Why do lawyers always say to refuse a field sobriety tests? What if you dont drink?
- Thread starter The motor guy
- Start date
- Status
Not the same as field testing or field equipment. What they carry in the car is a preliminary breath machine...not the one that counts.
Now, if they want to bring you down to the station and put you in front of the certified machine and THEN you refuse to blow into that one, then that is refusal and you'll lose your license (for 1 year here).
Fishing expeditions, likely based on the time they were driving alone.
I worked 3rd shift for a couple of years, can't count how many times I heard the ol "you were weaving around a little INSIDE the lines"
In order for this map to be meaningful, you have to define what “stop and identify” actually means. Otherwise that map is very misleading.
If it’s meant that police can stop a random citizen and demand identification without probable cause or when not operating a vehicle on a public road, then no state has a statue like that.
That’s the problem… stop and identify is actually pretty nebulous, legally. Even the website I got that map from said nowhere is “stop & ID” defined with hard limits and requirements in statutes. There was a SCOTUS case on it that left the legal definition pretty vague as well.
Mostly correct.
In Washington state, you can refuse a field breathalyzer test.
If you are arrested for DWI, based on other criteria however, then brought to the police station and refuse a breathalyzer. The motor vehicle department will suspend your license.
There is much talk that portable breathalyzer test can be inaccurate.
Bottom line is first you have to be arrested for DUI, you do not have to submit to a breathalyzer test before being arrested and brought to the police station
https://www.cowanlawfirm.com/faqs
Last edited:
That’s why you need to know your state law. In Texas you need to be lawfully arrested or operating a vehicle. Now, “lawfully arrested” is still vague, but one only has to ask “Am I being arrested?”.
If they say yes, then identify and you can go to court if you feel it wasn’t a lawful arrest.
They can still arrest you unlawfully for not identifying though, forcing you to go to court or some will simply comply. That’s just the way we’re headed.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2022
- Messages
- 6,153
My experience with this topic is imho interesting. On 3 distinct occasions, I was let go. The latest was 21 years ago, maybe pre dashcam/bodycam era. When I look back at my own life, I'm glad I have the capacity to learn lessons, even today.
Today, I am very serious about DWI and school buses (separately). To the point people likely think chill, bro, why are you so serious.
Today, I am very serious about DWI and school buses (separately). To the point people likely think chill, bro, why are you so serious.
Owen Lucas
$100 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2021
- Messages
- 3,727
Interesting, so you can refuse a roadside breathalyzer and just sya, lets go to the PD and use the real machine?
It would be a huge inconvenience, towign your car, getting a ride home, getting cuffed, but you can avoid an arrest and DUI on your licens eif you coem out clean.
So then what happens if they take you in for drug testing, and the test is clear?
Maybe they'll say the drugs have metabolized out or weren't detected?
I don't have any first-hand experience with what happens after one doesn't submit to the field tests.
I know some people have a condition called "nystagmus" which would prevent them from being able to pass the pen following test.
Im not sure that is the issue. I think it's more about rights and the states willingness to have police be reasonably sure a person is drunk before setting up road blocks and have everyone blow into a machine or anyone pulled over for any reason to blow into a machine.
So the way I see is it, they make the police make sure you failed the physical field tests and then have to arrest you on the suspicion. Only then do some states (like Washington and I am sure many others) require you submit to a breathalyzer test which would be at the police station or risk suspension of your license. If you really think about it, it makes perfect sense.
I guess it doesnt matter the way I see it *LOL* Its the way it is. You need to be arrested and then refuse a breathalyzer in the police station to have automatic repercussions such as license suspension.
For those that didnt read the link I provided above. The breathalyzer test given in the field can not be use in court. The one in the police station is used. Two different devices.
Below is taken from the link I previously provided above for Washington state. All state laws are different but one might think very similar. So if interested research your own state or better yet, ask an attorney.
"
Do I have to take a portable breath test (PBT)?
A PBT is a hand held breath-testing device that is carried by most police officers in their patrol car. It is given at roadside along with other “field sobriety tests” for the stated purpose of assisting the officer in deciding whether or not to make an arrest. Occasionally, the officer will use the results to exclude alcohol intoxication where the officer suspects drugs. The results of the PBT are not admissible in trial, but, if presented properly by the prosecutor, it may be used in certain preliminary hearings held to establish whether or not the officer had legal cause to arrest.
Submitting to the PBT is strictly voluntary, although the driver is rarely informed of that. Refusal to submit to the test will usually result in an arrest for DUI. But the fact of a refusal is not admissible at trial, and you will not lose your license or suffer any other sanctions for refusing.
Accordingly, there is a critical difference between the PBT and the “official” breath test that will be requested after arrest at the police station, known as the DataMaster. Do not confuse the two tests! You do not have to submit to the PBT on the street. But if you refuse to take the test on the DataMaster at the police station you will face at least a one-year license revocation."
Last edited:
Owen Lucas
$100 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2021
- Messages
- 3,727
Seems kind of unfair, they can't prove DUI w/out a physical or breath test, but still arrest you?
I understand being detained and taken to the PD to use the Data Master, but being arrested and having that on your record is a little much IMHO.
So you blow 0.00 on the roadside test, you can still be taken in for blood work under suspicious of drugs?
It's a no win situation. I guess doing the roadside test is a better option if you really aren't drunk, puts the odds more in your favor.
In Virginia, it's called "implied conscent", and they say you agreed to it when you operated a motor vehicle on the roads.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-268.2/
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-268.2/
That is not talking about the preliminary machine the police have in the car, this is talking about post arrest and using the machine at the station.
They try to do whatever they want. Fortunately we still have some people challenging these unlawful arrests.
This guy was arrested despite passing the field sobriety test and blowing zeros on the portable breathalyzer test.
The cops and state tried to hide behind qualified immunity, fortunately the courts ruled they lost it.
Because they normally open that statement with "IF YOU HAVE BEEN DRINKING"
I believe the US Supreme Court ruled some time ago, that law enforcement has to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion in order to require you to identify yourself. Most states have updated their state code to comply. Others have not.
Civil rights attorneys say that these states get away with it, only because no one has been willing to go through the effort of filing a civil right violation suit against the state, and push it far enough though the courts to make a difference. With states that knowingly violate civil rights, I suspect that they will never change their state code, until a lawsuit forces them to.
Owen Lucas
$100 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2021
- Messages
- 3,727
The whole argument that these sovereign citizens or whomever decides not to ID themselves is just asking for trouble IMHO. You now have weirdos walking around with cameras in public spaces recording people having dinner on a restaurant patio and getting into altercations with cops on why they shouldn't be ID'd.
I think these types are nuts, if you're in a situation that you need to be ID'd, then why not? It gets really petty fast and lots of reasons you can end up in more trouble than necessary.
- Status
