I am all for getting drunks off the road. But better tech exists
exactly what "tech" do you refer to?
and these type tests should be abandoned. Far too subjective.
Did anyone bother to look at the link and supporting links regarding SFSTs I posted a few pages back?
Again, some officers are actually certified in these tests. Others are not. That is at the discretion of the agency and the prosecution. Those who are certified typically have a very high conviction rate, a very low loss rate, and are rarely overturned in appeal.
Here's is the logic of SFSTs ... (EGN; walk and turn; one leg stand)
These tests are indicative of a probability of intoxication/impairment. (note: the % factors I state were accurate at the time of my last training recertification a few years ago; they may have changed a bit, but probably not by much).
- If you fail one test, and then take a chemical test, that one failed test is approximately 50% accurate in predicting intoxication.
- if you fail two tests, and then take a chemical test, those two tests are approximately 78% accurate in predicting intoxication.
- if you fail all three tests, and then take a chemical test, those three tests are approximately 92% accurate in predicting intoxication.
Each test has multiple elements, called "clues". Typically, three failed clues = test failure. These clues are not nearly as "subjective" as you imply.
A PBT (portable breath test) is not a SFST. It is a field sobriety test, but not a "standardized" test like those above. When properly maintained and administered, these are very accurate. But they are not generally considered worthy of condemnation on their own; they are a tool to show a propensity of intoxication, but not an absolution.
Other factors are also considered when collecting evidence for a conviction. (This is where BWCs - body worn cameras - are very helpful).
- are your eyes bloodshot
- have you soiled yourself
- is your balance unstable
- did you have to pull yourself from the vehicle
- what driving traits were observed prior to being pulled over (speeding; crossing the lines; erratic speed; failure to comply with traffic laws; etc)
- disheveled clothing/appearance
- slurred speech
- do you have difficulty following directives (stand over here ... keep your hands out of your pockets ... etc)
- do you have difficulty understanding simple spoken questions
- etc
Folks need to realize that there are, in most states, two means of charging for OWI. (aka DWI, etc).
- "per se" intoxication. This means your BAC (or THC, etc) was above some statutory predetermined level; proven or disproven by a blood or breath test.
- impaired intoxication. This means your physical abilities were inhibited by the intoxicant.
Just because you blow a .000 on a breath test, does not mean you're not intoxicated; you could be impaired by illicit drugs. In this case, a blood sample would be needed and could be combined with your failed SFSTs for conviction. Or, you could actually pass the SFSTs, but fail a breath test, and be charged with a "per se" violation. Many times, if you fail the SFSTs and also fail a chemical test, you will be charged with both.
As I have already explained, you can refuse a chemical test. Most likely the officer will be able to articulate a good PC affidavit based on the other observations and request a warrant for your blood sample; it will likely be issued.You can refuse a SFST, but that does not remove all the other PC factors listed above which, again, can be articulated in a PC request for a warrant for blood sample.
Refusals will (pretty much always) result in the BMV (DMV) suspending your license for a year. In many states, this is cumulative; more refusals = longer suspensions. This is often independent of any legal victory you may have in court, because there is no "right" to drive, and the implied consent doctrine is universal in every state. You do not have a "right" to have a driver's license; it's a privilege and that comes with unique restrictions which can be set by the State.
NONE of what I state should be considered legal advice to an individual. Rather, I'm telling folks what processes exist for a State to prosecute an OWI.
