true enough - ‘random’ was not the proper choice of words - more like ‘extremely minor’ reasons any other time of the day - but late at nite, near a bar - plenty of reason to stop.
As long as a legal reason exists, an officer’s subjective intentions for the pull over, except to profile, are Constitutional.
They can go fishing as long as the car provides the initial bait.
I’m going for 18-23 years old, single, slight build but not quite metro, and unsure how to handle having his backside verbally handed to him by a salty, street-weary, rye-drinking, old-school copper.
Well, there’s the Intoxilyzer, which is a big heavy machine that runs off a power cord plugged into the wall, and there’s something they call a PBT, which is a little hand-held device.
The PBT is not admissible in court, but the police are free to use it in the field if they want. But I was talking about the Intoxilyzer results. Your sister was probably talking about a PBT.
Clearly you didn’t watch the video I posted because the girl they arrested for DUI was " ‘otherwise fine’
[QUOTE=matt357]
Like I said post a link to someone who had been convicted.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because you can’t find any.
I watched the video more than long enough -
a) they cut out the line walking part - it skips from “lets try this again, 9 full steps” to where
b) she lost her balance during the hold your leg up and cout stage
and as I stated before - there are many other things they check for during that test OTHER than just the mere ability to perform the physical feats.
Since she was arrested (and presumably charged) the arresting officer saw things YOU did not see, so her ‘appearance’ is irrelivant.
Have a pleasant day.
I would lose my balance during the hold your leg up and count stage while sober. And it shows her walking a line perfectly well, not stumbling , not slurring.
The video does not show the final 18 step line walk - it is either edited or incomplete.
ETA - just rewatched - the video jumps about 30 seconds = from 29:28 to 30:05.
You are being willfully ignorant and argumentative - what part of
“There are other things the officer is checkng for that you cannot see in the video”
do you not understand?
The performance of the physical ‘tricks’ during the test are a small part of the entire check.
You still have failed to address post 41 -
Deal with it.
I’m talking about pkbites post where he mentions people that he personally arrested (he’s a cop) who blew less than the legal limit but were successfully prosecuted.
It seems very obvious you can’t accept she was arrested wrongly.
Cite? any evidence of that other than your opinion of watching an edited video on youtube?
And I’ve not said anything to the correctness of her arrest - only that your argument that she was arrested ‘wrongly’ based on that video is woefully mis-informed.
Your questions have been answered accurately. You just don’t like the answers.
You can not like them all you want, doesn’t make them any less accurate.
That video you linked is missing some things. There seems to be some skips. Also, there is no way of knowing if there was any strong odor of intoxicants. That observation is another point of evidence in a DUI/OWI prosecution. Odor of intoxicants, HGN test, and the fact that she failed to follow directions all point to arrest. But I can’t base anything on that chopped up piece of shit you linked to.
Also, I want to get something clear. You understand that the PBT (Portable Breath Test) that is used in the field, and the Intoxilyzer breath test are not the same thing, correct?
Let me state one more time: on occasion I have pulled people over for various reasons, noticed slurred speech, glassy eyes, and odor of intoxicates, performed a field sobriety test on them which they failed, and arrested them for driving while intoxicated. They submitted to a blood test and when the blood work came back from the state crime lab it showed a level below the legal level of intoxication. Based on the other evidence the District Attorneys office dropped the driving while intoxicated charge and charged driving while impaired. The subjects were prosecuted, and convicted. Admittedly it doesn’t happen a lot that peoples blood/breath/urine comes back below the limit, but it does happen.
Now that I have posted once again that it does happen, and I have been the arresting officer when it does happen, either believe it or have the guts to call me a liar!
HGN test?
From the non-drinker civilian POV, I don’t care what the number on the test is. If someone’s driving badly enough to attract police attention, thus demonstrating impairment, they need to be off the road!
Driving badly enough to attract police attention is only one aspect. Lots of people drive like shit and are sober.
I was talking about building a case to justify arrest/prosecution. These things matter more than emotional observation and the more of them collected the better.
The LEO is looking for telltale eye movements that indicated alcohol consumption.
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus
When you follow the pen tip with your eyes. The way your eyeballs move is an indication of being under the influence.
Damn, gotta type faster.
Someone who had one drink will have the “odor of intoxicates”
Nystagmus can be caused by alcohol, and also 39 other natural things, some people have it all the time due to genetics it also is triggered by flashing lights like on a police car. This video explains it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj4mWkNvq3c
Nystagmus =/= impaired
Breath =/= impaired
Difficulty with balance =/= impaired
Failure to do the A,B,Cs backwards =/= impaired
Poor driving =/= impaired
Put them all together and the good bet is you’re getting a free ride downtown. Are you wondering where the line is drawn? How many tests need to be failed? What are ya getting at?