# Breathalizer test **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 8, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919 "2013-07-08T06:07:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/21 "2013-07-10T06:14:57Z")
> [@matt357](#): > > That statement is moot because he obviously blew higher than a .08 based on falling over ect. What I am referring to is someone maybe slightly slurring or can walk a straight line fairly well maybe messing up a little bit, if they blow a .06 it would be impossible to convict them, and I don’t think it would even be enough to arrest them. Well, if you think so, that’s good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/22 "2013-07-10T07:26:22Z")
> [@Ace309](#): > > Well, if you think so, that’s good enough for me. Just make sure you keep a link to this thread in your car. You may get a rookie officer that doesn’t know it’s OK to fail the ST as long as you’re below .08. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/23 "2013-07-10T07:59:59Z")
> [@matt357](#): > > So if a person fails the field sobriety test, and then the cops asked them to blow on the breathalyzer and they come out below .08 What does the cop do then? They still get charged with an offense. If the cop is convinced they are actually “under the influence”, they can still arrest them for DWI. It just takes proving in court (whereas blowing over the legal limit is proof in itself). If it comes to trial, the officer will testify, dashcam video will be shown, cash register records from the bar where the person was drinking, etc. will be presented in court. Otherwise, the cop will charge them with whatever it was the driver did that attracted the cops’ attention in the first place – weaving across the center line, speed violations, etc. – usually as a careless or reckless driving ticket. Yhe good news is that this might be only a ticket; you are allowed to continue home instead of being hauled off to jail. ---
**Author:** ![matt357](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@matt357](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt357)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/24 "2013-07-10T08:18:16Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Let’s go back to what was said… > > Matt357:Although they can technically arrest people who are under .08 it is my understanding they usually don’t even if they fail the field sobriety test becasue it’s very hard to convict them in court if they blow under .08. > > PKBites:People who are slurring and staggering and exhibit other signs of being under the influence and odor of intoxicants are arrested. People are arrested/charged/convicted of DUI even when they are under the limit. > > So, it’s your position that someone who fails the field sobriety test without blowing a .08 will not be arrested. PK shows up to tell you that your wrong (IIRC, he’s a former Milwaukee LEO (Sheriff? Police?). > > I then added in that they’ll have a dash cam video that will show the person failing the field sobriety test, so even without the breathalyzer they’ll still have that. I provided what I felt was a pretty good example. > > You came back with:That statement is moot because he obviously blew higher than a .08 based on falling over ect. What I am referring to is someone maybe slightly slurring or can walk a straight line fairly well maybe messing up a little bit, if they blow a .06 it would be impossible to convict them, and I don’t think it would even be enough to arrest them. > > So, it’s not moot because you changed it from “even if they fail the field sobriety test” to “What I am referring to is someone maybe slightly slurring or can walk a straight line fairly well”. So, what are we talking about? People that can pass a field sobriety test or people that can’t? Please post a link to someone who was convicted of dui who was under the limit and had been drinking. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/25 "2013-07-10T08:35:00Z")
> [@matt357](#): > > What I am referring to is someone maybe slightly slurring or can walk a straight line fairly well maybe messing up a little bit, if they blow a .06 it would be impossible to convict them, and I don’t think it would even be enough to arrest them. Flat out wrong. Convicting people charged with DUI isn’t particularly hard, even without a failed breath test. Happens every day, all over the country. The only witnesses available are usually the defendant, and one or more police officers. Police officers with special training in DUI detection. Police officers who have testified many, many times in similar cases in front of the same Judges. Judges who are often elected because they were perceived to be “tougher on crime” than any of the other candidates. Elected Judges that sit in lower courts in cities or counties that count on criminal fines as an essential part of the municipal budget. Put another way: if it worked the way you seem to think it does, no one that refused a breathalyzer would ever get convicted. ---
**Author:** ![matt357](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@matt357](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt357)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/26 "2013-07-10T11:03:56Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Flat out wrong. Convicting people charged with DUI isn’t particularly hard, even without a failed breath test. Happens every day, all over the country. The only witnesses available are usually the defendant, and one or more police officers. Police officers with special training in DUI detection. Police officers who have testified many, many times in similar cases in front of the same Judges. Judges who are often elected because they were perceived to be “tougher on crime” than any of the other candidates. Elected Judges that sit in lower courts in cities or counties that count on criminal fines as an essential part of the municipal budget. > > Put another way: if it worked the way you seem to think it does, no one that refused a breathalyzer would ever get convicted. Like I said post a link to someone who had been convicted. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/27 "2013-07-10T12:37:54Z")
> [@matt357](#): > > Please post a link to someone who was convicted of dui who was under the limit and had been drinking. I was the foreman on a jury where the driver refused to take a BAC. So we had no BAC results. We convicted on DUI and the refusing to take the BAC test (a separate charge here in Ca). That a good enough cite for you? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/28 "2013-07-10T12:41:52Z")
In addtion to what Rick said, there’s also [this](http://ezinearticles.com/?Arizona-DUI:-Impaired-to-the-Slightest-Degree&id=7621649), that states “But in Arizona, it is also possible to be charged and convicted of a DUI even if a driver’s BAC below 0.08 Percent. This is known under Arizona Law as being “impaired in the slightest degree” under A.R.S. §28.1381, due to intoxicating liquor or drugs”. If you look around on the internet for Arizona cases you’ll be able to find people charged with DUIs for being above a .08 two hours before they were driving or having THC metabolites in their system…which means they were high on marijuana some time in the last 30 days. I didn’t followup on those cases to check for convictions since they were on message boards, but I found both of those before finding that article. The problem is, not every person that gets convicted has a newspaper article written about them. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/29 "2013-07-10T13:04:41Z")
> [@matt357](#): > > That statement is moot because he obviously blew higher than a .08 based on falling over ect. How do you know? Maybe he mixed pills and booze and was totally fucked up with a low BAC. (Side note: I once decided to have a mixed drink while on an antidepressant that cautioned against drinking alcohol while on it. One drink hit me hard and made me feel like I had been drinking half the night. I wasn’t driving that night, thankfully.) ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/30 "2013-07-10T13:07:46Z")
> [@MrPeabody](#): > > I Have to say I know the answer to this in Oklahoma. > > I have learned now to not be honest to the police. I would not suggest being _dis_honest to the police, as that can get you in plenty of hot water if evidence surfaces that you’ve been lying - but you don’t have to answer when they ask whether you’ve been drinking. You are within your rights to utter “I’d rather not say;” you are not required by law to answer any of the officer’s questions. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/31 "2013-07-10T13:14:26Z")
> [@matt357](#): > > Please post a link to someone who was convicted of dui who was under the limit and had been drinking. For some reason, Monty Python’s \*‘Argument Clinic’ \*sketch keeps running through my head. OP regarding comparison BT between Lightweight and Liquor Man was answered, but now I’m seeing conflicting answers. One says, in effect: 2 drinks in 10 minutes into a 150# meatsack = same BAC irrespective of visible behavior. But then **KarlGauss** brought up a seemingly conflicting statement which says an experienced drinker (ISTR reading about a liver enzyme that hits alcohol that is more abundant in alcoholics) may somehow avoid intoxication due to more efficient processing of alcohol. Maybe that needs a cite, although I think it is actually true. And Matt, as regards what the cops and The System® can do to anyone they so much as feel like \*suspecting \*of being under the influence, I’d suggest you suspend disbelief and listen to what the Dope Police have to say on the subject. That said, you do have a point. DUI Lawyers make hay on low/absent BAC results all the time. You may get reduced to a reckless driving, but in the meantime you’ll still have to deal with steel bracelets, a bumpy ride to the station and inky fingers. And as I mentioned upthread, lawyer’s fees. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/32 "2013-07-10T13:18:05Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > You are within your rights to utter “I’d rather not say;” you are not required by law to answer any of the officer’s questions. This strikes me as a bit coy and can be interpreted as uncooperative. The blue man in the field will hear this, smell beer, and decide he has enough evidence to proceed. IMHO they know after your first two sentences what they think needs to happen, be that a ride downtown or a just stern talking to and a moving violation. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/33 "2013-07-10T13:47:25Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > I would not suggest being _dis_honest to the police, as that can get you in plenty of hot water if evidence surfaces that you’ve been lying - but you don’t have to answer when they ask whether you’ve been drinking. You are within your rights to utter “I’d rather not say;” you are not required by law to answer any of the officer’s questions. I believe you have to give your name and identification to a LEO when requested. That’s not covered by the 5th Amendment or Miranda. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/34 "2013-07-10T13:54:56Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > I believe you have to give your name and identification to a LEO when requested. That’s not covered by the 5th Amendment or Miranda. Also, in Wisconsin (I don’t know about other states) there’s an “Implied Consent” law that states that if you’re driving on public roads, you’ve given consent to have your Blood Alcohol level taken. If you refuse a breathalyzer, I believe they’re allowed to arrest you and take you to a hospital to draw blood. That may or may not work out better for you. If you still have a belly full of beer, your BAC is going to keep going up, if you finished drinking two hours ago, you may fall below the legal limit in the time it takes to transport you and draw a sample. Of course, the cops know this and will time it accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/35 "2013-07-10T13:57:27Z")
> [@MrPeabody](#): > > I Have to say I know the answer to this in Oklahoma. > > I have learned now to not be honest to the police. > > I was stopped at 1:30in the AM after a long session of poker I was going 6 miles over the speed limit. I was asked if I had been drinking and I was truthful in that I had had about 6 beers over 7 hours. > > I lold him I know my llimits and I was find to drive. > > long story short they do not use field tests you have to go to the count to get tested on the big machine. > > I blew a .02 well under the limit. > > I thought I would be released but I was booked fingerprinted and jailed until I could make bail. I was not happy. > > Changed my perception of law enforcement (1) drinking plus (2) speeding plus (3) mouthing off (“I know my limits” “I’m fine to drive”) equals got what was deserved. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/36 "2013-07-10T13:59:54Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > I believe you have to give your name and identification to a LEO when requested. That’s not covered by the 5th Amendment or Miranda. You’re right - I overstated the case. You are legally required to identify yourself upon request by an officer. If you’re operating a motor vehicle, you are legally required to produce a valid driver’s license. > [@The Great Sun Jester](#): > > This strikes me as a bit coy and can be interpreted as uncooperative. The blue man in the field will hear this, smell beer, and decide he has enough evidence to proceed. He can interpret it however he wants. He can think you’re coy, rude, arrogant, smarmy or blasphemous; he still is not able to give you a ticket for refusing to answer questions. If he smells alcohol on your breath, then that’s enough by itself to justify a FST/breathalyzer; at that point, it doesn’t matter whether you answer his questions or not. If he doesn’t smell alcohol on your breath, then your responses/refusals to his questions matter. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/37 "2013-07-10T14:30:20Z")
> [@The Great Sun Jester](#): > > For some reason, Monty Python’s \*‘Argument Clinic’ \*sketch keeps running through my head. > > OP regarding comparison BT between Lightweight and Liquor Man was answered, but now I’m seeing conflicting answers. One says, in effect: 2 drinks in 10 minutes into a 150# meatsack = same BAC irrespective of visible behavior. But then **KarlGauss** brought up a seemingly conflicting statement which says an experienced drinker (ISTR reading about a liver enzyme that hits alcohol that is more abundant in alcoholics) may somehow avoid intoxication due to more efficient processing of alcohol. Maybe that needs a cite, although I think it is actually true. > > And Matt, as regards what the cops and The System® can do to anyone they so much as feel like \*suspecting \*of being under the influence, I’d suggest you suspend disbelief and listen to what the Dope Police have to say on the subject. That said, you do have a point. DUI Lawyers make hay on low/absent BAC results all the time. You may get reduced to a reckless driving, but in the meantime you’ll still have to deal with steel bracelets, a bumpy ride to the station and inky fingers. And as I mentioned upthread, lawyer’s fees. As to **KarlGuass** , I think the conflict is in the affect of the alcohol, not the BAC itself. IOW - the BAC will be the same between Lightwieght and LiquorMan (there’s a superhero duo), but LiquorMans body will process it ‘differently’ and he may have an easier time passing as ‘not drunk’ to the casual observer - while the motor skills are still ‘actually’ going to be very similarly impaired. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/38 "2013-07-10T14:37:16Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > He can interpret it however he wants. He can think you’re coy, rude, arrogant, smarmy or blasphemous; he still is not able to give you a ticket for refusing to answer questions. My point is cops are humans and a lot of their job requires situational judgment that focuses on maintianing order as it does law enforcement. I’ve known confrontational people and often enough they can turn a conversation into an altercation. Cops don’t want to light anyone’s fuse, they just want to get to the bottom of a situation and strike a balance between following orders, maintaining a positive working relationship with the community, and preventing trouble before it starts. If you smell faintly of beer but seem fine otherwise there’s a decent chance you’ll be seen as a guy who had a beer recently and just did a rolling stop at that last sign just like everyone else does from time to time. Refusing to answer the question, or straight up lying about it is going to tell the cop there is more to the story, and now your interaction is going to last much longer than you want it to. Your attitude matters. IME (as a white, middle class, suburban male, admittedly) you can play nice with them and they will in turn be candid with you. Alternatively, you can be the sort who would defiantly read them your own Miranda rights and they can, in turn, decide you are unusually belligerent and need a good by-the-book looking at. At the very best that will end up being a colossal waste of your own time, and of police resources that could be spent chasing bad guys. At the worst, well, you’ve just put yourself into the judicial system. Hope the DA doesn’t have a very broad interpretation of ‘disturbing the peace’ or ‘obstructing justice’. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/39 "2013-07-10T14:39:19Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Lightwieght and LiquorMan (there’s a superhero duo) “We’re the dymanic duel! Shooper heerossss!” ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919/40 "2013-07-10T14:50:02Z")
> [@matt357](#): > > You may arrest them but I don’t think you convict them. Technically correct. It is the judiciary that convicts them, not the cop. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/breathalizer-test/662919.md?page=3)