Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Social Networks Transportation

Live-Streaming Florida Woman Charged With Drunken Driving 327

HughPickens.com writes: Christine Hauser writes in the NY Times that police in Lakeland, Florida say 911 dispatchers started receiving calls Saturday from viewers who were watching a woman broadcasting herself while apparently driving drunk, using the live-streaming app Periscope. Despite the tip being generated in the virtual world, it took some traditional police sleuthing to find the woman and, ultimately, arrest and charge her. The woman first invited her viewers to follow her as she went bar-hopping in downtown Lakeland. During the live stream, Beall repeatedly said that she was drunk and appeared to be asking viewers for directions. She noticed that there were at least 57 people watching and asked, "So where am I right now, people?" One 911 caller said Beall was driving a Toyota in the north Lakeland area. "I just saw a girl on Periscope driving drunk. She doesn't know where she is and she's driving really fast," said the caller. As officers pulled Beall over, her 2015 Toyota Corolla, which already had a flat right front tire, rammed into a curb. Beall failed the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and she refused the breathalyzer test.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Live-Streaming Florida Woman Charged With Drunken Driving

Comments Filter:
  • by naughtynaughty ( 1154069 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @09:15AM (#50725079)
    Taking the optional Field Sobriety Test (FST) is never a good idea. Not doing the Breathalyzer test after being arrested in Florida is also not a good idea as it results in the automatic suspension of your license and your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court. In addition, it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC.
    • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @09:18AM (#50725109) Journal

      Taking the optional Field Sobriety Test (FST) is never a good idea. Not doing the Breathalyzer test after being arrested in Florida is also not a good idea as it results in the automatic suspension of your license and your refusal to take the test can be used against you in court. In addition, it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC.

      Take neither test.

      If you're in doubt about what to do, please remember the police are not administering these exams to help prove your innocence.

      • by wbr1 ( 2538558 )
        In most states, refusing the test is an automatic license suspension.

        You should never drive inebriated, however, if you are this stupid, be smart enough to have an attorney on retainer or delay to get one.

        • In most states, refusing the test is an automatic license suspension.

          Refusing a breath test is an automatic license suspension. A breathalyzer test is not a breath test. It is a preliminary breath test. Refusing that has no penalty.

          A breath test is a large machine down at the police station, that is carefully calibrated and accurate (for what it does). Police ask you to take the breathalyzer, and FST, so that they can collect enough evidence to justify arresting you and taking you downtown for the real breath test. They ask, you say no.

          • by Holi ( 250190 )
            Wow, really really bad legal advice from an armchair lawyer. You go ahead and refuse the breathalyzer and see what happens.
      • you're giving legal advice to people who drive drunk

        1. they obviously aren't the best decision makers, even before drinking, so you might as well be giving advice to farm animals on taking a calculus test

        2. to all drunk driving irresponsible assholes: fuck you. the legal in and outs of the exact procedure to establish your level of inebriation is secondary. the primary topic is the police should do whatever they need to to take away your driving privileges, as they should be taken away. oh you need to drive to your job? you drove drunk you stupid asshole, you have proven to society you don't deserve to drive. take the bus you irresponsible douchebag

        If you're in doubt about what to do

        i know: how about don't drive drunk?

        there are no lame ass whiny entitled excuses or explanations that apply. don't drive drunk, no exceptions

        • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @09:56AM (#50725419) Journal
          I have no rebuttal. You're spot on.
        • i know: how about don't drive drunk?

          If you lived in Florida, you'd do everything drunk.

          • Looked more like really bad mescaline last time I was there. Perhaps Krokodil.

            Florida is fucking scary. And not the pythons and alligators.

        • Except that people who haven't been drinking are also asked to do an FST or a breathalyzer test.

          • assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test, then they pass it, and there is no problem

            • So do the completely subjective FST that the officer can just declare you failed whenever he likes, which only serves to be used against you?

              That's the opposite advice then what every single lawyer and police officer I've talked to has given me.

              • if all law enforcement officers are all cartoon goons out to violate your rights via lying and cheating, you would be right

                since that is a cartoon universe that only exists your head, you're simply revealing your feeble grasp on reality

                there are bad apples in law enforcement. they aren't that prevalent, and they aren't out to get you

                paranoid schizophrenia has treatment options. good luck to you

            • assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test, then they pass it, and there is no problem

              So, the mere act if driving through a checkpoint is good enough reason to require you to stop your car, get out, take time out of your day and schedule to do some test because of an arbitrary head count.

              Would you condone the same if alcohol wasn't a reason...just have checkpoints to stop people in case they are doing something wrong and test things out and search their cars and persons?

              • So, the mere act if driving through a checkpoint is good enough reason to require you to stop your car, get out, take time out of your day and schedule to do some test because of an arbitrary head count.

                that's not what i said, asshole. in fact it is the exact opposite of what i said. i said assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test

                you can't completely reverse the meaning of someone's comment and reply to them

                • that's not what i said, asshole. in fact it is the exact opposite of what i said. i said assuming the officer of the law has a good reason to apply the test

                  But that is the reality of today. Just driving to a checkpoint is grounds for them to stop you and pull you from the car for tests. You having the misfortune of hitting a checkpoint is "good enough reason" in many case for them to detain you and test you.

                  Thankfully in many states, they require the cops to post where checkpoints are in advance, which i

                  • well thank you for changing the subject and randomly making me the bad guy in a scenario that has nothing to do with what i am saying, douchebag

                    if you're going to hijack the fucking topic, have the decency to note that you are changing the fucking topic

        • Meh. This is Florida. Most of Florida is designed so that it's impossible to hold down a job or get food without driving.

          Once the zoning restrictions are lifted and developers are allowed to build a large enough amount of quality high density stock, with decent public transport (Hello All Aboard Florida, but you're not enough) linking residents to jobs and each other, I'll accept that we have the right to treat driving as optional and people who drive while drunk as having "no excuses".

          Until then, howe

          • get a cab. take the bus. walk. arrange for a friend to drive, before or after. sleep it off at the location. get a hotel. prop yourself up on the side of the wall. all options infinitely better than driving drunk

            while poor urban planning and poor civil engineering may explain why there are more drunk drivers in a given area statistically, it is no *individual* excuse nor explanation. suburban sprawl simply exposes more of the irresponsible douchebag fraction of society to limited transportation options, ye

            • get a cab. take the bus. walk. arrange for a friend to drive, before or after. sleep it off at the location. get a hotel. prop yourself up on the side of the wall. all options infinitely better than driving drunk

              Cabs are expensive, buses don't exist, friends aren't always available, sleeping in a bar will get you arrested, hotels are expensive, propping yourself up on the side of a wall will get you arrested.

              So no. Given your suggestion about buses, I have to assume you have absolutely no idea what you'

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
          Well, first...

          The BAC legal levels are WAAAY too low now. A grown man or woman just having a couple of glasses of wine with a meal can be dangerously close to the legal level of DWI...when in fact there is no problem with driving home.

          And, if you're so against any drinking at all and driving, then why is is even legal to have a bar with a parking lot for the patrons to come in? Do you seriouslythink all those cars are for designated drivers? Do you not wonder where they all disappear to at night at clos

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            you're an irresponsible douchebag

            you don't drink then drive

            period. ever. no excuses or explanations

            your lame self-serving weak rationalizations only reveal your poor character

            • And you seem to ignore reality, people do imbibe a bit and then go home, fact of life.

              It isn't really that scary. If I'm loaded, no, I don't drive home..but if I've only had a few (and decades of living with myself and having alcohol and knowing my limits) I will get myself home.

              I will say, however, now that uber is out there and so cheap (MUCH less than a cab), if I know I'm planning a night out, I'll do uber back and forth from home to bar(s) and fests. But if you're out and about and happen to have dr

              • drinking and driving is never acceptable

                if you're insulting people in the south and saying most of them are fine with that (seems rather prejudicial and self-serving to your own shitty attitude), then you will simply reap many more pointless traffic deaths

                and therefore tell the rest of the country to avoid an area populated with such morons. and then after enough morons like yourself are dead, your children and grandchildren will pass better laws and have better attitudes. and the "culture" you defend will

                • if you're insulting people in the south and saying most of them are fine with that (seems rather prejudicial and self-serving to your own shitty attitude), then you will simply reap many more pointless traffic deaths

                  No, I"m saying I have grown up here all my life, and I know the attitudes and culture, and from my visits up to the NE, yes, I can say that in general, they are MUCH more uptight about drinking any at all and having to drive home. It is very usual with anyone I've even known, to often grab a b

                  • basically you're saying your culture is ignorant and stupid. when the truth is only you are ignorant and stupid

                    your attitude obviously sucks, and you are an accident waiting to happen. when it does happen, please do us the favor and only kill yourself

                    and thanks for insulting the south in an attempt to mitigate your douchebag character, you irresponsible fuck

                    you will of course go "he hates the south"

                    no, i love the south, i have old family roots there. i only hate you, shitbag, because your attitude is clearl

                    • LOL...whatever.

                      I think you're being a bit overdramatic....it isn't like this is not a common thought and consideration of the subject.

                      Not sure why all the name calling, but seems a bit of an overreaction.

                    • because you drink and drive and don't think it's a problem

                      this makes you a fucking piece of shit

                      not a baseless insult, but objectively speaking: your irresponsibility is dangerous to the people you share the road with. by your choice. it's not your culture, asswipe, that's a lame dodge. you're just an immature irresponsible asshole who will kill someone, and seems happy about it

                • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

                  never an excuse for risking the lives of others

                  Oh cut the self righteous bullshit. We risk the lives of others all the time. Do think flying planes over populated areas does not risk the lives of others. Do think driven while not under the influence does not risk the lives of others. Do think any kind of mining, drilling or other other natural resource harvesting does not risk the lives and property of those near by? Do think having a fire in your fire place does not potentially risk setting a neighbors roof on fire and risking their lives?

                  The only

            • by garcia ( 6573 )

              Calling him an irresponsible douchebag for potentially driving w/in the legal limits is a bit much, don't you think?

              While I don't drink and drive, by setting a limit at .08, the government is permitting SOME drinking and driving, albeit at a level which is complicated to pass legally more or less forcing you to choose between not driving or not drinking while providing the people some semblance of choice.

              If they're going to do this, they should make it so low (.02) no one will drive after drinking, as they

          • dangerously close to the legal level of DWI...when in fact there is no problem with driving home.

            Alcohol has an effect on reflexes from about 0.02.
            Alcohol starts to affect reasoning at 0.04

            So fuck you if you think you have no problem doing the most dangerous activity of your day with the highest statistical chance of killing a third party by accident with a 0.08 level.

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            then why is is even legal to have a bar with a parking lot for the patrons to come in?

            So that people with a fucking brain don't have to park elsewhere.

            Clearly you don't qualify.

          • The BAC legal levels are WAAAY too low now. A grown man or woman just having a couple of glasses of wine with a meal can be dangerously close to the legal level of DWI...when in fact there is no problem with driving home.

            And a man or woman who has had two drinks can also be sloppy, depending on their physiology. The rules aren't fair in that they affect everyone equally, the rules are "fair" in that they are there for the benefit of everyone. The goal is to reduce the number of extremely horrible accidents, at the expense of a little inconvenience.

            Be realistic. People go out..they have a few...they have to get themselves and their cars HOME for the next day. It happens. The trick is to not be too impaired to drive safely.

            Yes, and that's why we have fairly low limits. Safety. This is a great reason why self-driving cars need to be able to drive while you're asleep or whatever. Then we can finally h

        • You make some good points, but you fail to recognize that he is giving advise to people who are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, not all of whom are actually drunk.
          • assuming a good cop, and a well-meaning suspicion to apply the test (the vast majority of situations), there will be people who take the test and pass, and go on their way

            it's impossible for a cop, a human being not a computer, to only apply the tests when they know for 100% certainty someone is drunk. that's why they do the test, to turn their suspicion into a certainty. it's a valid policy in the field to back up the suspicion with the test

            so avoiding the test means you get to spend more quality time with

      • Well if you know you are not drunk, take the damn tests and prove your own innocence with them. These tests are not pseudo science from my understanding, if you have not been drinking they will return that result.
        • These tests are not pseudo science from my understanding, if you have not been drinking they will return that result.

          No, not pseudoscience, but a) not necessarily good science, and b) that assumes the Breathalyzers are properly designed, built, maintained, regularly calibrated, used, reported and recorded.

          Those are awfully big assumptions to make, especially when so many, like, you, assume that they're infallible magic boxes.

          Breathalizer source code analysis. [embeddedgurus.com] Slashdot discussion thereof [google.ca]

          • Still, the chance of a malfunctioning test (particularly multiple in a row [there is at least a blood test and a breath test]) seems far less than the chance of failing a court case where the only evidence is the officers memory of you acting drunk vs your word that you were not. You will lose any case were you turned down all tests and the officer thought you looked intoxicated. And the chance of this happening seems higher than all the tests giving a false positive. If you know you are not drunk, the bes
      • From my recollection of looking into the laws in my own state, a field sobriety test is requested (much like a "would you mind if I take a look around?" when they want to do a search but don't have a warrant) whereas a breathalyzer is ordered (and for which they must be able to establish reasonable suspicion). A refusal to consent to a subjective field sobriety test just means that the officer has one less piece of data they can use against you, whereas a failure to consent to an objective breathalyzer test

      • I'm not a lawyer but I've seen this play out in traffic court. If you refuse the test, you will be charged with *both* the refusal *and* drunken driving. You will then be offered a deal where you plea guilty to only the drunken driving charge. If you're drunk and you're driving, it's really a hopeless situation. Just don't do it. If you refuse the test and then somehow get found not guilty for the DUI, it won't matter, as the penalties for the two are about the same.
    • pee or blood test only don't use the Breathalyzer test the software in them are not that good.

    • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      it doesn't prevent the police from obtaining a warrant to draw your blood and determine your BAC

      True it does not but if you are at all in doubt about as it if its possible you could by right on the edge like you had a couple beers and thought you were legal, its best to force the blood draw.

      If you were just over the limit by the time they drive you to a facility where they can take your blood, and get a warrant (which can get done over the phone) there is a good chance you will have dropped just below the limit. Even though they can do this pretty quickly it still gives you the better part of an hour

  • by DanJ_UK ( 980165 ) * on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @09:18AM (#50725105) Homepage
    She sounds like a complete and utter Thundertwat.
  • What next? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Coisiche ( 2000870 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @09:33AM (#50725211)

    Since online approval via "likes" or equivalent seems to be the basis of self-worth for so many, how many more crimes are going to be live streamed?

    "Sure, I got eighteen months but I got 10,000 likes!"

  • by lazarus ( 2879 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @09:36AM (#50725239) Journal

    I say that there should be equal opportunity [twitter.com] for both Florida men and women.

  • Twitch LARPs "GTA : DUI"
  • . . . that what it sounds like to me. If there are any gentlemen from Florida on Slashdot, please invite her over for a coffee, and advise her to get some professional help.

  • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @10:35AM (#50725701)

    Problem exists between steering wheel and smartphone.

    • Problem exists between steering wheel and smartphone.

      My double sided tape?

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        No, the fuckwit that put it on your steering wheel.

        Ever considered watching the fucking road and surrounding environment while driving?

  • They don't make a cure for stupid.
  • Why is this news for nerds? Because she was dumb enough to put it on social media? Are the editors around here that stupid?

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...