Well, I care- because I live in one of those “other countries” that you may have heard about on the news, from friends and relatives, and even this newfangled Internet thing all the kids are using these days.
Come on, doesn’t it strike you as just a tad… unbecoming to proclaim that “We’re here to fight Ignorance” in one post, then write off information refuting your statement because it happens to come from somewhere outside the USA?
Ignorance is international, so too should be the battle against it.
And you have the right to deal with being labelled a troublemaker by the local police department for doing so. Personally, I wouldn’t think it would be worth the hassle myself, but evidently you do. Whatever works for ya.
Yes. In most states the implied consent law has to do with the chemical test (blood/breath/urine). And these tests are done after the person is in custody.
When asked to do the roadside test you are being detained, but you are not under arrest. Refusing to walk a straight line or blow into a PBT is not an arrestable offense. If you don’t take the test other factors still are observed: slurred speech, odor of intoxicant, etc…
If you do a Google search on this you will find lawyers split on whether you should take the field test or not. Some claim that it can work in your favor to take it, some don’t. I can’t give you legal advice about it.
Uh, Martini Enfield, you realize by my previous posts that I’m a police officer in the USA, right? I’m not giving legal advice, I’m just stating what the case is here in the states. In most places here not taking the FST is not an arrestable offense. Look it up.What action one takes is entirely up to them. They can call their attorney for legal advice.
That’s as well as may be, and I realise you’re not trying to give out legal advice, but even so, I believe we were talking about letting the police search your car- not the wisdom of undertaking a field sobriety test.
However, I stand by my comments that, as a member of the public, refusing to let the police search your vehicle is going to end up being a lot more hassle and inconvenience long-term than simply saying “Sure, go ahead” and letting the officer shine his torch around your car a bit.
This isn’t a personal thing against you, of course! I can see why you, personally, on-duty as Constable/Officer pkbites don’t need to be concerned with the law outside your jurisdiction (And just keeping up to date with that would be a full time job, I imagine!), but I can see why someone might refuse to undertake the “Walking in a straight line” tests and stuff like that, even if they haven’t had anything to drink… but the way some people carry on about absolutely not letting the police look in their car without a warrant would certainly annoy me no end if I was a police officer.
I do realise things are different in our respective countries, though…
in Washington State refusal to take a breathalizer (or blood test) results in the loss of your licence for 1 year regardless of a conviction for dui.
they are bastards here and imo rightly so, we are way to far along in society to keep letting fucktards get away with something so easy and simple to avoid that has so much potential danger
This is just a guess but this hypothetical scenario could offer another reason why they just don’t give the person a breathalyzer without the field sobriety test.
Let’s say I’m sitting at home and I decide to smoke a joint then snort a nice long line of coke then I hop in my car to go for a drive. :eek:
I’m sailing down in my drug induced haze and weaving my car all over the place.
Lawman sees me and pulls me over. Now if lawman just shot right to the breathalyzer I would pass with flying colors as I didn’t have a single drop of alcohol. He sends me on my way (rookie) and I take out a busload of nuns and orphans.
Whoops.
Now if Lawman had me step out of the car and do the little sobriety jig he would clearly see that I was impaired. My impairment would also be recorded by his dashboard camera. Now Lawman decides he needs to administer the breathalyzer. I pass. No alcohol showing up here, no siree. But he knows I’m impaired somehow so he hauls me in and a urine drop is in order. Whoa! The officer’s suspicions are confirmed. I am loaded to the eyeballs on weed and coke.
Book him Danno.
You are wrong. The FST is the walking the line, look at the fingers, say the alphabet test. It is entirely optional in most states. You are confusing that with refusing the breath test, which in many states does result in mandatory license suspension. And even then, you may refuse the field breath test and demand the station test. But refusing to walk the line is not a criminal act.
I never said that refusing the FST is a crime. But if you excercise that right of refusal, you will be arrested for suspicion of DUI in this jurisdiction. They will skip the FST, and take you straight in for the breath/blood/urine testing at the police station.
When visiting my hometown in West Virginia, I have been stopped and breathalyzed several times without any prior tests having been conducted, sometimes when I haven’t even been drinking.
The police will have checkpoints set up on Friday or Saturday nights (or on the occasion of a WVU football game). The will stop every passing car. The officer will ask me questions: Where am I from? Why am I in town? Where am I staying? What do I do for a living?
I’ve never failed a test, nor offered any objections to being tested, but I find the whole process a little disturbing: There definitely seems to be some profiling going on. I am a single male, and while fairly affluent, I often dress pretty shabbily, and until two years ago I drove a pretty beat-up car. I’m also an amateur musician, and usually have at least one guitar in view in the backseat.
My oldest and closest friend (a teetotaller who still lives in the town) believes that these police have a strong interest in using DUI/DWI for revenue generation.
I would tend to agree: here in the Balt-Wash area, the only time I’ve ever been stopped, there was a credible reason (I had been driving really slow while fiddling with my CD player), and when I passed the “follow-the finger-with the-eyes” test, the officer quickly sent me along my way.
I’ve refused searches of my vehicles 3 times in my life and in none of those instances was my vehicle searched. Each time it was at the end of a traffic stop and I responded “I’m sorry, but no” and each time I was sent on my way. So I have to disagree with your contention that refusing a search automatically gives them probable cause to search.