Woman snorted pills while young daughter was inside vehicle

Manufacturing??? Did she have a little, portable lab in the car? I must have missed that part of the story, or it was edited out. Yeah, I get it. Pile the charges on the disgusting drug addict, and while you're at it, make sure it's real hard for her to ever get her kid back again too. Because you're gonna foster the kid while she's in jail, then prison, then a drug rehab. Right officer? Good job. And, hospital worker, good job as an agent of the state. Fine job everybody. You all really brought our community one step closer to being united, happy and safe. Finally, Good job. You all should be proud of yourselves. Oh and let's not forget the local rag that reported this very newsworthy story so that all of us can be disgusted and thrilled to know we are so much better than that disgusting, child abusing drug addict. I think right now we should all give ourselves a big pat on the back for such a swell job done by all concerned. Good job.

Are you serious? Could have killed her child, herself, or other innocent people

Am I serious? Obviously, I was being sarcastic. My first point was that she obviously wasn't in any way shape or form manufacturing anything while she was involved in an automobile accident. So, why was she falsely accused and charged with a crime that on its face is false? She could have left the scene and gone home and got a sniper rifle and drove to Washington, DC and shot the president. Should she also be charged with attempted assassination? See, it is not a crime if you 'could' do something; it is a crime when you actually do something. Another point that should be made is that the DUI laws are out of whack when it comes to certain substances. Amphetamine/methamphetamine will show up in your urine up to a week after use, marijuana up to a month, yet if tested and found to be in your system you are guilty of DUI. Whereas alcohol (yes, it's a drug) has a cutoff, divide where an amount has been determined to cause significant impairment, and below that cutoff you are not impaired. I can guarantee that if you were to take some meth and 6 days later you were pulled over for a DUI check and you fail a field sobriety test (which is guaranteed as the test is subjective and designed to fail anyone regardless of intoxication) you would not be intoxicated from the earlier drug usage, but you would be convicted of driving under the influence. Whereas if you got shit faced drunk the day before this DUI stop and failed the field sobriety test (again for sure because the test is designed to fail anyone) and then tested there would still be alcohol being excreted, but you would not be considered under the law impaired. A little hypocrisy when it comes to state sanctioned drug and illicit or non state sanctioned drugs. Could alcohol be more tolerated because maybe the state makes a good bit of revenue from its sale whereas it makes nothing from the sale of illicit drugs? Our system is so screwed up that even a good call by a police officer (which this one probably was) can be called into question for those of us that have a mind. For example: how can a person give legal, knowing consent for a search if he/she is intoxicated? If as the officer suspected she is intoxicated, how then can she acknowledge and give up her legal rights? I would think it takes more sobriety to give up your legal rights than to actually drive a motor vehicle competently. Am I serious. Try being pulled over for a headlight out or some other motor vehicle code violation and when the officer asks you where you are coming from, you say, Why is that important?" or "I really don't think that is any of your business." which it isn't, and I can almost guarantee you will next be asked to step out of your vehicle and given a field sobriety test that you will fail because the officer will have you hopping up and down on one foot with your head tilted back, your eyes closed, and counting backwards from 30 to 1. Get up right now and try to do that; I'd bet money on you not passing that one. It's not fair or honest. Do you think the officer knows it's not fair or an honest test? Guaranteed he knows you will fail because he knows it is rigged. So, one of the most basic things a police officer does is dishonest, how can we expect our police officers to act in an honest manner in any other situations? We can't! And, they don't. So, even the most righteous arrest has to be looked at with doubt. That is my point. So, know you have certain rights, but also know that if you were ever to try to assert them it would not go well for you. We live in a police state and as long as you act like a good little sheep you shouldn't have any problems, hopefully.

Simple solution, Don't use drugs, or don't have children if you're gonna be a A Hole and not be a responsible adult!

Great comment Common Sense. Finally something we can all agree on lol. It’s all common sense (literally).
I’m just waiting for idiot DO to chime in with a deviant republican comment lmao