central nervous system that are causing symptoms. Those without a prescription may abuse the drug for its fast-acting sedating and relaxing effects. For these reasons, Xanax is the most abused drug non-narcotic among American adults and children, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, a US surveillance system that monitors drug-related visits to hospital emergency departments and drug-related deaths investigated by medical examiners and coroners. “Coroners?” exclaimed Ben, “You mean Xanax can kill?”
The pharmacist explained that alprazolam is safe when used as directed and if not relied upon unless it is prescribed a doctor who specializes in mental health, that is, psychiatrist – not a general practitioner. But, yes, there are deaths associated with the abuse of Xanax. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 20 people who abuse Xanax overdose on the drug. Combining the drug with alcohol makes the danger more real. Or as the pharmacist put it, “Liquor will make the Xanax kill you quicker.”
The pharmacist added that becoming dependent on Xanax does not take long – less than a week of steady consumption. Once the person becomes desensitized to the initial euphoric, carefree sensations, the user continues to seek out the drug to experience the same feeling or to try and crush the anxious feelings that the drug can no longer quell. Over time, he or she shows symptoms of addiction and is no longer taking the drug to feel the effects — rather, the individual is taking Xanax to sustain feelings of normalcy and attain an “even-keeled” state of mind.
While some people like pills because they are “the easy way out,” anxiety can be controlled in other non-drug ways, such as learning how to relax, not trying to be perfect and doing the best you can, and sharing feelings with friends and family. A psychologist can help you accomplish these things.
The best advice I can give,” said the pharmacist, “is to go to a psychologist for an evaluation. Psychologists cannot prescribe drugs but will refer you to a psychiatrist if necessary. While some people find that relying on drugs and alcohol is the way out of their problems, it really is not. Rather, it is a fool’s game. And the pharmacist knows this all too well.
Ron Gasbarro, PharmD is a registered pharmacist, medical writer, and principal at Rx-Press.com. Send questions or ideas to ron@rx-press.com.
