I’ve seen a few of those “Cops on Video” shows and they often show the sobriety tests (walking in a straight line, reciting the alphabet backwards etc).
Do you guys get brethalysed as well? I would have thought that would be the easiest way of determining whether someone was drunk?
Or is that there’s no legal alcohol limit - just that you need to be “in control of the vehicle”?
Generally, from my experience, if you fail the field sobriety tests you are taken to the police station for a breath test and/or the hospital for a blood alcohol content analysis.
Many police cars don’t have a breathalyzer device in the car, so the field tests can save them the trouble of taking you to the station if you pass. Also, the driver can refuse to take the breath test, although it doesn’t look good when you do that.
There is a legal limit, although I’m pretty sure it varies by state. It’s .08% in North Carolina, although I gather the laws here are stricter than most. It might be the case that there is no defined BAC limit in some states.
Why on earth have they not become a standard part of the kit? They’re hardly a great expense - and surely would save overall costs compared to the times they have to get somebody to a station, adminster the test, and releasing them when they pass.
It looks a hell of a lot better than a DUI conviction though!!
Cheers guys - that explains it.
Yeah but in Illinois at least refusing a breathalyzer test is an automatic 6 month suspension of your driver’s license.
I believe calibration would be the biggest issue. Every time a DUI case goes to court, the defense is going to challenge the maintenance and calibration records of the device. It’s a lot easier to keep a few central units calibrated and documented. That’s certainly not an insurmountable problem, but police have very little incentive to make it easier on the accused. Frankly, I doubt they care how much it inconveniences anyone to get dragged down to the station for a breath test if they fail the field sobriety test.
No it doesn’t happen like that. No one gets set free simply because they don’t blow a .08 or whatever the limit it. Someone could be on drugs or have a very low tolerance or something. Their actual BAL is kinda irrelevant to whether or not they were impaired or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The BAL limit is simply prima facia evidence that you are “impaired”. It doesn’t mean you can’t be impaired at a lower BAL.
The officer administers the road side excersises to determine if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Based on his assessment, he places you under arrest or lets you go. You’re already under arrest and on your way to jail. At the jail, before you are booked, you’re taken to the breathalyser. The test they have is much more sophisticated than the little miniature key chain test kits. For something to stand up in court, it has to be calibrated and certified and all this other crap. It’s much easier to keep one or two official machines than have a whole fleet of machines out there. Not to mention that this machine is much, much larger than those portable things.
Check points are handled a little bit different. They might have a portable breathalyser on scene, but you’ll still get a field excersise and evaluation and still blow again into the “official” tester once you get to jail.
So the portable machines aren’t really necessary.
I was at an establishment in New Orleans and they had a breathalyzer machine near the door. For 25 cents you could blow & see if you were legal to drive.
Given that crowd I’m pretty sure the thing helped to sell more booze. I got a .35 by the way. I exercised good judgement nonetheless and chose not to drive home. For a day or so.
And I’m betting a DUI Conviction is at least that and much more. Correct?
Actually, Florida has made refusing TWO field sobriety tests or breatalysers an actual criminal offense. Where it was once a civil infraction between you and the DMV, it is now a misdemeanor crime, and will - I’m betting - be punished as harshly as a misdemeanor DUI.
In most states, refusing the tests only get you a civil penalty, like the 6 month suspension you mentioned.
This doesn’t seem to be a problem that arises where portable units are the norm.
Now this makes much more sense to me. It’s obviously a question of how to apply drink-driving regulations - whether to have a specific BAL limit, or for the officer’s discretion to be the defining factor, and America seems to have gone for the latter?
In Illinois failing your first DUI is a mandatory 3 month suspension. Failing a second one is a mandatory 12 month suspension. For failing the first time or refusing the test you can get a judicial driving permit after 31 days (presumably this is for people who may have to drive to earn a living). Failing the second (or third or whatever) test you cannot get a judicial permit. Also, just found out that refusing a breathalyzer in Illinois a second time is a 36 month suspension of your license and also ineligible for a permit! :eek:
In California you can still be convicted of drunk driving even if you refuse the breath/blood/urine test. I sat on a jury and we convicted based on the officer’s testomony of the failed field test. We also convicted on the count of refusing the breath test. So this guy guy got two for the price of one.
Refusing the test is not a good idea IMHO.
Failing a field test, then refusing a breat test, and THEN taking it to jury trial is definitely a stupid thing to do.
But yes, a person can still be convicted of drunk driving even if they refuse the breath test. He can also be convicted after refusing a field test. If the officer observes slurred speach and impared coordination just from talking to the guy, and smells a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage, or see other specific signs of other drug use, then that person can be arrested and possibly convicted. As I mentioned earlier, the breathalyser is kinda irrelevant. It just helps build a stronger case against the suspect.
Also, just to add more relevance to the OP.
If there was a crash involved with death or serious bodily injury, the suspect will be taken to a hospital against his will and blood will be drawn to determine not only his BAL but if there were any other drugs in his system. This is not optional on his part.
Can you clarify? Do you mean that the portable units don’t get challenged, or that maintaining the records to defend against the challenge is not a problem?
I believe that all units get challenged and require a lot of documentation on calibration and maintenance, and forces that use portable units simply consider that worth the effort for having a unit on site. For forces that don’t use portable units, the documentation is not the whole reason but it’s almost certainly a big part of the reason to use central units.
The documentation/calibration issue has recently made the news because Florida has dropped charges on several DUI cases because the defendant requested the software run by the breathalyzer so they could verify that it was actually doing what it purported to do. The manufacturer of the unit refused to release the source code, and the courts considered this a denial of the defendant’s right to challenge his accuser. In these cases, the breathalyzer test was apparently a big enough part of the case that the prosecution was not willing to go forward without that evidence.
In NC, the roadside test is not admissible as court evidence. It is only used as cause to bring you in for a proper test at the station. Since they have to test you again anyway, I guess there isn’t much incentive to purchase and maintain devices for all the cars.
A .35?? Isn’t that, like, comatose?
I’ve heard of guys that got shipped off to the hospital with levels that high.
It’s interesting that in NC field sobriety tests aren’t admissible. (Warning: what follows is anecdotal information I learned from a couple DREs.) I understand that used to be the case in California, because the administering officer wasn’t considered an “expert,” and so the courts would not permit him/her to testify that “the defendant was drunk.”
The cops then created an “expert” program (Drug Recognition Expert, or DRE) to educate officers conducting field sobriety tests how to recognize the type of drug (alcohol or other substance) and the level of impairment. Not all traffic officers are DREs, but if they suspect you’re impaired, they can call out a DRE to field test you. And those DREs, IMO, are scary accurate. I was out drinking with some and they told me what my BAC was (we checked with a breathalyzer) and they told me (within a fifteen minute period) when I would be sober again.