Field sobriety tests, How to handle traffic stops?

B

Brad W

En-Route
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
2,632
Location
NE Florida
Display Name
BLW2
Home Airfield
KSGJ, KHEG
I'm fuzzy on the whole breathalyzer/DUI thing when it comes to FAA considerations especially, but also just generally/criminally....
What are we required to do, and what should we refuse?

I don't drink much, only just very rarely...and only when I'm not driving. I'm pretty clean about not drinking anything when I'm out and about. I just don't drink at all if I'm going to be driving...ever. I have in the past had a beer....maybe one (1).... while out boating, but that is very rare as in like less than 1x a year. Now I'm second-guessing even that.

Because I barely ever drink, I've never really paid all that much attention to DUI laws and how to handle this stuff. I think that I understand that per the FAA I can't refuse a breathalyzer if asked...but it seems that most civil guidance seems to be that the trunk portable ones anyway should be refused for legal considerations. Do I have that right?

But the question that came to mind to make this post is how to handle sobriety tests and law enforcement encounters in general. I thought I'd post here to get the perspective of aviators...

I was home sick last week, killing time on youtube, and got off on a sidetrack watching a few videos of game warden body cam footage and arrests. Since then of course youtube thinks I'm interested in that stuff so I've been seeing a lot more of them pop into my suggestions and I've watched a couple more, and a couple lawyer videos.
Now I understand that these videos are selected for drama and views, and they probably aren't representative of the average encounter
but
they do sort of paint the picture that law enforcement is trying to trick you at every turn.

Anyway, the root of my question is about these sobriety tests...
I'm watching these tests given to folks, mostly while out boating.... sometimes given to folks that by what can be deduced through the screen anyway, are not impaired...and they can't pass them.
And some of them are so complex that I doubt I could pass them being stone-cold sober, well-rested, and completely on my A game. These verbal complicated multistep tests given verbally along with a very short demonstration that one is expected to memorize.

It's like a new VFR pilot being asked to copy an IFR clearance read very quickly, and without a kneeboard or any way to make notes. They'd have no idea what info is coming or in what order, and then be expected to read it back perfectly.

and it seems that some of these tests require a level of hand-eye coordination and balance that many folks... especially older folks, just don't have...AND that are absolutely not required to drive a car safely. They really do seem like a crooked trap.
Even if stone cold sober, well rested, not sick with a cold or alergies, and well fed...it seems like it puts folks between a rock and a hard place

So it seems from my 45 minutes' worth of youtube university education, that generally it's better to refuse taking these test so that the police can't use the info to build a case of probable cause.
But
From the FAA perspective especially, what is a pilot to do if pulled over for a tailight out or whatever minor infraction, and it escalates
 
Choose your poison. If you use an FAA medical to make your money, a refusal to blow that later results in what they consider a reportable alcohol related event is treated the same as BAC unknown.

Where the devil is in the details is that most states that allow refusal also suspend your driver’s license in return for the privilege of refusal, which is reportable to the FAA.

Since you reported the suspension, the FAA sees the reason why and no BAC on record. Follow condition C and the links to see what has to be done.

 
A responsible officer won't put somebody through a field sobriety test unless they already have reason to believe the subject is impaired (smell or slurring words during the initial conversation). In most cases polite answers and "no sir, I don't drink" and you're on way... but those interactions don't make YouTube.

If you get the rare cop or department that's abusing it, like the horror show a few years back that saw a non-drinking airline pilot get arrested despite blowing zero, all bets are off and a blood test is your best hope.

P S. If you go go into your YouTube history and delete those videos, it'll stop recommending similar videos.
 
PaulS said:
Depends what state you are in.
Click to expand...
in florida, you are not required to take one (most lawyers I know say to refuse it period). refusal cannot be used as probable cause for arrest, and it will not result in a suspension of your drivers license. now, refusal to take a breath test will result in a suspension of your drivers license and a that will trigger the FAA actions and no documentation of BAC which will most likely send you straight down the full HIMS pathway.
 
In most states, it is perfectly legal to refuse all field sobriety tests without penalty before arrest. This includes the roadside “breathalyzer” more accurately referred to as a PBT or portable breath test.

These roadside “tests” are only used to gather additional evidence against you to support a finding of probable cause for arrest. If you exercise your right to refuse, the officer then has to make a decision based on other subjective evidence whether or not he has enough probable cause to arrest you.

If you are arrested for DUI, you are required under implied consent laws to submit to either a blood or breath test at the station or hospital. This “breathalyzer” is the official one that is admissible in court and a refusal to submit to one of the tests would have consequences.

If you blow .0000 it is likely you will be released without any charges unless the officer suspects drug impairment. For most people this is not an issue, however, for pilots, lack of DUI charges does not change the fact that you were arrested for DUI and will have to answer yes to that question for the rest of your life when renewing your medical.

So should you submit to FST’s? Most attorneys would advise you to politely decline and plead the fifth. If the cop decides to arrest you anyway based on what he thought was a mild swerve and mistook your cologne for “the overwhelming odor of alcoholic beverage” and it takes getting arrested to prove your sobriety, you might have a civil case against the department but will end up having to prove you’re not a drunk to the FAA.

Moral of the story: Don’t get pulled over.
 
What's the deal with the lack of confidence in roadside breathalyzers and refusing that in favor of the one at the station...or blood test?
 
A roadside portable breath test is not a calibrated instrument. While they can be reasonably accurate, they are not certified or approved to provide official test results, nor can they generate a report beyond the number on the screen.

An actual breath test instrument is temperature controlled and self tests against a control sample to certify accuracy prior to gathering samples from the person arrested. The companies that make these are generally approved by legislative bodies for use and have to be maintained and inspected to certain standards.

Many agencies have abandoned breath testing in favor of blood which is much more useful in detecting controlled substances which may also be in the person’s system and impairing their ability to drive.

If you’re interested in reading up on actual DUI investigations, google NHTSAs field sobriety testing curriculum it’s all online.

Idk what they’re doing in whatever videos you’re watching but the battery of statistically validated field tests indicate intoxication at a very high level of accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Brad W said:
What's the deal with the lack of confidence in roadside breathalyzers and refusing that in favor of the one at the station...or blood test?
Click to expand...

Two different function of their use in the process, and authorization rules. They are reasonably accurate, but not for evidentiary value as the state’s test. They confirm or deny the presence of alcohol, and the investigation can go different ways at that point.
 
fast99 said:
My understanding is field tests can be refused. Only required to take the breathalyzer at the precinct.
Click to expand...
it's state by state. in PA you can refuse a field test (breath or balance) and ask for a blood draw. it's not a refusal, just a choice.

most lawyers will say take the field sobriety test as they can be contested in court. If LEO makes a bad judgement call then they can throw out the blood test.
 
I've gotten out of some things I probably shouldn't have because a cop buddy taught me how to handle stops. Hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, window down, license and registration ready, refer to them as "officer", and always have a reason for what they stopped you for.

Trying to railroad someone who is sober is way more of a headache for the cop than just letting you go. There are plenty of actual drunk people on the roads to catch. FST takes up their time. If they do not think from your demeanor that you are likely to fail a blood test, they are going to give you a warning and move on to the next stop.

I've done plenty of sobriety tests with cop buddies, sometimes while drinking with them. Most are comically easy unless you are very impaired. If you have not been drinking at all, you are going to be fine. They are not looking for Olympic gymnasts, just people who can stand and walk without falling over.

Now if you have had "a couple" but think you are legal, then you made the decision to spin the wheel of misfortune, and everything that follows is a calculated risk. Personally, if I had been counting my drinks and hours and was confident I was legal, I would take my chances with the FST rather than daring them to arrest me and take me to the station to find out for sure.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
A responsible officer won't put somebody through a field sobriety test unless they already have reason to believe the subject is impaired (smell or slurring words during the initial conversation). In most cases polite answers and "no sir, I don't drink" and you're on way... but those interactions don't make YouTube.

If you get the rare cop or department that's abusing it, like the horror show a few years back that saw a non-drinking airline pilot get arrested despite blowing zero, all bets are off and a blood test is your best hope.

P S. If you go go into your YouTube history and delete those videos, it'll stop recommending similar videos.
Click to expand...
I sat on a jury where the only evidence of a dui charge presented was a "failed" field sobriety test. What I learned is never agree to take a field sobriety test. All you'll be doing is strengthening any case against yourself regardless of whether you had anything to drink. If a cop asks you to do a field sobriety test, he's already decided you've been drinking and driving.
 
By the time they ask you to take the field sobriety tests where they are having you do the hand/eye coordination stuff they have already decided you are going to be arrested. There is zero benefit for you in doing those. Even if you do them perfectly you are still being arrested as the tests are subjective and up to officer interpretation.

The breathalyzer is different. It is not a subjective test. You blow what you blow. Those should be done roadside if you believe you are below the limit as the officer will lose probable cause for the arrest if you are under the limit. If you believe you are at or slightly over the limit you should refuse the roadside test (although you should not have been driving if you have been drinking at all). The one done back at the station is what goes in the official report and is what gets reported to the FAA.

The reason some refuse the roadside but accept the one at the station is because it can take an hour or two between the stop and the test which gives your body more time to absorb and lower the alcohol content. Refusal to do the breathalyzer test at the station is considered an admission of guilt by most states and will lead straight to a DUI conviction when you get to court. The FAA also views it the same way. If you are arrested for DUI and refuse the test back at the station they assume you were over the limit regardless of what you may or may not end up actually be convicted for. Pleading to other or lesser charges doesn’t matter to the FAA if you refused the breathalyzer test at the station. You are guilty until proven innocent over in their eyes.
 
I'll agree with parent... LEO will 100% jam you up for no reason. I was a jurist in a drug possession trial and and absolutely no one believed the LEO or the DA. Our first vote was unanimous not guilty but it was close to lunch so we stayed for the free food.

As a CO I had quite a lot of interaction with Sheriffs and State Troopers (intake, transfers).... I would 100% believe that SOME would lie and hassle a person just for the lulz.

I do believe its a small percentage, but not that small as to be safely ignored.
 
Last edited:
bradg33 said:
His/her job is to find a reason to take you to jail. Period.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The cop's job is not to find a reason to take you to jail. It is to find out if there IS a reason to take you to jail.

If he/she already suspects you of being impaired, waiving your copy of the pocket constitution just ensures you progress to the next stage in the arrest process.

Ask any cop how many traffic stops result in arrest. Nationwide, the statistic is 3%. Would you rather be in the 97% or the 3%?

Lawyers screw things up by thinking like lawyers and being unable to see things from any other perspective. I have seen plenty of business deals and disputes blown up because lawyers think they have the last word. Traffic stops are the same. This answer is a great example of that. You take the worst case and presume that is the norm rather than an outlier. In doing so, you guarantee the worst case will be the outcome.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Wrong.

The cop's job is not to find a reason to take you to jail. It is to find out if there IS a reason to take you to jail.

If he/she already suspects you of being impaired, waiving your copy of the pocket constitution just ensures you progress to the next stage in the arrest process.

Ask any cop how many traffic stops result in arrest. Nationwide, the statistic is 3%. Would you rather be in the 97% or the 3%?

Lawyers screw things up by thinking like lawyers and being unable to see things from any other perspective. I have seen plenty of business deals and disputes blown up because lawyers think they have the last word. Traffic stops are the same. This answer is a great example of that. You take the worst case and presume that is the norm rather than an outlier. In doing so, you guarantee the worst case will be the outcome.
Click to expand...
To be clear, in my view, the lawyers job is to protect against the worse case scenario. Plenty of business deals and disputes also proceed forward despite lawyers' recommendations, and then really fall apart. Things are always fine, right up until the very second they're not. If you're not prepared for that hard pivot, you may lose (whatever that means in the particular scenario).

Even if your statistic is correct, in my view, the way to avoid being part of the 3% of arrests is by going out of your way to protect yourself. Not by being "cooperative" with the guy with the gun who has nearly unchecked power to take you to jail.

You don't have to be an ******* to the police to protect your rights. It is possible to politely and professionally shut the f*ck up. You don't have to engage with them in argument, etc. Just don't talk. At all. Unfortunately, most people just aren't capable of it...
 
I tend to be with
Ed Haywood.

Example, bunch of years ago, going to work about 2 AM in my '83 Mustang 5.0 GT, modified lowered suspension, Flowmaster mufflers (only loud when stepping on it), divided highway with occasional traffic lights, cruising. Came over a hill, police car at the traffic light on opposite side. If he has radar, he has me, if not, no issue. As I go through the intersection, he quietly runs the light, picks up speed, overtakes me, and only turns on lights.

When I pull off the highway, and roll down my window, hands on top of steering wheel, he ( a black Officer, I am white), asked how fast I thought I was driving? "I don't know, officer, the rear axle ratio has been changed, the speedometer is not accurate". "Do you think you might have been speeding" "Yes, I don't think you would have stopped me unless I was." "Lean away from the door, please" I did, he leaned in, took a deep breath, and straightened back up.

No cars had passed either direction while we were there.

"The speed for automatic revocation in this state (MD) is 70 mph, you were clocked just 2 mph short of that speed. Just because there is no traffic, you cannot ignore the limit. I am assigned here to catch drunk drivers, you are not a problem, stick to the speed limits as you go, have a good night."

I did hold back my speed until on the on the Interstate, the n rolled with the flow, exited on a US highway, about +5 until at work. They had a computer failure, tripping a 500,000,000 watt generator. The revenue losses were astronomical, and I had been called in to fix it. Naturally, I was in a hurry, adjusting my speed to the environment.

Going home, I just rolled with the flow.

According to some here, I should not have co operated with that officer.

Had I done so, he could have given me a well earned large speeding ticket. If even as midge of a lier, he could have added just 2 miles to the speed gun reading, taken me to the police station, and turned me over to the duty officer to decide whether to hold me for a hearing in the morning. He could also have decided that I was a white guy with an attitude about black cops, and put me in my place.

None of that happened!

Reasonable speed for the conditions, stone sober and wide awake driver, 20 year old car without a ding in it, co operative driver.

I think co operative driver clinched it. It has, many times before.
 
My father taught me when talking to the police to put a civil tongue in my head. That advice has served me well ...
 
Have a dash cam, follow traffic laws, anything found after an illegal traffic stop is void.
Always record police interactions and never answer questions, never do the field sobriety tests, they are a rigged game, but don’t refuse a blood/breath test.


That was advise given to me by a successful lawyer friend.
 
geezer said:
I tend to be with
Ed Haywood.

Example, bunch of years ago, going to work about 2 AM in my '83 Mustang 5.0 GT, modified lowered suspension, Flowmaster mufflers (only loud when stepping on it), divided highway with occasional traffic lights, cruising. Came over a hill, police car at the traffic light on opposite side. If he has radar, he has me, if not, no issue. As I go through the intersection, he quietly runs the light, picks up speed, overtakes me, and only turns on lights.

When I pull off the highway, and roll down my window, hands on top of steering wheel, he ( a black Officer, I am white), asked how fast I thought I was driving? "I don't know, officer, the rear axle ratio has been changed, the speedometer is not accurate". "Do you think you might have been speeding" "Yes, I don't think you would have stopped me unless I was." "Lean away from the door, please" I did, he leaned in, took a deep breath, and straightened back up.

No cars had passed either direction while we were there.

"The speed for automatic revocation in this state (MD) is 70 mph, you were clocked just 2 mph short of that speed. Just because there is no traffic, you cannot ignore the limit. I am assigned here to catch drunk drivers, you are not a problem, stick to the speed limits as you go, have a good night."

I did hold back my speed until on the on the Interstate, the n rolled with the flow, exited on a US highway, about +5 until at work. They had a computer failure, tripping a 500,000,000 watt generator. The revenue losses were astronomical, and I had been called in to fix it. Naturally, I was in a hurry, adjusting my speed to the environment.

Going home, I just rolled with the flow.

According to some here, I should not have co operated with that officer.

Had I done so, he could have given me a well earned large speeding ticket. If even as midge of a lier, he could have added just 2 miles to the speed gun reading, taken me to the police station, and turned me over to the duty officer to decide whether to hold me for a hearing in the morning. He could also have decided that I was a white guy with an attitude about black cops, and put me in my place.

None of that happened!

Reasonable speed for the conditions, stone sober and wide awake driver, 20 year old car without a ding in it, co operative driver.

I think co operative driver clinched it. It has, many times before.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it works until it doesn't. And when it doesn't, your admissions and concessions will be used against you. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
 
Since we're telling LEO stories I'll share one that got me out of THREE ILLEGAL SPEEDING tickets.

In PA, all State Routes (roads) are controlled by the State, that means NO ONE BUT THE STATE can alter/adjust speed limits. The statutory speed limit, on 'all other' State road is 55mph UNLESS altered by a properly administered PenDOT traffic survey. So what do local municipalities do? They buy speed limit signs through the state and CHANGE the signs as a local traffic control effort. Its 10000000% illegal but its done ALL THE TIME.

You can even google PA Statutory speed limit https://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/li/li/ct/htm/75/00.033.062.000..htm "(2) 55 miles per hour in other locations." Yes there are other statutory limits but none of them apply to rural PA

Three times I was stopped on state routes for 'speeding'. I said nothing, signed for the ticket an went to court. In each of the three cases, before court, the LEO 'offered me' a lower, no points citation. I refused. Went before the judge, read off the statute and asked for the PenDot traffic study that altered the speed limit.

Three times the judge looked at the LEO, with a grin on their face, and asked if they had said study. None of them had a clue. That means LEO were enforcing an illegal speed limit even AFTER they were shown in court that it was illegal.

So what's the moral of the story? LEO is not your friend, they can and will jamb you up. Your BEST hope is that its your lucky day.. not that you're innocent. Just like the drug case jury. That guy was set up and local LEO must have had a hard on for him to go to court with such weak, nay, unbelievable evidence.

There are good LEO, but there are enough 'bad' ones that you really can't let your guard down.
 
Yep, I could have just rolled the window down enough to slip my drivers license and registration out, refusing further conversation.

He would have written an expensive, and truly valid speeding ticket. What would my defense in court have been?

He would have also ordered me to drive to the nearby police station for a breath test (and woe to me if I ran). If I declined the breath test in favor of a blood draw, I would have been transported to a hospital, and held there until the results were completed. 0.00, so I would then be transported back to the police station, and released.

I would have been in custody for 4 or 5 hours if the hospital was fast. All that time, my employer was losing $20,000 per hour.

Definate3ly a win for us all. Especially for me individually, I am out what ever the judge decides to set as the penalty.

The attorney that got me probation for exceeding 70 a few years previously cost $500, and I was on probation for two years, %500 fine, and any speeding ticket would be automatic 3 months suspended.

Window down, co operate for the sniff test, take a ticket, and go to work. My pay that night was far more than a less than 70 ticket could be. Further, if I told my employer that I had a ticket for speeding, they would have reimbursed me what ever the cost. They would justify it to see that I hurried the next time. $20,000 per hour is big money to risk. My drive is 1 1/2 hours at the speed limit, my only competitor is about 8 hours away.

Police officers have generally treated me fairly, or better.
 
Copying from a post on another thread by @flyingpreacher, who is an LEO:

"LEO infallibility: we are NOT infallible, but how you handle it affects what we perceive. If I stop a guy for something and when I try to talk to him about it, he becomes belligerent, it makes me wonder what he is hiding. On the other hand, if he’s respectful, that too is probably going to influence my perception."

Again, 3% of stops result in an arrest (if you don't like that number, Google it and cite a better one). If you want to be in the 97%, start by recognizing the person making the decision will be influenced by your behavior. If you go into the encounter assuming you are going to be in the 3%, you just might create your own reality.
 
Last edited:
Check out the 0.00 arrests in TN and Gwinnette Co GA. Officers were getting rewarded by the number of DUI ARRESTS, whether they were later dismissed or not. I think MADD has a program that incentivises this, focusing on arrests vs convictions. From everything I have seen/read, the SFSTs are just to gather evidence to support a probable cause arrest. In one study I read, 30%+ of sober drivers cannot pass the SFSTs.

I don't condone drinking and driving. I want all the drunk drivers off the road. I also don't want law-abiding citizens arrested. It requires law enforcement to act in a professional manner (which many do).

This Iowa man was arrested after the officer (to paraphrase) smelled a strong smell of alcohol (he blew 0.00) so the officer arrested for driving on drugs (the blood test came back clean). He is now suing the officer and department, but he will always have an arrest on his record. For those subject to FAA medical standards, this is a HUGE deal, but for others, it's still a big deal. I think portion of officers have the attitude, "Arrest them all, let the court sort it out."
 
Refuse all field sobriety tests. Flat out. They are inadmissible in court and they're designed for you to fail them.Field breathalyzers are too easy to manipulate (a major reason why field breathalyzers are inadmissible in court).

Now here is the thing...while the cop only needs reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop, he needs probable cause to arrest. Refusing field sobriety tests does not, on its own, create probable cause for arrest. However, it can be a factor that, along with other evidence of impairment, leads to probable cause for a DUI arrest.

This is your time to exercise your right to remain silent. Do exactly that. Say nothing. Every time he asks you a question, simply respond "I don't answer questions without my attorney present." Exercising your 5th Amendment right is not probable cause to arrest.

It is their job to conduct an investigation. It is not your job to assist them. You have no duty to speak to them, nor answer any questions they may ask you.

If you are arrested, you will have the opportunity to submit to a chemical test via blood, breath, or urine at the station. REFUSAL OF A POST ARREST CHEMICAL TEST WILL RESULT IN MAJOR CONSEQUENCES!!! DO NOT REFUSE THIS ONE!!!

Now if your case turns out to be a "sober DUI" and you know for certain that your chemical test results will come back clean, get a copy of the body cam footage of the entire stop. You're going to need this when you file a no probable cause lawsuit (and you will win it, because cops don't get qualified immunity for arrests with no probable cause).
 
What is the cost for a copy of the body cam footage? Copies of a police report are quite pricy and difficult to get. Can you even get one without charges being filed with a court date?
 
geezer said:
What is the cost for a copy of the body cam footage? Copies of a police report are quite pricy and difficult to get. Can you even get one without charges being filed with a court date?
Click to expand...
These should be available through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I haven't ever requested one, but usually the substantial cost associated with FOIA documents is in either the printing of hard copies ($0.15/page) or the extensive research required for some requests. It depends on who has to be involved in tracking down your information.

"The categories of personnel that may conduct searches and reviews and the estimated hourly costs:
Administrative/clerical – $21/hour
Professional – $41/hour
Executive -- $76/hour"

In this case, it shouldn't take more than an hour or MAYBE two to get the body cam footage into a digital file, and there is no hard copy to print, so it shouldn't be terribly hard.

NOTE: These fees are for federal-level requests. State and Local agencies have similar policies. See Tennessee's policy or Georgia's Open Records Law.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Refuse all field sobriety tests. Flat out. They are inadmissible in court
Click to expand...
Do you have a citation to a case saying the description and results of field sobriety tests are inadmissible? I have to admit that the last DUI case I tried was 30 years ago and things may have changed since then.
 
Last edited:
I did my driver training a long time ago, but was taught if you refused a breath test that your driver license is automatically suspended. Was never sure about FST. And I believe if you said you had a drink at dinner that you could be charged with DWI or something (still bad) so I’m not really sure how to answer that question but I would be silent in that case (you don’t want to get caught lying either).

Does the FAA medical or basic med require a drivers license to exercise flying privileges? Or just a valid ID?

I have found that usually when getting pulled over for speeding, if you’re not being crazy or shouting, then you’ll likely get the lowest speeding penalty or a warning, I’d say it’s a 50/50 chance, experienced both situations more than once. This might because I’m a white male or that I showed a basic level of respect, but who knows. I remember the last time I was using Tesla FSD and it didn’t adjust timely for a mini construction zone 41/40 in a construction zone 25, I got a ticket for 1-9 over in a normal zone, kind of annoyed about that because it didn’t seem fair or properly marked and I was following traffic, but I spoke with a lawyer and his fees were 3x the ticket amount and that I would need to be present in person to get the ticket removed (was traveling). So I just paid it and moved on with a memory of that injustice, from my POV.

I got my car insurance renewal and my rates dropped 10% so not sure if that hit the system or if it will affect my insurance either. I was mostly annoyed that something so minor can potentially cost so much, especially if just paying the fine. I don’t think our tickets or fines and subsequent consequences are necessarily fair either.
 
mandm said:
I have found that usually when getting pulled over for speeding, if you’re not being crazy or shouting, then you’ll likely get the lowest speeding penalty or a warning, I’d say it’s a 50/50 chance, experienced both situations more than once. This might because I’m a white male or that I showed a basic level of respect, but who knows.
Click to expand...
Same experience, basically. I've gotten far more warnings and verbal warnings than tickets by just being "normal". The sober DUI thing really bothers me, though, and it really makes me consider whether I should be as conversant as I'd normally be or just shut up. Maybe it's always been a thing that happens, but it's just getting more attention now? Or maybe other non-alcohol drugs are more prevalent?

The point may be moot as I've only been stopped once in the last 20ish years. I guess I'm old now. :D I've also stopped having more than 1 drink if I know I have to drive.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top