False DUI Arrests and the FAA

Flatiowa said:
I find it very hard to believe that there are rouge cops out there just pulling people over and arresting them on DUI’s at random
Click to expand...
Maybe not arresting, but definitely pulling people over. I used to work a shift that had me driving home around the same time as bar close. I was pulled over at least a dozen times over the course of about three years. I even had the same officer pull me over on multiple occassions. Not once did I ever receive a ticket or even a written warning for whatever excuse they claimed to be pulling me over for, and every single time I was asked how much I had to drink that night. As I was coming home from work the answer was always zero, but that didn't stop the officers. More than once they even stated that they smelled alcohol on me. Strange since I had never been drinking in any of the situations. I took numerous breathalyzer tests during those stops and immediately after seeing a 0.00 on their readout I was told to drive safe and left to go on my way. I was stopped simply because of the time of the night that I was driving.
 
Kevin Eggert said:
Maybe not arresting, but definitely pulling people over. I used to work a shift that had me driving home around the same time as bar close. I was pulled over at least a dozen times over the course of about three years. I even had the same officer pull me over on multiple occassions. Not once did I ever receive a ticket or even a written warning for whatever excuse they claimed to be pulling me over for, and every single time I was asked how much I had to drink that night. As I was coming home from work the answer was always zero, but that didn't stop the officers. More than once they even stated that they smelled alcohol on me. Strange since I had never been drinking in any of the situations. I took numerous breathalyzer tests during those stops and immediately after seeing a 0.00 on their readout I was told to drive safe and left to go on my way. I was stopped simply because of the time of the night that I was driving.
Click to expand...
In Ohio, LE must let the public know, in advance, of DUI "checkpoints". By doing so they circumvent the Constitution. (I never checked beforehand, and have been through three. I don't drink, however.)
 
Salty said:
I watched a YouTube recently that got me wondering. The woman was not heavily drunk but was definitely at least mildly under the influence. She was extremely cooperative and respectful. She acted very lucid and asked intelligent questions and wasn’t rude or repetitive or annoying like most drunks would be. She did not appear to be a “high tolerance” drunk either. She didn’t do horribly on the field sobriety test but even on a video there were definitely signs of some impairment. She was also given horrible advice. Her father and a family friend supposedly a lawyer told her to never submit to the blood test. Perhaps her father was confused by the lawyers advice and they meant to not submit to the FST, but he and his daughter had that firmly in their heads.

After reading her her rights, the cop insisted she answer whether she would agree to a blood test without consulting with anyone. “She’s an adult and it’s her choice”. She was understandably confused because as the cop explained it to her it made no sense to her why she should refuse, but it had been drilled in to her to do so, so she wanted to clarify.

I understand that a license in Florida implies consent to the test, and I understand why you lose your privileges if you refuse the test.

However, I don’t understand how they can prevent you from seeking council before answering the question. This seems especially unfair to a drunk person who in other circumstances like “rape” is unable to consent to anything. I also get why you can’t take hours finding council, but in this case, her father was on the phone and the cop refused to let him give her advice (even though he wanted to give her horrible advice. I think there’s a small chance she wasn’t quite over). She even insisted very politely that she had a right to council and the cop said she did not. Can any of the legal trained folks among us help me understand this one?
Click to expand...
No, you're not entitled to legal counsel in the middle of an arrest. And as an adult, you're never entitled to counsel from daddy. She could have said, "No," and accepted the consequences. Around here, that means getting a court-ordered blood draw.

It used to be that in some counties you could gamble on their not getting an order on the weekend or the middle of the night, but I think that probably has largely been solved.

I'm glad to see that so many posters still haven't given up on the notion that cops are corrupt unless everyone they arrest is provably guilty before they're arrested.
 
Flatiowa said:
I’m also curious of the situation/behavior of the these people “falsely” arrested from the time of being pulled over up until the time of the arrest. I can easily see how someone (a police officer) would find it extremely suspicious if they pulled somebody over for speeding, failing to signal etc. and they immediately pulled the “I don’t talk to cops, I don’t answer questions, I plead the fifth”, or one of its variants so often suggested in social media. What would a normal person think? I for one (and I’m not a cop) would think “wooo, I just pulled you over to give you a written warning for going 8 over the speed limit…what the heck are you being like this for? Has this person just commited a major crime? Do they have any outstanding warrants? It’s not normal behavior”. It may potentially be arguably a sign that it is an unnatural response to common social interaction and of and in itself an indication of impairment?
I think the best way to not get into these situations is to not be driving impaired, and if you get pulled over don’t be a d&$@? I find it very hard to believe that there are rouge cops out there just pulling people over and arresting them on DUI’s at random
Click to expand...
First, you can say what ever you like, but you still have to produce the documents, or proof their of, to the officer.
Under PA v Mimms, a police officer is allowed to remove you from the car if he/she feels unsafe during a lawful traffic stop.

Most states only require a reasonable suspicion standard for arresting for OVI, not probable cause.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
In Ohio, LE must let the public know, in advance, of DUI "checkpoints". By doing so they circumvent the Constitution. (I never checked beforehand, and have been through three. I don't drink, however.)
Click to expand...
DUI checkpoints are to deter people from drinking and driving. They don’t produce many DUI arrests. Funding comes from government grants and result in overtime opportunities. Otherwise few departments have the resources do them.
 
Flatiowa said:
I’m also curious of the situation/behavior of the these people “falsely” arrested from the time of being pulled over up until the time of the arrest. I can easily see how someone (a police officer) would find it extremely suspicious if they pulled somebody over for speeding, failing to signal etc. and they immediately pulled the “I don’t talk to cops, I don’t answer questions, I plead the fifth”, or one of its variants so often suggested in social media. What would a normal person think? I for one (and I’m not a cop) would think “wooo, I just pulled you over to give you a written warning for going 8 over the speed limit…what the heck are you being like this for? Has this person just commited a major crime? Do they have any outstanding warrants? It’s not normal behavior”. It may potentially be arguably a sign that it is an unnatural response to common social interaction and of and in itself an indication of impairment?
I think the best way to not get into these situations is to not be driving impaired, and if you get pulled over don’t be a d&$@? I find it very hard to believe that there are rouge cops out there just pulling people over and arresting them on DUI’s at random
Click to expand...
You may find it hard to believe, but it’s happening. Many departments have incentivized DUI arrests with bonuses, promotions, awards, etc.

One such case out of Denver…cop pulls guy over for going to slow, which the guy said he had slowed down due to missing his turn. Officer William Gates, who held a trophy for having the highest number of DUI arrests, claimed to smell “an overwhelming odor of alcohol”, which the guy knew was false because he didn’t drink. Blood and breath tests confirmed no alcohol or drugs in his system. The guy filed a lawsuit and won a $400K settlement, and officer Gates is no longer on the force, as he resigned before the lawsuit was settled.


These departments get payouts and can justify the obtaining of new equipment the more DUI arrests they get. It’s heavily incentivized.

On the note of those refusing to answer questions, that only looks suspicious when you start off answering the “conversation starter” benign questions, then invoke your rights as the questions get tougher and more incriminating. YOU MUST INVOKE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING!!! The cop will say anything to intimidate you into answering questions and they can lie to you. Truth of the matter…all questioning must stop once you invoke your right to counsel (Miranda v. Arizona, SCOTUS). If they don’t stop questioning you once you state “I don’t answer questions without a lawyer”, they are in violation of your Miranda Rights and you can argue that in court.

Invoking your rights can never be used as reasonable articulable suspicion, nor probable cause, nor admission of guilt.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
First, you can say what ever you like, but you still have to produce the documents, or proof their of, to the officer.
Under PA v Mimms, a police officer is allowed to remove you from the car if he/she feels unsafe during a lawful traffic stop.

Most states only require a reasonable suspicion standard for arresting for OVI, not probable cause.
Click to expand...
No, they need reasonable articulable suspicion to stop you for OVI, but they have to elevate that to probable cause to make an arrest, just like any other crime. However, many of them arrest without probable cause, and that guarantees you a win in court.
 
Jon Wilder said:
One such case out of Denver…cop pulls guy over for going to slow, which the guy said he had slowed down due to missing his turn. Officer William Gates, who held a trophy for having the highest number of DUI arrests, claimed to smell “an overwhelming odor of alcohol”, which the guy knew was false because he didn’t drink.
Click to expand...
:confused2:

Elias told CBS News Colorado he had some of a single alcoholic drink five to six hours before the stop, but that was it. He declined to do roadside sobriety tests and Gates arrested him for suspected DUI.
Click to expand...
Your facts seem to be a little bit off. And that's just based on the driver's side of the story. Does he deny he was going 18 in a 55 and failed to signal a turn? Because you can be arrested for either of those offenses in Texas. I don't know about Colorado.

And this is a guy who's been arrested for DUI multiple times. You think that's a coincidence, or does he just drive like he's drunk a lot?

www.cbsnews.com

Loveland to pay $400,000 over Colorado DUI arrest, Driver had no alcohol, drugs in system

The City of Loveland has agreed to pay a Windsor man $400,000 over a 2020 DUI arrest in which breath and blood testing indicated Elias had no alcohol or drugs in his system.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
Lindberg said:
:confused2:


Your facts seem to be a little bit off. And that's just based on the driver's side of the story. Does he deny he was going 18 in a 55 and failed to signal a turn? Because you can be arrested for either of those offenses in Texas. I don't know about Colorado.

And this is a guy who's been arrested for DUI multiple times. You think that's a coincidence, or does he just drive like he's drunk a lot?

www.cbsnews.com

Loveland to pay $400,000 over Colorado DUI arrest, Driver had no alcohol, drugs in system

The City of Loveland has agreed to pay a Windsor man $400,000 over a 2020 DUI arrest in which breath and blood testing indicated Elias had no alcohol or drugs in his system.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
It's happened twice. And both times his blood test showed no traces of alcohol or drugs. We don't know what the second cop originally stopped him for.

I just saw the part where "he knew it was false". So OK he had some of a single drink 5-6 hours prior to the stop. But his chemical tests showed no alcohol or drugs in his system.

I can understand getting stopped for your driving to appear as if you're impaired. But for the cop to claim to smell "an overwhelming amount of alcohol" when there clearly was none...a good cop would listen to the guy explain that he missed his turn, maybe issue a ticket at the worst, and be on his way. But no...this cop had to lie so that he could put the guy through the system and get his DUI numbers up. That's all he cared about.
 
Jon Wilder said:
But for the cop to claim to smell "an overwhelming amount of alcohol" when there clearly was none...a
Click to expand...
That alcohol based hand sanatizer in the console that was so in vogue during Covid… a hot day in a hot car, cap popped open… I’m not saying this is the case in this situation, only giving an example where there may actually be a strong smell of alcohol when the window opens. (I also know people who had breathalyzers in their car that would get false fails after eating Casey’s pizza, eating many commercial jams/jellies, using mouthwash within an hour before, eating ripe fruit, even by having a 5 gallon gas can with ethanol gas in the beck of their suv).
 
Jon Wilder said:
No, they need reasonable articulable suspicion to stop you for OVI, but they have to elevate that to probable cause to make an arrest, just like any other crime. However, many of them arrest without probable cause, and that guarantees you a win in court.
Click to expand...
In SC an officer needs probable cause. Many other states the standard is lower and the law require reasonable grounds or reasonable belief. I suppose one could argue they are the same, but the legislatures didn’t write the laws that way.

Just because a suspect appears intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, doesn’t always mean they are.
 
Last edited:
Jon Wilder said:
These departments get payouts and can justify the obtaining of new equipment the more DUI arrests they get. It’s heavily incentivized.
Click to expand...
Maybe back in the day. But now, in these litigious times, I think some (a lot?) municipalities are loosing what they used to gain with these DUI (and other) numbers with one or two law suits. Some places may still be getting away with it, but I bet it won't be long until they also are see a budget deficit due to false charges and the following law suit like the one in CO.
 
I lived in Colorado for 35 years. DUI tickets are a very high priority for law enforcement. In my 35 years I was pulled over for "dirty license plate", cracked windshield, failure to signal lane change, out headlight (it wasn't out), no license plate lamp (there was one, and it worked but cop said it wasn't bright enough for him), had a moose head in truck (same cop as dirty license plate). Every stop was a fishing expedition for a DUI.

BS stops happen all the time, cops lie about the reason they stopped you, lie about what they see, lie about what they hear, and lie about what they smell. Who does the judge believe, the guy driving a 25 year old car or a "law enforcement professional"?

A friend of mine was a cop for 20 years, he had many stories of fellow deputies driving drunk, some while on duty. Rules for thee, but not for me. Even told me about a time he pulled over a judge that was doing 84 in a 25, let him go. I said write him a ticket, he said "we don't do that".
 
Clip4 said:
In SC an officer needs probable cause. Many other states the standard is lower and the law require reasonable grounds or reasonable belief. I suppose one could argue they are the same, but the legislatures didn’t write the laws that way.

Just because a suspect appears intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, doesn’t always mean they are.
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any other state where a cop doesn’t need probable cause to arrest.

If the cop arrests without probable cause, one of two things is going to happen. Either (a) the DA throws the case out before it ever goes to court (unlikely), or (b) the judge finds no probable cause and throws the case out. With no probable cause, you can now sue the police and they don’t get qualified immunity.
 
Flatiowa said:
I’m also curious of the situation/behavior of the these people “falsely” arrested from the time of being pulled over up until the time of the arrest. I can easily see how someone (a police officer) would find it extremely suspicious if they pulled somebody over for speeding, failing to signal etc. and they immediately pulled the “I don’t talk to cops, I don’t answer questions, I plead the fifth”, or one of its variants so often suggested in social media. What would a normal person think? I for one (and I’m not a cop) would think “wooo, I just pulled you over to give you a written warning for going 8 over the speed limit…what the heck are you being like this for? Has this person just commited a major crime? Do they have any outstanding warrants? It’s not normal behavior”. It may potentially be arguably a sign that it is an unnatural response to common social interaction and of and in itself an indication of impairment?
I think the best way to not get into these situations is to not be driving impaired, and if you get pulled over don’t be a d&$@? I find it very hard to believe that there are rouge cops out there just pulling people over and arresting them on DUI’s at random
Click to expand...

I believe it's becoming more normal, as it should.
 
Flatiowa said:
I’m also curious of the situation/behavior of the these people “falsely” arrested from the time of being pulled over up until the time of the arrest. I can easily see how someone (a police officer) would find it extremely suspicious if they pulled somebody over for speeding, failing to signal etc. and they immediately pulled the “I don’t talk to cops, I don’t answer questions, I plead the fifth”, or one of its variants so often suggested in social media. What would a normal person think? I for one (and I’m not a cop) would think “wooo, I just pulled you over to give you a written warning for going 8 over the speed limit…what the heck are you being like this for? Has this person just commited a major crime? Do they have any outstanding warrants? It’s not normal behavior”. It may potentially be arguably a sign that it is an unnatural response to common social interaction and of and in itself an indication of impairment?
I think the best way to not get into these situations is to not be driving impaired, and if you get pulled over don’t be a d&$@? I find it very hard to believe that there are rouge cops out there just pulling people over and arresting them on DUI’s at random
Click to expand...
I agree step 1 is don't be a d!ck. But, politely invoking one's constitutional rights _shouldn't_ seem suspicious. The fact that that's how things are now is the issue. LEOs should know this, and good ones do.

The "if you've got nothing to hide" approach is just a way to get people to waive their constitutionally-given rights.
 
Wasn't going to post this. I'm in the middle on all of this. On one hand, I'm certain that there are some bad cops out there, just like there are bad people in any group. And I've run into a few that aren't bad or immoral, but are kinda miserable for whatever reason. But most of them, like most people, are just out there doing there job, and part of that is looking for the nuts and drunks.

A scenario similar to this has happened to me more than once:

I'm driving on the NYS Thruway in a rental Charger. Friendly NYS trooper pulls me over in his Charger. He doesn't ask what I'm doing, just for the license, registration, etc. I volunteer the conversation. "Yeah, these things are pretty quick, and I wasn't paying attention." Which led to "yeah, I clocked you at 85 (this is in a 65). Is this an 8?" "No, this is the 6! It's still fast. Rented it to take a test in Buffalo." We chit chat a bit, he says "Yeah, these rentals never have accurate speedometers. I'm writing you a ticket for a faulty speedometer. No points, but make sure to pay it...and drive safe on the way back".

Does being pleasant always work? Nope... Different guy, different place, deserted street in the middle of nowhere, clear in all directions, I turn left at a stop without the stop. Try the pleasant conversation thing, "Sorry, I wasn't paying attention" which was answered with "you didn't even slow down." Ok, I know when it's time to shut up. I just nodded and took the ticket.

Life is nuance and finesse, or at least a pleasant one is. I don't have too many hard and fast rules.
 
Albany Tom said:
Does being pleasant always work? Nope...
Click to expand...

Many years ago I was stopped for speeding as I was passing a slow car on a two lane road. The officer came over and I held my license, registration, and proof of insurance out the window. He politely took it, walked away, and promptly came back with my speeding ticket. He never said a word.

As he walked away I lightheartedly asked if he wanted to hear my reason for speeding. He replied, "there is no reason for 70 in a 45 ... tell it to the judge." :oops:

We were both polite but when I first spotted him I knew I had earned that ticket ... :dunno:
 
A CHP buddy of mine when asked if he had anything better to do than give a speeding ticket would reply “I’m a traffic cop. No, I don’t. Press hard, all three copies…”. Cold…
 
Daleandee said:
He replied, "there is no reason for 70 in a 45 ... tell it to the judge."
Click to expand...
Did you happen to take it to court and what did the judge say? I totally get his point about the 70 in the 45... But he gave you a "speeding" ticket, not a neg driving or something else.

I'm curious because a LOT of states say you can exceed the speed limit when passing on a two lane road and most DO NOT stipulate anything about the limit or safety. So "technically" you may not have been breaking the law... it's another issue if it was safe or not... but again, he didn't write you up for that. :D
 
M20K said:
Did you happen to take it to court and what did the judge say? I totally get his point about the 70 in the 45... But he gave you a "speeding" ticket, not a neg driving or something else.

I'm curious because a LOT of states say you can exceed the speed limit when passing on a two lane road and most DO NOT stipulate anything about the limit or safety. So "technically" you may not have been breaking the law... it's another issue if it was safe or not... but again, he didn't write you up for that. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah he likely could have charged with careless or perhaps reckless driving. Many times going to court and pleading guilty and asking for mercy, especially if your record is clean, will result in a reduction of points and/or fines. This was the highway patrol and in our state they aren't known for writing warnings and cutting slack.

This was, as they say, "back in the day" ...
 
bonefishpete said:
New law in Florida criminalize refusing road side test.
A new Florida law, effective October 1, 2025, makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to refuse a lawful request for a breath or urine test following a DUI arrest. This amendment—commonly referred to as “Trenton’s Law”—represents one of the most significant changes to Florida’s DUI enforcement in recent years.
Click to expand...

This does not cover ROADSIDE breath tests (there is no such thing as a roadside urine test).

What this means is that AFTER you are arrested you are taken to a facility that will clinically sample/test your breath/urine. This is NOT the same thing as LEO pulling out a portable breathalyzer on the side of the road. In many States you CAN refuse roadside testing without penalty.

The key part of parents post is 'following a DUI arrest'. You must be under arrest (not detained) for this to take effect.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Here's the deal...you're far more likely to talk your way into an arrest than out of one. Roadside sobriety tests are not standardized and are designed for you to fail them.

The best things you can do for yourself -

"I don't answer questions without a lawyer."

"I don't consent to searches."

"I don't consent to roadside sobriety tests."

"I hereby invoke my right to remain silent."

You have no duty to assist officers in their investigations. You have no duty to hand evidence over without a warrant.

The cop may arrest you (absolutely do the chemical test following the arrest...but this will be done at the station). So long as your post-arrest chemical test comes back clean, the judge is going to find no probable cause. Refusal of roadside sobriety tests can never be used as evidence of guilt, nor can it be used as probable cause.

Upon your case being dismissed for no PC, you can turn around and sue the cops who arrested you. Qualified immunity does not apply when there's no probable cause.
Click to expand...
You only need #4 on that list.

The more you talk (even to assert your rights) the more LEO can claim you were slurring your words.
 
pfarber said:
You only need #4 on that list.

The more you talk (even to assert your rights) the more LEO can claim you were slurring your words.
Click to expand...
But you have to invoke your right to counsel in order for the requirement to stop questioning to apply.

Yes we know it doesn’t mean the cop will stop questioning. But that’s just one more thing your lawyer can attack when your case goes to court.

“Did he invoke his right to counsel?”

“Yes”

“Was his lawyer present?”

“No”

“Then why did you continue to question him?”
 
If you want lessons on how to talk yourself into trouble, watch any episode of On Patrol Live or any number of other similar shows.

Another important lesson...if you're ever on foot running from police, don't stop and hide. Your best bet is to keep moving and escape any perimeter before they have a chance to set it up or bring in dogs. Keep in mind you can't run or drive faster than a radio.

Of course, if you do ever find yourself running from police, you're likely not too bright to begin with.
 
Ok… invoking little known Faber Codicile… you MUST now tell us how you’re so familiar with running from the cops on foot.

You clearly pulled it off, so we gots to know! You can say “well this guy I once knew…” it’s all good.
 
Lindberg said:
We do?
Click to expand...
The courts have ruled in several cases that you must verbally invoke your rights. Whether or not you agree with this, there is legal precedent stating this from several cases.

Cops can question you until you invoke your right to counsel. This is why it is so important for you to invoke your right to counsel right from the get. For that reason and to not create reasonable suspicion (looks suspicious if you start off answering the easy ones, then decide to play the lawyer card as the questions get more difficult). Not suspicious if you tell them from the first question they ask "I'm sorry officer, but I don't answer questions without a lawyer."

Yes, once you invoke your right to counsel, the cops are to stop questioning you (Miranda v. Arizona). There are a lot who don't, or they'll try to intimidate you with things like "Only guilty people lawyer up". If they don't stop questioning you, then they are violating your rights.

The reality is the cops do whatever they want until someone in a position of authority tells them they can't. That's why you need an attorney fighting for you.
 
Last edited:
Jon Wilder said:
So you’re attacking my communication style. Got it.
Click to expand...
No, your ACAB attitude. Or maybe you just watched too much NYPD Blue. You repeatedly make some pretty nasty claims about police officers without the evidence to back them up, as though it's just common knowledge that the police are out there regularly violating everyone's constitutional rights left and right. That's BS. I don't know what happened to you, and maybe it was unfair. But your generalizations are way off.
 
Lindberg said:
No, your ACAB attitude. Or maybe you just watched too much NYPD Blue. You repeatedly make some pretty nasty claims about police officers without the evidence to back them up, as though it's just common knowledge that the police are out there regularly violating everyone's constitutional rights left and right. That's BS. I don't know what happened to you, and maybe it was unfair. But your generalizations are way off.
Click to expand...
I don't feel like all cops are bad. The issue is you never know which kind you're going to get...good cop or bad cop. So...there's that.

Rather than chastise those of us with ACAB attitude, how about chastising the bad cops? Because they ruin it for the good cops.
 
This is a growing problem...sober people getting their lives ruined with DUI arrests, where their chemical test results come back negative for drugs and alcohol. This is an issue so bad that the Tennessee legislature passed a law requiring the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to report to the Tennessee Legislature on instances where a person was charged with DUI, but toxicology reports showed no alcohol or drugs in their system.
THP apparently defends the practice -
 
wellknow said:
so outrageous. “they are not sober drivers”. then why is their bloodwork negative?
Click to expand...
He is 100% basing that on their FST performance. He testified that the field sobriety tests that their agents are performing indicate that the driver is not sober.

Any DUI defense attorney will tell you these tests are not standardized, they are designed for you to fail, and to refuse FST's and a Preliminary Breath Test for this reason (this is not a "refusal", as anything done before an arrest is voluntary...implied consent only applies once you've been arrested, not while the officer is trying to establish probable cause).
 
Back
Top