# Immediate Threat



## ClintEastwood4Sheriff (Feb 5, 2014)

Question for the LEO’s on Mass Cops..

OUI Drugs

Regardless of the driver’s history, or the specifics of the stop/arrest, do you apply for an immediate threat with OUI Drugs? 

With no Implied Consent, I was trained to apply for an immediate threat with every OUI Drug arrest. 

Some admin like immediate threats only when there is a “PLUS” factor. 

Thoughts? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AB7 (Feb 12, 2019)

Did you ask anyone in your chain of command? I mean it’s up to you, but you want to do right by your department too.


----------



## ClintEastwood4Sheriff (Feb 5, 2014)

It’s split down the middle. 

Some say it should be used cautiously. If they have a KQ etc. if it was a dangerous incident, accident, injuries etc. 

Some say the act in itself is worthy of an application. Etc. I wanted to pick the brains of some vets or anyone on the forum. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RodneyFarva (Jan 18, 2007)

No for just the OUI drugs. But thats just me, I always felt it was a good tool meant for incompetent drivers / mental issues 

I would tac on Operating a Motor Vehicle to Endanger
(Negligent or Reckless Operation)


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

Neg OP every OUI drugs and immediate threat. It was discussed this year at inservice as well to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ClintEastwood4Sheriff (Feb 5, 2014)

j809 said:


> Neg OP every OUI drugs and immediate threat. It was discussed this year at inservice as well to do that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, that's exactly what I was told, and what was discussed at inservice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 38bigblock (Nov 22, 2015)

Medical issues, Neg op, an act that would put the person and / or the public in danger and any OUI where a BT is not used (except for a refusal) So I would say OUI drugs would be a go. Remember that there’s a line on the form where a Supervisor / Chief must sign in order for it to be submitted. So department policy and your supervisor are really going to be the determining factors.


----------



## ClintEastwood4Sheriff (Feb 5, 2014)

38bigblock said:


> Medical issues, Neg op, an act that would put the person and / or the public in danger and any OUI where a BT is not used (except for a refusal) So I would say OUI drugs would be a go. Remember that there's a line on the form where a Supervisor / Chief must sign in order for it to be submitted. So department policy and your supervisor are really going to be the determining factors.


It was explained during inservice, that the line says "Police Chief/Authorized Person" It does not have to be the Chief.

It can legally be the patrolmen etc. Dept policy states it has to be the OIC/Admin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 38bigblock (Nov 22, 2015)

Yeah, everywhere is different man, but that's how I do it.



ClintEastwood4Sheriff said:


> It was explained during inservice, that the line says "Police Chief/Authorized Person" It does not have to be the Chief.
> 
> It can legally be the patrolmen etc. Dept policy states it has to be the OIC/Admin.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## samadam78 (Nov 10, 2007)

Immediate threat every time and put in the case file. If your chief is stupid enough to not sign it and send it in you’re covered when the guy takes out a minivan with a family in it next weekend...


----------



## visible25 (Feb 7, 2012)

On page with what everyone here is staying, spoke to a bunch of people at in-service and a lot guys I spoke to are seeing their license being reinstated pending a CWOF or actual case finding. 

Our Chief is open to signing, so long as we can SHOW neg op w/drugs on-board, guess it's a CYA on his part to prevent someone from coming after the dpt?


----------

