Is this a claim that no Chicago cops have ever been reprimanded, or successfully sued by citizens?
Not at all sir. Just personal experiance.
To elaborate: either it’s a legal search or it’s not. If it’s legal, you haven’t lost anything by making clear it’s being done under duress. If it’s not then any decent lawyer can make sure it’s ruled inadmissible. If you get cowed into it then that job’s a lot tougher.
i read somewhere that police can legally lie to you about evidence they have to get you to confess. is this true?
Yes. It’s a common interrogation technique.
Of course, the first step is to complain…311 would be a good place to start.
It’s not clear to me what point you are trying to make. If you consent, the search is legal, even if you were coerced into agreeing. If you state clearly that you do not consent to the search, then there can be no misunderstanding and they will have to find some other legal basis for the search.
Phrase it this way: either the police are lying to you that it’s legal or they aren’t. Either you can go along with them or protest.
they’re not lying and you don’t protest: baseline
they’re not lying and you protest: no loss
they’re lying and you don’t protest: you just got taken
they’re lying and you protest: if they continue it’ll get easily thrown out.
In either case of what they’re doing you do no worse and often better by making clear that you don’t consent.
-
-
- I am not a lawyer, but from a family member who was an alcoholic for some time and who retained a rather expensive lawyer, their advice was that you should never never never consent to any searches or breathalyzer tests.
~
- I am not a lawyer, but from a family member who was an alcoholic for some time and who retained a rather expensive lawyer, their advice was that you should never never never consent to any searches or breathalyzer tests.
-
Many cities have some sort of a complaint process for unreasonable actions by police, sometimes run by the police dept., but often run by citizens. Perhaps jnglmassiv can find it on the City of Chicago’s website… I couldn’t, but I didn’t spend much time looking.
Here’s and example of what I’m talking about from San Francisco.
I think an interesting side question would be whether or not I can insist on a breathalyzer, rather than the manual dexterity tests. I would never drive drunk, so if I’m pulled over for a sobriety check, I have no problem with a breathalyzer. I do have a problem being led out by the side of a highway with people blasting by at 70 mph+ (and everyone knows about tragic accidents where cops are hit by cars on accident along freeways) and hopping around like a monkey counting backwards and touching my nose. I wonder if I can just say “breathalyze me so I can get home and you can get on keeping the streets safe”. Given my experience with police in trying to help them, I imagine that somehow it would work against me.
Before I reply, I should clarify one thing. Technically, the “Breathalyzer” is a machine at the police station that is certified to give an accurate breath alcohol reading. The thing that we use in the field is usually called a PBT (Preliminary or Portable Breath Test device). It is still pretty accurate, but not to the standards of the breathalyzer. In Washington State, the PBT reading can be used to establish probable cause for an arrest, but the actual reading cannot be introduced at court (I would just testify that the reading was “over the legal limit”).
The vast majority of cops still don’t carry PBTs and still rely on the field sobriety tests to determine if someone is under the influence. I don’t have one myself. With my experience in administering the field tests, I really don’t have a need for one.
In answer to the question above, no, you don’t get to insist on anything. What tests are administered are up to the Officer. You can refuse to take any tests that you don’t want to take.
Of course, if he has cause to believe that you may be under the influence and you refuse to perform the field tests, his only option is to take you to the station for a full breathalyzer test.
Depending your state, YMMV.
My assumption is that if it was a sobriety checkpoint, the officers would likely have a PBT handy. My issue is still this - if I’m willing and ready to take the more invasive test so both the officer and I can go about our business quicker, would the officer agree to simplify the process, or would this be seen as “suspicious” behaviour which would end up with me being abused. I somehow think it would be the latter.
And IIRC my State will revoke my license if I refuse to take a breathalyzer test, but will not revoke my license if I refuse to jump around and caper by the side of the road next to traffic.
Badge, since you are in here, let me ask you this: according to the drunk driver lawyer guy on the radio, you should refuse to take the dexterity tests on the side of the road because they are designed to make you fail (the tests are tricky, the person taking them is nervous, cars and trucks blowing by you, etc.). I have never been in this situation so I can only go by his word.
I assume I am then taken ‘downtown’ to take the actual breathalyzer. I would think if I fail, I am arrested and my car gets towed to the impound lot. What happens if I pass? Does the officer bring me back to my car? Has my car already been towed to the impound lot at this time and I have to pay to get it out? What if damage is done to my car via the towing or via vandals if it is left on the side of the highway? I’d like to know that if I was hauled downtown because a potentially vindictive officer (unlikely, but I’m sure it happens) wanted to make my life difficult, I’m not going to be left hanging financially.
Whoa, I didn’t mean to implicate the angelic men and women of the Chicago Police Department. Ok, perhaps not angelic, but my gripe isn’t with them. My story involved Cook County Sheriff’s Police in an unincorporated area of Cook County (Near Golf and Milwaukee Aves).
In all my wild years of driving in Chicago, I’ve been pulled over by CPD exactly twice. Once was for a very rare drunk driving roadblock (On Western Ave at Lane Tech HS just this past summer) and the other was for pulling out of a parking spot without my headlights on at night (On Clark St, very dumb of me). Each time was less than 60 seconds and no tickets. Thumbs up!
Back to the Cook Co. incident: You don’t get a sense of the right to refuse and certainly you don’t feel there is anyone to complain to. There have been times when I have had contraband in the car and this type of incident really makes me think twice about the lifestyle I’ve lived. Its scary to think what lies would have been introduced had they found anything in the car. One interesting thing is that they didn’t search or pat-down me personally. I guess they draw the line somewhere.
Also, following up on Una and TommyTutone’s excellent comments, at what point am I under arrest and booked? If I fail the line-walking buffoon test, am I read my rights and booked or does this not happen until the official Breathalyzer results are in? I’m thinking in terms of my (bum bum) Permanent Record. Will a deep background check show I failed the tightrope-style linewalk trap or is everything forever thrown out when the station’s machine clears me?
I certainly wouldn’t consider it suspicious, but I wouldn’t want to settle for just the PBT, either. The PBT only detects alcohol, while the other tests can indicate if you’re under the influence of other substances as well. At least in Washington, the full title of the crime involved is, “Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs”
Of course, if you refused all other tests but the PBT, I would have to settle for that.
For one thing everyone needs to realize that the laws vary greatly from state to state.
Not every state uses them.
Sounds like a bad lawyer to me no matter how expensive. Maybe the law is different in your state. In NJ there is an implied consent law which means you have already consented to the test. If you refuse you get a ticket for refusal which has the same penalties as a DWI ticket. You have practically no defense for a refusal ticket. They are very easy for the prosecution to win. On top of that it is not necessary to have a breathalyzer reading to ticket or convict you of DWI. The observations of the officer are enough. Of course those cases are much harder to win. However, if there is video from the scene of you stumbly around then it makes it easier for the prosecuter. So for your refusal you can get penalized for two DWIs for the price of one.
Thats BS. Most cops use the standard 3 that have been laid out by the NTSB, the walk and turn, one leg stand and horizontal gaze nystagmis (damn can’t remember how to spell that). If you are sober with no physical deformities you will pass with no problem. The third test that I will not try to spell again measures involuntary eye movement so who nervous you are etc has nothing to do with it. *The test from The Man With Two Brains * is only used in Europe. BTW saying “I couldn’t do this when I am sober” is not a valid excuse. Yes I have heard that.
It’s been my experience that, barring numerous witnesses, the police can do whatever they damn well please. But I live in a jurisdiction were complaints to the police are handled by the police.
Although even video evidence isn’t even enough sometimes.
In my experience, no. My wife, when she was 17, was busted by the cops along with a bunch of other teens at a post-prom party. Most of the guys had been drinking, but all of the girls–dressed in skimpy dresses on a wet, chilly night–were feeling to miserable, and didn’t drink anything. My wife immediately asked the cops to let her take a breathalyzer and prove she hadn’t been drinking. They refused, arrested her, and took her to jail anyway.
At teh hearing, the judge threw out the whole case (against ALL the kids) for insufficient evidence.
One thing to point out is that there are many people who would hear this story and say “There you have it. Your wife won and justice prevailed!” What they are forgetting is that a girl’s prom was ruined, her reputation likely damaged, who knows what her lawyer charged, and the police were off the street for a perfectly preventable day in court. How is that winning?