Actually, there are many states where refusal to submit to a sobriety test will get your license suspended.
Some confusion here.
You don’t get read your Miranda rights just because you’re being questioned. You only get your Miranda rights if you’re being questioned while you’re in custody.
On the issue of being charged with obstruction, it’s going to depend on what state you’re in. Some state obstruction laws prohibit “hindering” a police officer in the performance of his duties and I think what the OP described would qualify. If so, then the OP who was originally innocent managed to make himself guilty of a crime by his refusal to talk.
On the issue of the police “undermining” your legitimate alibi; it that’s the case, you’re fucked. If the police are willing to break the law, then you have no legal protection at all. There’s no point in refusing to talk because they’ll just falsify a confession and sign your name to it. Then they’ll hang you in a cell and tell people you committed suicide.
Yes, because all of us should have the goal of the police not arresting anyone. Society would be so much better if only criminals weren’t ever getting arrested.
Hopefully, everyone except Lazlo can see this is utter nonsense. We don’t want the police to harass or arrest innocent people but it’s a good thing when the police arrest genuine criminals. As citizens, our goal should be to make sure the police are doing the right thing not trying to make sure they do nothing.
Implied consent laws do not mean you must take one when asked, period. You can only get your license suspended if the IC law is followed, mostly they consist of an arrest 1st.
let’s say for the sake of argument you are 100% sober and are asked to take one, you can refuse with no ramifications.
That may be specific to Ohio. It certainly doesn’t work that way here.
I must admit to being ignorant of jurisdictions where you can get your license suspended for refusing to take a field sobriety tests and I must apologize for assuming that all jurisdictions were like mine. I assumed that if you refuse to take a field sobriety test, they can take you into custody and give you a breathalyser test. But they would only suspend your license if you are found to be over the legal limit.
That sounds like a reasonable policy and I’m very surprised to learn that any state would suspend your license merely for refusing to take the field sobriety test.
I know that in most all jurisdictions people who cannot use their legs at all can certainly drive with the help of various attachments to their car. I can’t believe that any police officer would ask one of them to take a FST and would suspend their license if they refused. But when it comes to the behavior of the police, I should have known better. Anything is possible.
It’s a very difficult issue to discuss because the police consist of all kinds of people and I will admit that most of them are fair minded and behave within the limits of the law. Unfortunately, those police rarely make the news. The ones that make the news are the “cowboys” and once one of them get into the police force, it takes some time to get rid of them.
I once had a wonderful professor who said words to the effect:
“The police can request that you get out of your car and jump up and down and imitate a monkey by the side of the road. But you certainly do not have to comply with this”.
I suppose that even in the jurisdictions that suspend your driving license for refusing to take a FST, that is still true. Unfortunately, it will mean your license will be suspended.
Here’s Florida’s implied consent law. I’m not seeing the mandatory field sobriety test. It talks of breath, blood, and urine tests after a lawful arrest.
Pretty much the same law here. I’m curious of any jurisdiction that requires me to stand on one foot or else lose my license.
I’d like to see an actual case where a innocent man lawyered up and was convicted of Obstruction for doing so.:dubious: Indeed, you have every right to do so, and you’re fucking stupid if you don’t.
When usedtobe first mentioned “implied consent”, I didn’t doubt him/her because I had no reason to do that.
So even though it seems monstrously unfair and flies in the face of anything logical, I guess my attitude was, “Oh Well, I guess anything is possible.”
I feel like I should now apologize to all Americans because it was very unfair for me to assume there were jurisdictions where you could lose your driver’s license (or even just have it suspended) because you declined to act like an organ grinder’s monkey for some policeman.
It seems entirely fair to me that if you decline the FST, the police should take you into custody (if they have to) and give you a definitive test - like a breathalyzer - and then give you a ticket if you exceed the limit or suspend your license. But release you if you pass. If they have a breathalyzer handy (and why shouldn’t they?) then there is no need to take you into custody.
Seems to me that if you are sober, the time you had to waste is the price you pay for declining to take the FST. But that is the price the police have to pay if they want to act stupidly. If they can smell alcohol on you or can see clear evidence that you have been drinking, then they should take you in and throw the book at you. But they should not have the right to mess with you just because they want to. Good laws should protect you from having the police mess with you for no reason.
Leather Goddess of Phobos player, I see. Your age is showing.
P.S. I’m not saying that I now doubt usedtobe. I have no idea what the truth is here.
I would like to say “thank you” to everyone who has participated in this discussion so far.
Regardless of where it goes from here, there is much here that is worth thinking about and I have read several things that are worthy of further thought and discussion.
It’s been really good. It may be difficult sometimes to keep an open mind about these things. When it comes to the police and the criminal justice system, many people have a rigid position. But it’s worth keeping an open mind about these things. I know that I have learned a few new things here and I may well change my mind about some things that I had previously considered to be absolutes.
So, thank you all very much.
The one thing that seems to have angered many people is that I have recommended it’s a good thing to waste the police’s time as much as possible. The only thing about that I can say in my defense is that I would only do that when the police have targeted me in some criminal investigation. If there is a shooting going on and the police have asked me to help them put a stop to it, I would not consider wasting their time and would try to help as much as possible.
The reason I suggest trying to waste their time (within the legal limits) is because the police consider it to be a good police technique to lie to people and to trick them.
I have posted about that in other places on this forum. Well, if the police are going to lie to me and try to trick me, I consider it only fair for me to use any tools I have (within the law). So far as I can tell, that consists of wasting as much of their time as I can providing I am the target of a criminal investigation.
I would also suggest that “annoying the police” is not a very good goal. Wasting their time is much better. Under the circumstances I have stated, it actually has a useful purpose.
I can not give a sight but I believe if you just keep your mouth shut and do not say anything then you are refusing to corporate and if you are arrested and tried the police on the stand can say that you were uncorporative. But if you tell them you invoking your rights you are doing noting against the law. I heard a lawyer speak of the fine line there.
I was wrong - it seems the implied consent applies only to those actually arrested.
Of course, giving the impression of being intoxicated and refusing a FST might be a good way of ensuring arrest.
I’m not convinced you were wrong. I would like to see a cite from any state that requires a person to perform a field sobriety test pre-arrest or else lose your driver’s license under that state’s implied consent law. Not in WV and not in FL as I have cited.
ETA: D’oh! Literacy is my friend. 
Sorry.
Interesting. The wiki article on Atwater says:
Does that mean “consent to search or I’ll arrest you and search it anyway” is a valid threat? Not sure I follow.
Well said. I would like to add to this that when police have you in custody and start asking you questions, they already think you committed the crime. The whole point of a custodial interrogation is to get you to incriminate yourself. It’s not there for you to help the police solve the crime.
This is the biggest misconception most people have about interrogations. They think the police are still investigating the crime, because that’s what they see the police do in movies. In reality, the investigation is over. The police have a suspect, and now they want to make the court case a lot easier by securing a confession.
If the police were still investigating, then they would not take you into custody. Custody is for people already suspected of crimes. And if the police are wrong, chances are that anything a suspect says will not change their minds (“Oh, you say your innocent? I did not think about that.”) Even if you provide evidence, the presumption will be that you are making it up to escape a conviction. They will try to undermine whatever alibi you produce.
Bottom line, if the police take you into custody, keep your mouth shut or demand a lawyer. If you have evidence, save it for your criminal case.
Some of you guys have a strange idea of how the police work. I think you’ve been watching too many movies. That or you’ve been hanging out with too many criminals who’ve been complaining about how “unfairly” they were convicted for crimes they were genuinely guilty of.
The reality is either the police follow the rules or they don’t. If they don’t follow the rules, then don’t worry about remaining silent. The corrupt police you’re imagining will ignore your Miranda rights just as they’re ignoring every other law. If they’re going to fake evidence against you anyway, why are they going to bother interrogating you at all? They’ll just sign your name to a confession and tell the judge you confessed.
But if you’re dealing with police who will respect the Fifth Amendment, they’re probably going to respect other laws as well. This isn’t to say you should tell a police interrogator anything. If you have drugs in your car or your house, you’re an idiot to let the police in to search. And if you’ve committed a crime, you’re an idiot to tell the police interrogator about it. But don’t blame the police because you were an idiot - catching you is their job.
But the idea that you can give an interrogator a genuine alibi that proves you didn’t commit a crime and all it will do is give him reason to fake evidence to break your alibi is pretty much fantasy. I won’t say it never happens but it’s rare enough you should focus on more realistic dangers like the possibility of being eaten by a bear.
To be clear on my part, it was the blood, breath jive refusal for a license suspension, not FST. No IC law I have read from any state mandates a suspension for refusal when the law to do so is not followed, as you linked.
I have not heard of what you post either.
That is not a valid threat, as an arrest requires probable cause, if that exists then they can arrest, so that is a manipulation of the right to refuse a search.