Oh he ain’t going to look bad. They find something to charge you with.
Why do lawyers always say to refuse a field sobriety tests? What if you dont drink?
- Thread starter The motor guy
- Start date
You were commenting on a post about field sobriety tests. That is different from chemical tests.
A 16 year old could program a machine vision camera to determine when to pull people over. At that point there are breathalyzers and instant chemical tests.
Anyone who believes humans don’t make errors are dillusional.
I think there is some misinformation going on here. Last time I checked (as of three months ago), no US states automatically suspend your license for refusing field sobriety tests. Many, if not all, will suspend your license if you refuse chemical BAC tests (blood or breathalyzer).
Double check with your individual state, but there are reasons why lawyers all recommend against taking FSTs, especially if you are sober.
Double check with your individual state, but there are reasons why lawyers all recommend against taking FSTs, especially if you are sober.
In my country you blow into a breathalyzer. If you refuse you get a blood test. What is the penalty in the USA if you are drunk and drive?
It's state specific.
what's the penalty in your state?
It depends on if you're a repeat offender and the BAC levels.
The general list is here: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/#article2/
If you refuse tests, that's here: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-268.3/
If you're a repeat offender, it's here: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-270/
If you are in the military, in addition to civil and criminal penalties, you can pretty much kiss your career goodby.
Same in my country. Also applies to firefighters and police officers. The army has a separate trial than civilians. And is much harsher when it comes to punishment. We have ridiculously mild punishments compared to the US in the civilian sector. Except for speeding tickets. Which is based on one's annual income
It depends who and when. During the war when they needed bodies it was just a slap on the wrist and a page 11 at worst. During the two wind downs they were finding any reason to njp people. As an officer it was probably worse for your career, as enlisted it might have just staved of promotion for a couple years.
Depends on how good of a lawyer you have.
Are you in Sweden or Norway or that area ? I read about that how speeding tickets (and I presume other traffic violations) go by your income.
dnewton3
Staff member
So you'd trust a human to program a machine, but you don't trust a human to observe the event? Seems laden with hypocrisy. If you believe the cop is fallible and/or biased, why wouldn't the programmer also be fallible or biased???
And since when have camera systems been foolproof?
And how well do they work in adverse weather conditions such as heavy rain and snow?
No system that would be "in car" portable is going to be certified by a state accreditation agency.
Breathalyzers are expensive, bulky equipment and go through vast validation/calibration processes. PBTs are not admissible in court for OWIs in any state I'm aware of. Chemical tests which would look for blood borne intoxicants like THC, opioids, etc are not portable; these are done in labs for a reason. The portable tests used on-scene are not admissible for conviction either. Both the PBTs and tox-tests are only tools to develop PC for certified testing to be done.
Your suggestions fall far short of reality IMO.
Years ago Tom Woods did an excellent podcast episode on this very subject:
Yeah - a lot of people refuse the field sobriety tests and get arrested on the spot where they get taken in for intoxicant testing. If that's refused, almost every state has an implied consent provision that allows suspension of a driver license. That's agreed to when anyone obtains a driver license.
It's impossible to really know how a particular officer is going to handle it with the field sobriety or any other test refused. I've been asked to breathe hard to detect an odor of alcohol. Since I hadn't been drinking that was pretty easy and he let me go.
Not at all. Refusing a chemical test results in automatic suspension.
But in order to bring someone over to be tested requires an arrest. But certainly they can get it wrong, like if someone is arrested where they blow 0.01 and then end up getting released. Then there are the rules on getting it out of impound, where it might even be possible to be on the hook even if there's nothing detected.
Machines typically don't have emotions, or bad days.
A human can be a good person, or a bad person, at different times during the same day, and you can't tell the difference until you see their actions play out.
The programmer has a specific job to do:
Make this gizmo do this specific thing when it sees a vehicle drive down the road.
If it sees the vehicle doing x, y, or z, then execute these specific commands.
Then, the gizmo is tested in a variety of locations and conditions.
If the gizmo shows reliability, and accuracy, then the gizmo is distributed, and used.
If the programmer decides to add in code that if the vehicle is red, or if the vehicle has a Carolina Squat, then execute different code, and that code is determined to be illegal, then the innocent civilian can pay someone to expose that code in court.
It's still made really difficult to prove that a police officer is anything other than a model, upstanding example of law enforcement, and he has the full backing of his department and union rep in almost all circumstances.
It's typically easier to get justice against a gizmo that is operating outside of its design specifications than it is to get justice against a police officer, police department, or justice system that is operating outside of legality.
I would much rather refuse any testing that is subjective, keep my mouth shut, and let myself and my fluids be tested by devices and laboratories that are definitive.
To be fair, you said "tested" without specifying that is for a chemical test and not the field sobriety test.
But I clearly remember my teen years studying for the driver's written test where back then there was implied consent for a breath, blood, or urine test for alcohol. Might be different now since there are some intoxicants that require a blood or urine test. I do remember one episode of L.A. Law where a tax attorney is stopped for a DUI investigation and his wife (a general civil/criminal defense attorney) yells at him to refuse all but the breath test.
And some people can be caught in a gotcha, like those who might have been drinking underage. They can end up being charged with underage drinking for any detectable amount. A tiny amount that might avoid a DUI charge could still lead to an underage drinking charge.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 9,513
How come they gave me a FST when I asked for a breathalyzer?
