Yes. Don’t drink and drive. Get a designated driver. Get an Uber. Make a plan. This sort of thinking will help one in all parts of their lives. You made a plan, and you executed your plan. That’s what adults do.
Honestly? I think this would make them take a step back and wonder if you’re under the influence of something else.
It just depends. I’m sure they’d be happy to let you take the breathalyzer, but if you’re stumbling about and talking too much and slurring your words, they arn’t going to let you drive off if you blow 0.00
They’d probably ask you again to take a FST and if refused, they MIGHT try and reason with you and ask you to get someone to come get you… It varies wildly of course. Their only other option is to handcuff you, take you downtown and get a search warrant to compel you to do a blood test. Which is all completely doable, but it can be messy.
For fun, here is an apparently very drunk man with open alcohol in his car beating the breathalyzer more than once:
Watch a few episodes of OnPatrol. Even my non-able-to-smell their breath, sitting in my chair at home, can tell the drunk ones. It’s amazing how they argue how they’ve never had a drink today.
Drunk peeps just being drunk, I suppose.
For sure. I don’t know how many times I’ve yelled at the screen “STOP TALKING!! Stop over explaining everything.”
I only just now realized that’s why drunk drivers chew gum. To mask the smell on their breath. I thought it was in some foolish attempt to fool a breathalyzer. Somethings wrong with my nose then if cops can smell alcohol even if the driver has just had two beers. I can only smell it if the person next to me has been hitting the hard stuff and they’re practically sweating it.
They could do a Scarlet O’Hara and gargle perfume. Wonder how that would blow?
Incorrect. Reasonable articulable suspicion is needed for a motor vehicle stop not probable cause. Many times they already have probable cause when you are stopped but that’s above the minimum amount of proof needed for a motor vehicle stop.
Thank you. That sounds right.
Also, I’ve done some more investigating on the consequences of politely refusing to engage in a FST. It’s kind of all over the place. For example I’m just looking at Texas. Now everyone agrees that it’s not like refusing a chemical test. But some lawyers are saying no penalties at all and others saying “You may lose your license for 6 months but we can get it back for you!! Call us!”
Above I said your refusing to do a FST cannot be used against you. i based that on your asserting your constitutional rights cannot be used against you (Again we arnt talking about breath, blood and urine tests)…while I may be right in that theoretically. In practical application it appears to not be true in some states in that they can AT LEAST use refusal to acquire a search warrant for your blood.
I’m comfortable in still asserting that refusal of FSTs do not fall under implied consent laws…but the practical application is hazy enough in that I can’t say there’s zero penalty.
I think (again, IANAL) that you have no fundamental right to drive. You are at the whim of the state to get a driver’s license and be allowed to drive. There is no constitutional question in this case. The state can make whatever rules they want apart from racists or religious or gender tests to allow you to drive. (searching your car is a different thing)
Then there’s at the officers discretion
That one always throws me. I’m pretty sure blatantly drunk would get you hauled in. But if it’s a kinda/sorta thing and no one’s the wiser.(body cams probably prevents this nowadays) the officer gets to decide.
Just best to not be drinking while driving and if they say you are and you are not, best to comply with their requests and get it over with.
But, as you noted, it is at the officer’s discretion. You could be you…never had a drink in your life and yet a police officer might decide you are under the influence when doing a FST. That’s the problem.
The blood test will get me off. That’s my plan.
You’re right. I’m saying implied consent laws specifically apply to breath, blood and urine tests. I do not believe they apply to FSTs. The constitutional question I’m raising with FSTs is self-incrimination. Specific implied consent laws get around that but they are narrowly applied.
When you get a license you are consenting to giving a breath, blood or urine and admitting failure to do so could lose you your license.
This all just a thought exercise for me. I doubt seriously I’ll ever drive alone again.
In my less compromised years I would’ve been arrested for other things in a traffic stop. I’m mostly mute. I’m anxiety ridden. I’m nutty looking. I’m sure they’d arrest me for being a psychopath weirdo, anyway. So I couldn’t count on anything working for me on the side of the road.
This is why Lawyer Licky-lips is on retainer.
Crawling out the passenger side door would most likely be against an officer’s instructions, they do not want you moving away from them. Several possible offenses probably just there, escalation of traffic stop with very little chance of leaving under your own power.
Moderating:
From the FAQ
Rule enforcement is the responsibility of SDMB staff. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived rule violations (“junior modding”).
Please just flag a post you have a problem with. It’s generally not appropriate to announce that you’ve flagged a post.
A traffic stop is a continuum kind of thing. They do DUI busts as their job, day after day after day. They have to cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s every step of the way. Every interaction and question, even small talk, is actually part of the assessment. It’s all really horrifying to contemplate really. I think I’ve heard they get really good at estimating BAC to a pretty accurate number just by eyeballing someone and talking to them.
(Hardcore drunks are something else. I had a relative years ago who could put away booze, upon admission to a hospital for a broken bone they were astonished this person was up and walking around and conversant.)
Personally, refused a field sobriety test in the 1980s in a midwestern college town, no less. Don’t try this at home, kids. 2 friends, fella in the back seat had a beer, he did not try to secret the beer. Nobody else with open container. I knew in broad terms what the scenario was and how it works. They first need to get someone out of the car, instead of just a ticket for a tail light out.
They were not pleased with the refusal to take a field sobriety test and a lot of standing around and waiting. Then somebody else shows up and wants to know what the problem is, etc. “Why don’t you want to take the test?” My sense of the whole issue is they were not happy I knew my rights. I simply stated it was a subjective test that could be used against me. (The theory with armchair experts is that it is possible to be convicted of a DUI on the basis of a field sobriety test alone, albeit blood testing shows the individual in compliance with the BAC law). That is a narrow set of circumstances, but is important to know.
Get the damn machine, let’s see what it says, I says. They were even more pissed when it came back almost undetectable. The only thing I can’t figure is why they didn’t have a machine with them and they had to make a big production out of it.
Legal questions on here often devolve into “Cops can do what they want anyway.” When that happens there really isn’t any reason to keep discussing. Cops do what they want without regard to law, training or morality. Everything else is just window dressing.
Processing a DWI is one of the biggest pains in the ass we could do. It takes up a big portion of the shift and you are stuck with a drunk for hours. Personally I don’t know why someone would want to waste their time on a sober person. As a supervisor I had to make sure no one was looking the other way when someone was drunk to get out of work.
SFSTs are not random. If you are doing them correctly they are not up to interpretation. SFSTs (the first S is for savings standardized) have a specific way to be administered and a score sheet. Score a certain amount and you fail. You can pass. The three tests each have something like a 75% success rate or higher. They are not supposed to be done individually. When given together they are over 90% reliable. The SFST is only one part of the totality of the circumstances. Everything about the subjects actions and demeanor is noted in the report (including I suppose climbing over to exit out the passenger side). A well written DWI report is longer than a typical murder report even if it’s all on camera.
You mean the portable roadside machines? They aren’t accurate enough for my state to allow them. Even in states that use them they can only be used as part of probable cause not the sole reason for arrest. In order to get an accurate reading the sample needs to be taken under controlled circumstances with a calibrated machine. That includes an observed waiting period to make sure you don’t burp, vomit or otherwise have anything in your mouth.
“Good evening sir or ma’am how are you doing tonight. Need to take a breathylizer tonight real quick.”
That doesn’t take long. Go/No Go. Keep a bus waiting nearby for all the folks who are intoxicated. Batch process 'em at the end of the evening.