I agree that, if a person knows they’re drunk, they should refuse all tests in order to maximize their legal leverage. But isn’t there an ethical problem with giving this advice to people who may find themselves in that situation? After all, don’t we want the law to come down hard on people who drink and drive? If so, should we be giving them advice on how to beat (or minimize) the rap?
The whole notion that the pass/fail criteria of the FST is the opinion of the testing officer is what gives me pause. Being at risk of failing a test on the whim of someone’s mood and opinion of me makes me leery to agree to such a test.
And let those who know the loopholes to skate? Honestly I’m more worried about those who know how to skate then those who don’t. A get out of jail free card is a powerful reason not to deter harmful behavior. To me the more ethical thing to do is expose the legal loophole for everyone, not just the elite few, and give a chance for the law to be adjusted.
Yes, there are such statistics. That’s how these 3 were chosen as the standard ones; ones that are easy to administer without any materials, and can easily be evaluated with minimal training.
But in practice, only a tiny percentage of drivers pulled over pass the FSTs. That’s because these drivers are drunk.
As people have mentioned, by the time an officer asks a driver to step out of the car and take these tests, they have usually already decided that you are probably DUI. Their observations of your physical condition, your breath smell, your responses in the conversation are pretty obvious to an experienced officer.
And nowadays, most police have dashcams. They have you stand in front of their car to do the tests because it is all being recorded by their camera. When the Judge & jury can watch these tests being failed, it’s pretty convincing evidence.
I think this is still falling into the trap of believing that innocent people don’t get convicted.
If we keep things like optimal legal strategy a secret from people who might be guilty, how many additional innocent people are we willing to punish because they also did not know it?
My personal answer is zero. Better a thousand guilty men go free, etc. I’d rather that the adversarial court system work as intended: the accused use their best legal strategy, and the state uses solid evidence collected within guidelines that respect the rights of the citizens to convict the guilty ones.
If this is the case, it sounds to me that if I’m completely sober, consenting to anything further that relies in any way upon the officer’s subjective judgment is a mistake. I think if I’m ever stopped, my inclination is to tell the officer that I won’t consent to the FST on prior advice of counsel, but since I don’t ever drink or take drugs I will consent to any objective breath or blood test.
Could you expand on this? Because you are talking about an alcohol-specific blood test. How could testing under the limit not exhonerate you? I thought the testing for other intoxicants was still on shaky grounds, both legally and medically speaking? Am i misunderstanding you somehow? What significance would a positive blood test for marijuana (for example) hold, given that marijuana can be detected weeks after use?
Not that I’m in favor of drinking and driving, but no. The fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination, which is precisely the goal of field sobriety tests. As others have mentioned, the cop has already decided whether a driver is drunk or not before they do any FST’s. Let them go ahead and make the arrest and present their case.
Intimidating people into providing evidence against themselves is borderline unconstitutional and should be prohibited.
Sorry, I probably wasn’t very clear.
Yes, the blood test is alcohol-specific, but the crime of driving while impaired by a substance isn’t.
If you test positive for having alcohol in your blood, then you can be convicted on that evidence. If you test negative (0.00 BAC), but you took a FST and are acting in a way that a cop/judge/jury might interpret as intoxicated, then you can be convicted based on the FST. Because you might be intoxicated by something other than alcohol, the blood test won’t protect you from a DUI conviction.
I’ve got to point out that there is a known problem with cops confusing concussed people with drunk people. Flushed skin, watery eyes, slurred speech, walk-and-turn, balance. It becomes a matter of record when these people die in custody. Since most concussed people do not die, you can calculate that the problem is bigger than just those who die in custody.
“Useful” is an understatement verging on British. I knew the basic advice given in the video was right before I watched it, but it was presented in such sharp relief and with such abundant clarity that I’m blown away.
Thank you for the link! Ignorance faught!