Why do lawyers always say to refuse a field sobriety tests? What if you dont drink?

[ctechbob]

How come they gave me a FST when I asked for a breathalyzer?

Probably because that would require them actually arresting you and toting you down to the jail to run the test, along with towing your car or waiting for someone to pick it up.

If you run the FST first and pass, you're usually on your way without any of that.

 

[y_p_w]

How come they gave me a FST when I asked for a breathalyzer?

In pretty much every state, that only comes after arrest. I've heard of roadside breath tests, but as was noted they're not admissible in court. They're only a first pass where I suppose they could let someone go if they blow 0.00 or close to it.

 

[The motor guy]

Probably because that would require them actually arresting you and toting you down to the jail to run the test, along with towing your car or waiting for someone to pick it up.

If you run the FST first and pass, you're usually on your way without any of that.

I thought they kept a breathalyzer in the patrol car.

 

[ctechbob]

I thought they kept a breathalyzer in the patrol car.

They usually keep a PBT, which is a portable device. That isn't an 'official' breathalyzer. As far as I'm aware, the Intoxilyzer 9000 is the current unit used most places for official BAC results, and that is a desktop device that isn't mounted in cars.

 

[y_p_w]

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?

Depends. In every state there's implied consent when one obtains a driver license. Refusing the test means automatic license suspension. And even then there is such a thing as an electronic warrant approved by a judge, where they can compel a blood draw. That's pretty unpleasant since an uncooperative suspect might need to be tied down.

There could be all manner of penalties, including a few days in jail, probation, etc. But for habitual offenders there can be serious prison time. I saw a courtroom video where someone was sentenced to 18 years in state prison after her 10th DUI conviction over maybe 23 years. And she had been sentenced to prison before (as high as 10 years) where she had been paroled.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

How come they gave me a FST when I asked for a breathalyzer?

Because you didn't specifically tell the officer you would not take the FST, and/or you let him talk you into it? If you refuse the FST simply don't take it. Don't let him engage you in a dialog about it, and remember, the officer can lie to you with impunity (like tell you you have to take it), but you can't lie back.

The test and video evidence can be used to convict you. It can't exonerate you if you are charged. Unless I am in a hurry to end the stop, can balance like an 18 year old gymnast, and haven't had a thing to drink I wouldn't take it. I have done it before, but the officer had a valid reason to stop me (taillight), a valid reason to request the test (bloodshot eyes) and I hadn't had a thing to drink.

The best thing officers have going for them is drunks like to talk, and they overestimate their physical abilities. I imagine convicting drunk drivers is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[dnewton3]

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.

As of this point in our lives, there are no products which offer that tech you suggest is available. It may exist in theory, but it does NOT exist in reality.

Your suggestion reminds me of the current state of federal law which now requires all 2025 and later vehicles to have detection technology to subsequently inhibit a vehicle from starting and being operated if the driver is intoxicated by alcohol. Yes - it's a real law (passed in the 2021 budget fiasco IIRC). OEMs are required to have technology in place in vehicles which will detect a drunk driver and not allow vehicle operation. The proponents of the law say that the technology exists already and so they insisted the law be passed; it was. But the REALITY is that the technology is not mature enough, nor have all the "what if ..." and "ya but ..." questions been addressed. Typical of many do-gooders, they only think about how the tech will do something right, and completely ignore how the technology will fail or be misinterpreted.

So, regarding your suggestion that there be tech in the patrol car which would take the decisions away from the officer regarding reasonable suspicion for a stop ... when that product ACTUALLY EXISTS, and is also PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT TO BE RELIABLE to a point of being defendable in court, then you can voice your objection. Until then, your point is moot.

Further, I contend that a tool already exists which can capture evidence and reduce testimonial ambiguity; it's called video. Video evidence is not perfect; admittedly it's not foolproof. But it's very accurate and reliable a high percentage of the time. Why would you want to induce more costs with unreliable/unproven technology with your supposed solution, when video captures the vast majority of evidence and is already a marketable solution?

With in-car cameras and body worn cameras, most of the problems you object to regarding officer testimony are no longer a problem. In fact, many cases are won by the prosecution, and far more never even go to court, because the evidence is so compelling against the suspect that they will plead rather than get blasted in court. (Nothing convinces a jury better than a good video). I, for one of many officers, was thrilled to get BWCs in our agency. Nothing shuts up a suspect who makes illegitimate and false claims of abuse and wrongdoing like "rolling tape". BWCs have exonerated far more officers than you can imagine. Good cops welcome technology that helps in convictions, and also clears them of wrongdoing. For any one officer that doesn't like the BWC, there are thousands who are ecstatic to have them. As a generality, prosecution rates have gone up, and false claims of abuse have gone down, simply because of cameras.

 

[SC Maintenance]

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?

Software is not written by a single person at a single time. Then it’s tested via an iterative process and judged. It’s also 100% unbiased. It’s not affected by how long it’s been awake or how much caffeine or its mood.

So yes, I trust it far more than human judgement. Even Completely unbiased eye witness testimony has long been understood to be problematic. It’s a function of being human.

We spend more money on law enforcement and incarcerating people than any other country. We should embrace technology and endeavor to do the best job we can.

 

[dnewton3]

Software is not written by a single person at a single time.

That's not always true. I have many friends who work in IT. Depending on the size of project, there most certainly are single programmers.

Then it’s tested via an iterative process and judged.

Whether or not they get peer reviewed is a matter of policy of the company they work for. And who "judges" this programming? Humans. The very same biological form of cellular species that you say is fallible is the one you're going to rely on to do the programming and peer reviews. And if the programming is outsourced to third world countries ... well, my faith in that result isn't probably as strong as yours.

It’s not affected by how long it’s been awake or how much caffeine or its mood.

True. But technology is most certainly fallible. It may not suffer from emotions, but that does not mean it's infallible.

So yes, I trust it far more than human judgement. Even Completely unbiased eye witness testimony has long been understood to be problematic. It’s a function of being human.

Eyewitness testimony can be flawed, but it is not always flawed.

We should embrace technology and endeavor to do the best job we can.

I agree. I am a big fan of cameras in-car and BWC.

But technology can be flawed, too.
- No LPR ever made a mistake an issued a road toll to the wrong vehicle, right?
- No computer program ever made a mistake and caused power outages, right?
- No bar-code scanner ever misread a label, right? Or failed to read a label?
- No self-driving car ever caused a fatality, right?
- No traffic light control ever malfunctioned? Trust the machine.
- I know an officer who clocked a large agricultural tractor doing 82mph while pulling a seed drill down a state road. You think that technology was accurate?
- I once clocked a scooter going 116mph; I dismissed the result. Was I wrong to do so? Should I have issued a citation to the rider of the scooter because the radar said she was going 116mph?
I mean, trust the technology over the person, right? That's what you and others are saying.


I agree that we should embrace PROVEN technology when it SENSIBLY AUGMENTS eyewitness testimony AND fits in a common-sense assessment of the situation. We should NOT blindly accept technology as if it were infallible. What we should strive for is a combination of technology AND testimony which work in concert with each other. When an officer states he observed "X" happen, and the tech agrees (video, radar, whatever), there is a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the claimed event. Sensible analysis and logical assessments should be made to decide the credibility of the evidence, regardless of its origin.

 

[4WD]

90% of contractors that we removed smelled of alcohol - the for cause testing was needed to support discharge and banning from the worksite …

 

[rijndael]

If you run the FST first and pass, you're usually on your way without any of that.

They can be run to make just about anyone fail. Take the 'walk w/ one foot in front of the other' test. You get to the end and turn back. If you weren't super careful about their directions, it's easy to turn around in a way which violated their instructions. You thought, "I need to turn around and go back", but no ... there's more to all of it. They said some nugget about how to turn around. It was a detail that you glossed over because you thought the foot actions of one in front of the other was more important. There's your fail.

I've taken the FST, while drunk and not drunk, more than a handful of times. I was a volunteer at our local police academy to participate in their 'wet lab'. They give you drinks and continue to submit you to the test so the recruits can test you. Not only was it super fun to try this with a group of friends, it was super helpful for me to know my symptoms for the various BAC milestones, but also to see how my peers failed or didn't fail.

 

[Bjornviken]

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.

I live in Finland (north west). One millionaire got 170k € for speeding 40km/h over the speed limit.

 

[dishdude]

Lawyer would always recommend you use a lawyer... Lol

And that would be good advice.

 

[Lyman]

I owned a Bar for 10 years. I got pulled over more than a few times when leaving the bar after hours. After doing a roadside test a few times, the local police would just wave as I drove by. After 10 years, I got to know the night shift sergeants pretty well, and when I sold the place, they were sad to see me go.

 

[KrisZ]

You’d be a fool to agree to the jumping, standing on one leg, reciting the alphabet backwards and other humiliating acts on the side of a road, which the authorities call a “test”.

It’s been proven many times perfectly sober people fail it. Most of the cops wouldn’t pass it either.

 

[2002 Maxima SE]

I had some worn out front end parts, so it was hard to maintain the center of the lane. It was bs though because he only followed me for maybe 100ft. He just wanted to get me before I left city limits as I was only 100ft away. I bet I swerved slightly or something and that was enough. Plus I forgot he was back there. Lol Supposedly I read that they can't pull you over for that

Come to east TN, everyone drives over the line. It's like an epidemic here. Everytime I go out, someone is coming at you either on the line or over it. They all swerve at the last minute.

 

[gathermewool]

You’d be a fool to agree to the jumping, standing on one leg, reciting the alphabet backwards and other humiliating acts on the side of a road, which the authorities call a “test”.

It’s been proven many times perfectly sober people fail it. Most of the cops wouldn’t pass it either.

Complete FST: “OK, now your turn, Ociffer!”

 

[ATex7239]

Lawyers want you to do and say as little as possible cause it’s makes their job easier in the long run. People often say and do weird things while under stress even things they don’t mean to. As said in previous posts “everything you say can and will be used against you” but the other part people forget about is everything you don’t say and don’t do you can also be used against you. The legal system is full of catch 22’s

 

[ATex7239]

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.

During GWOT I had several friends get DUI’s and not one was kicked out. Busted down, put on restriction, extra duty, and all that good stuff, but never kicked out. Saw some folks rolled out for drugs and domestic stuff though.

 

[Pew]

During GWOT I had several friends get DUI’s and not one was kicked out. Busted down, put on restriction, extra duty, and all that good stuff, but never kicked out. Saw some folks rolled out for drugs and domestic stuff though.

Same here, we had quite a few DUIs on my unit but most them were a page 11 at worst. The ones that did get kicked out was for child sex offenses and another one popped for pot on a random drug test since there was zero tolerance.