Police Arrest Woman For Alleged DUI After She Used Streaming Video While Driving

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Whitney Beall
Whitney Beall

Sometimes drunk drivers by their actions seem to almost want to be arrested, and a woman in Lakeland, Florida allegedly made this all the more apparent.

Whitney Beall, police say, drove intoxicated while video streaming her actions via Periscope. Viewers of the video then telephoned 911 reporting a drunk girl was driving through town.

Police later discovered her and placed her under arrest.  Video follows this article.

Certainly this is going to be a most difficult violation to defend.


Several others attempted to encourage the driver to stop by sending her text messages. A 911 caller reportedly stated, “I just saw a girl on Periscope driving drunk. She doesn’t know where she is and she’s driving really fast.”

Not only did Ms. Beall show her driving issues, such as driving on the wrong side of the road, holding at green lights while another driver honked her to move forward, weaving, but helped the prosecution’s future case by making slurred, rambling statements such as repeatedly claiming to be lost, that she is driving on a flat tire, and admitting her crime several times by voicing incriminations such as “I’m driving drunk and this is not cool.” To top it off she lamented aloud, “I haven’t been arrested yet, and I really don’t hope so.”

After dispatch notified patrol of the alleged drunk driver, an officer connected to Periscope via his personal cell phone and directed others who located Ms. Beall whereupon she struck a curb without braking. After reportedly failing Field Sobriety Tests, Police took her into custody. She refused a breath test and was booked for DUI.

The video may be seen HERE at WFTV.com.

By Darren Smith



The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

21 thoughts on “Police Arrest Woman For Alleged DUI After She Used Streaming Video While Driving”

  1. InalienableWrights,

    At some point in your post-public school indoctrination you have or should have come across the enlightenment era philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. Within their works can be found explanations regarding the Social Contract. John Stuart Mill is also a very good source and his 19th century work is far easier to digest in an effort to understand Social Contract theory. Below is an excerpt from his work ‘On Liberty’ (1860) and I offer this as a supporting reference to my post that you have vehemently opposed. If I have interpreted Social Contract theory inconsistent with this work by Mill, by Locke or Hobbes or even this nation’s founding fathers, then I am certainly willing to review your source material and be persuaded to an alternate interpretation. I look forward to your citation as I am willing to learn at every opportunity. Oh by the way, you may want to review your own cited YouTube video to understand the difference between Liberty and Licentiousness (Locke).

    “Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavor to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.” John Stuart Mill

  2. Title 18 United States Code (USC) Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 31 Definitions:

    (6) Motor vehicle – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

    (10) Used for commercial purposes – The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

    The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

    “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969)

    White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) determined that “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right”

    “Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself violative of the constitution” Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291-2

    Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 Ne 22, 66 ALR JUR (1st) Highways, Sec 163 inparamateria, “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”

    Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that “it is a right, broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”

    1. And people on their smart phones kill just as many. But the “useful idiots” have not yet been told by the MSM, that BTW does the thinking for the useful idiots, that they should now support ineffective, draconian, right violating measures to get these evil smart phone users off of the road…..

  3. Drunk drivers are like missiles with no guidance system on the roads with the rest of us. A drunk driver killed a teenager in my family 2 weeks before graduation.

    They’re just too lost in their own addiction or just poor judgement to care who they hurt. What kills me is there are still people who think they drive better drunk. They think that because their decision center is impaired. They could be outside their car, “air driving”, thinking they’re doing just fine.

    There was a great anti-DUI documentary I watched many years ago. They took a group of people who claimed they drove better drunk. They videotaped them driving a complicated obstacle course. And then they got them drunk at just past the legal limit, and had them drive it again. It was hilarious, because this was a closed course and innocent people were not in danger. Then after everyone sobered up, they showed them their before and after videos. Some of them cried because they had been so wrong.

    The victimless crime argument is patently absurd. Should they tell the police to just follow drunk drivers around until they do kill someone, like our loss?

  4. But, guys like Inalienable are what make this blog, and the world, interesting. I just don’t want to be within a 500 mile radius if he’s driving a motor vehicle.

  5. LOL! InalienableWrights is really General Jack Ripper talking about “Our precious bodily fluids.” I’m guessing he’s been popped for DUI more than once.

  6. So much stupidity. Much of it learned in the indoctrination centers called government schools. Some of it from drinking the fluoride their whole lives….

    We have people in this thread that think that your right to travel is a fuking privilege. Just shows how true that Joseph Goebels saying “If you repeat a lie often enough they will believe it”

    Let’s look at this ignorant statement: “The moment she entered into the public space is when her behavior is subject to the law.” This is not unlike saying “the minute the Jews entered in to the fatherland they were subject to the law” or “The slaves knew the law and when they ran away they were subject to the law”

    My god people. No one can think. No one can reason. No one has pointed out the the whole DUI thing is bull shit. It is like the war on drugs. It is a war on our rights more than anything. A war on our right to travel. Our right to not being stopped and harassed without probable caused. The sorry state of this country is in large part due to people not even recognizing a right any longer. The government schools have been very successful at their real goal, of dumbing down the population.

  7. Welcome to the electronic plantation Whitney, you just ruined your life. Whether convicted or not, which seems unlikely with the video she took. Most of the time, if you drive while drunk always say no to a breathalyzer test, but in this situation, not taking a breathalyzer test seems irrelevant.

  8. old news and does not affect much of anything.

    Typical D.S., if it can make law enforcement look better, provide them with more jobs, lets post about it.

    civil liberties and this site? I recommend the Intercept…. or even google haha.

  9. This is up there with the young woman a few years back who robbed a bank then posted a video on YouTube showing her counting the money and admitting to the robbery.

    Kidz: Social media is not a magic zone where you can do things with no consequences

  10. “No victim no crime….”


    The moment she entered into the public space is when her behavior is subject to the law. Her privilege to drive comes with the responsibility to obey the laws. I would be interested to know what right you believe she has to drive on a public road drunk.

  11. The victims here are all those kids who watched the video and think its ok to get drunk. It is just like those Edward R. Murrow news shows when he is not only smoking on camera during the newscast but advertising on set for some tobacco cigarette brand. Walter Cronkite did the same thing. Millions of kids who watched thought smoking was grand. Hundreds of thousand are dead now from cancer.

    1. BarkinDog – I started smoking because my parents did, not because of some liberal twit.

  12. Mark Twain predicted that there would be a live video stream of the Mississippi where it meets the Ohio. Never the Twain shall meet.

  13. She is damn lucky someone called 911. She was wasted. She supposedly does not remember driving so she was in a blackout condition.

Comments are closed.