Field Sobriety Tests

[Zeldman]

last time I was called I was excused because they ask this very question. My response was, "if there is a jury trial for a DUI, chances are the defendant is looking at some jail time which tells me this is not his first rodeo."

It has been at least 35 years ago when I was called for jury duty. DUI case. I pretty much said the same thing. The judge asked me to join him and the two lawyers in his office. The judge talked to me about my responsibilities as a citizen on jury duty. Then I was specifically asked me if I could serve on the jury without prejudice. I plainly stated that since this is a jury trial, it is a felony DUI meaning the defendant has been caught before, therefore I would be happy to serve so I can help send him somewhere to get help.

For some strange reason I was dismissed.

Now back then I looked like a redneck beer drinker that lived in a bar, but no mullet. The defense really wanted me on that jury.

 

[Ventucky Red]

I didn’t realize that we were only referring to alcohol related fatal motor vehicle crashes in California; did I miss something?
Sure seems like even with 38% that alcohol related fatals are still behind speeding, careless/ reckless, and distracted driving. Four out of five people can see that. I’m curious if those stats also breakdown the “alcohol related” numbers as far as how many fatal wrecks did not even involve alcohol as a contributing factor. “Figures lie and liars figure”.

Yes they do, the even break it down by city/rural, type of vehicle, yes or no on seat belts etc... The CHP is very anal about this stuff..

So you're still trying to walk back you moronic remark... good on you mate.

Take care of your self,

 

[BrianM]

The three standardized field sobriety tests have been studied extensively and have proven to have a combined accuracy of 91% in detecting a BAC of .08g% or higher. These tests along with someone’s driving clues and physical clues once personal contact is made are all taken into account before someone is arrested for DWI. Don’t drink and drive.

 

[YooperMooney]

Yes they do, the even break it down by city/rural, type of vehicle, yes or no on seat belts etc... The CHP is very anal about this stuff..

So you're still trying to walk back you moronic remark... good on you mate.

Take care of your self,

Wow that’s quite a deranged response. Please know that the State of California is NOT representative of the entire United States of America. There are forty nine (49) other States. My remark still holds true.
Check out this remark: speeding is a victimless crime. Discuss.
I think I should get some sort of advertising credit for spicing up this rag-chewing thread.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Unlike other states, we aren't very aggressive on drivers without licenses. In Virginia, it was criminal and those who were recurrent violators were locked up. Down here, you can get away for a long time. I know someone who has various blocks on her license and it's not slowed her down in the least.

It must depend on the jurisdiction. My Sheriff was nothing like what you described. It might be possible your friend just hasn’t been caught.

 

[FLEXCopMNPD]

You mean, like an inner ear infection that impairs balance? My mother never drank a drop of alcohol in her life. She was once stopped and made to do "stupid human tricks" and failed them. Later she found out about the infection, but not before costing my parents several thousand dollars.

In the end, the deciding factor was that the police refused to collect blood evidence and therefore only had the single FST, which became questionable because of the doctor's report saying "affected her balance". I understand that the arresting officer probably knew she had not been drinking and thought the FST alone would earn him a notch in his gun.

Sounds like the Officer didn't administer the entire FST if you are saying he relied on just the fact she could not maintain balance. Of all the FST tasks the HGN is the most accurate indicator of impairment, but even then you could get false positives with certain medical conditions. The HGN is the first one I give before even thinking about the others. If I get indicators on that test, barring medical conditions, which most people that have them will know prior to. Without knowing all the information in your Mother's case it would be hard to say whether the Officer was appropriate or not. Police don't HAVE TO draw blood or give a breath test, but again, that is entirely jurisdiction dependent. You have the right to ask for one, but it will be at your expense, at least here in TN.

Here in Nashville I have seen people fight a DUI conviction harder than they would a homicide charge. And I agree with those that suggest that the Criminal Justice System has become a money making scheme for both the State and private lawyers. But I suppose that would be a different discussion. lol

I will say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading and being apart of this civil discussion on a topic that has the potential to becoming very emotionally charged.

 

[FLEXCopMNPD]

T It’s the alcoholics that blow 0.35 and can nearly pass a FST that scare me.
Regardless, the 1-2 glass of wine guy who just left the Cheesecake Factory who I pulled over for a burned out taillight doesn’t deserve a $15,000 debt for being a hair over an arbitrarily set BAC level. Plus I don’t want to deal with a court date on my off-day.

While I totally agree with getting Court on your day off sucks, I would argue the assertion that the legal/illegal BAC level is arbitrarily set is incorrect. There have been countless studies conducted to find the "best" limit where the largest population of society would fall into as being impaired. There will always be those outliers that defy logic as to a) how are they not impaired at that level or b) how are they that impaired at that level. I would rather err on the side of caution and have a lower level. If you want to enjoy a few glasses of wine while out for dinner than be responsible enough to find someone else to drive you. Ultimately it is the individuals responsibility to not become a hazard for anyone else.

 

[flyingron]

Originally the PER SE (so-called legal) limit was set high enough that if you had that level you were known to be intoxicated. It was never intended that given other proof of intoxication you weren't able to be convicted at lower levels. Even when my home state (Maryland at the time) had a limit of 0.10, the official advice was "Don't Drive over point Oh Five." Given the MADD furor and that people were relying on a hard number rather than subjective signs of intoxication, the level was pretty much lowered by federal fiat to .08. Note, again, this was never intended to say that you were legal at .07.

 

[steingar]

The three standardized field sobriety tests have been studied extensively and have proven to have a combined accuracy of 91% in detecting a BAC of .08g% or higher. These tests along with someone’s driving clues and physical clues once personal contact is made are all taken into account before someone is arrested for DWI. Don’t drink and drive.

I bet the false positive rate is huge, I myself couldn't pass those things dead sober. A test that generates lots of fall positives is non-discriminatory and therefore useless except to corrupt law enforcement agencies more interested in their earnings than the rights of the citizens they represent.

 

[flyingron]

As I stated, I can fail the HGN just because I'm tired, even if I've not had anything to drink.

 

[FLEXCopMNPD]

As I stated, I can fail the HGN just because I'm tired, even if I've not had anything to drink.

If you are that tired to where your vision mimics being intoxicated I would think it be fair to say you probably shouldn't be driving a motor vehicle. The one study I have seen about being tired had people that had been up for 24 hrs +. Being that fatigued and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not very responsible and is almost as bad as drinking and driving. Has a lot of the same effects, being fatigued, as being intoxicated.

 

[flyingron]

Well, that demonstrates your limited knowledge of physiology. It doesn't take being up for 24 hours for me and is not keyed to my level of alertness. It has been shown to be benign and is not a concern to anybody in the medical profession including several different AMEs I've seen over the years.

HGN (by NHTSA's reference documents) is only bout 77% accurate in determining impairment and that there are quote: "there are numerous neurological, medical and eyes conditions that could cause the onset of nystagmus—which is something only a doctor, not a police officer, could determine."

 

[flyingron]

It must depend on the jurisdiction. My Sheriff was nothing like what you described. It might be possible your friend just hasn’t been caught.

Nope, she's been caught. Perhaps the LEO on this side of the state are different than yours, but boy it's a whole lot different than what I observed up in Virginia. If you were caught driving while knowingly revoked up there you could guarantee on at least eight days in jail (suspended down from 60). Here it takes a lot of abuse before they'll even run you down to the station.

 

[FLEXCopMNPD]

Well, that demonstrates your limited knowledge of physiology. It doesn't take being up for 24 hours for me and is not keyed to my level of alertness. It has been shown to be benign and is not a concern to anybody in the medical profession including several different AMEs I've seen over the years.

HGN (by NHTSA's reference documents) is only bout 77% accurate in determining impairment and that there are quote: "there are numerous neurological, medical and eyes conditions that could cause the onset of nystagmus—which is something only a doctor, not a police officer, could determine."

Then I guess you would be one of those people that would fit into the "exception policy" and are cognizant of the fact that you would give a false positive. I feel it would be safe to assume that you would definitely notify any Officer you encounter that you have that condition so they could take that into consideration.

And I appreciate you editing your post, even though I have never claimed to know anything about physiology. I can only speak for my training and the 25 years of law enforcement experience I have. I have seen the results of someone driving fatigued. Not much different from being intoxicated with regards to reaction time, decision making ability, etc.

As for driving with license privileges revoked or cancelled I am sure that is dependent on the jurisdiction you are caught in. The county/city I work has such a high volume in the court system that sadly crimes such as driving offenses are not punished as harshly as some of the outlying counties that don't handle as much volume. Some of those counties really sock it to driving offenders.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Wow that’s quite a deranged response. Please know that the State of California is NOT representative of the entire United States of America. There are forty nine (49) other States. My remark still holds true.
Check out this remark: speeding is a victimless crime. Discuss.
I think I should get some sort of advertising credit for spicing up this rag-chewing thread.

I think is safe to say the California is pretty representative on the country...

In 2018 there were a total of 36,560 "driving deaths" in the US. In 2018 there were 10,511 people killed in alcohol related crashes in the US... quick math, that is about 1 an hour or about 30% How about we increase the odds in the favor of the innocent driver/family by making it something like 1 every 10 hours..

Of course you may not see the sanity in this as your take is the drunk driving is a victimless crime.

 

[flyingron]

Then I guess you would be one of those people that would fit into the "exception policy" and are cognizant of the fact that you would give a false positive. I feel it would be safe to assume that you would definitely notify any Officer you encounter that you have that condition so they could take that into consideration.

I am fortunate to have been stopped under such suspicion once, and I did submit to the FSTs. What I was doing that attracted attention was innocent enough. I was trying to make a left turn into a shopping center (it was admittedly late at night) and I was having a hard time determining where the entrance to the center was. So while it appeared that I was swerving in and out of the turn lane, what it was is that I started to position for the left turn and then realized that I needed to drive up the road (in the main traffic lane) a little further before I could attempt the turn.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Nope, she's been caught. Perhaps the LEO on this side of the state are different than yours, but boy it's a whole lot different than what I observed up in Virginia. If you were caught driving while knowingly revoked up there you could guarantee on at least eight days in jail (suspended down from 60). Here it takes a lot of abuse before they'll even run you down to the station.

That’s crazy.

 

[YooperMooney]

I think is safe to say the California is pretty representative on the country...

In 2018 there were a total of 36,560 "driving deaths" in the US. In 2018 there were 10,511 people killed in alcohol related crashes in the US... quick math, that is about 1 an hour or about 30% How about we increase the odds in the favor of the innocent driver/family by making it something like 1 every 10 hours..

Of course you may not see the sanity in this as your take is the drunk driving is a victimless crime.

I believed it was 25% and you claim 2018 stats that indicate 30%. Okay wow I was off by 5% in regards to 2018 numbers big deal.
Only a bone head wouldn’t be able to figure out that when a sleepy/distracted/drunk/hazardous driver causes injury that there IS a victim. My point remains: the punishment for DUI is not even close to other hazardous motorist behaviours.
Edit: I can’t sit quiet about your remark about California being representative of nation. Please tell me that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. 98% (49) of the States do not agree.

 

[Ventucky Red]

I believed it was 25% and you claim 2018 stats that indicate 30%. Okay wow I was off by 5% in regards to 2018 numbers big deal.
Only a bone head wouldn’t be able to figure out that when a sleepy/distracted/drunk/hazardous driver causes injury that there IS a victim. My point remains: the punishment for DUI is not even close to other hazardous motorist behaviours.
Edit: I can’t sit quiet about your remark about California being representative of nation. Please tell me that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. 98% (49) of the States do not agree.

So let me ask you, are you now thinking twice about getting behind the wheel again after you have had a few drinks with the hefty fines and other things you had to do to satisfy the courts? Or are you going to be smart the next time and grab a cab or use Uber/Lyft, and going to tell you friends it is not worth it?

I say this because you sure as hell sound like someone that got pinched and are now ****ed off about it. Because there was no victim... except you.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

"Victimless" still rankles me, though. The accident chain began with the decision to drive while impaired, something that is always avoidable. It's hard to come up with a scenario in which someone had no choice but to drive while intoxicated.

I think “victimless” gets applied because the mere act of driving a car on a public street while intoxicated does not necessarily harm anyone else. And people focus on that label because of cases where someone is charged with a DUI improperly and the standards used are subject to abuse, as noted by many in this thread.

That is of course sort of a over-simplification because it is well established that driving with a BAC above certain limits substantially increases the odds that the driver will hurt someone else.

Sort of an interesting political theoretical question. How dangerous does someone else’s activity have to be to another to justify the other or the state on their behalf coercively intervening before the damage is done?

The standard with respect to using lethal force in self defense is fairly well established. In other areas, less so, and I do think that we have had in our society generally a drift toward a lesser and lesser threat or clarify of threat being used to justify coercion by the state.

OTOH, I think it is fairly clear cut in the case of drunk driving above a certain BAC.

 

[YooperMooney]

So let me ask you, are you now thinking twice about getting behind the wheel again after you have had a few drinks with the hefty fines and other things you had to do to satisfy the courts? Or are you going to be smart the next time and grab a cab or use Uber/Lyft, and going to tell you friends it is not worth it?

I say this because you sure as hell sound like someone that got pinched and are now ****ed off about it. Because there was no victim... except you.

I have a clean driving record; I can’t have such crap on my record to maintain my employment. Doesn’t look good in court if my driving record is worse than the defendant.
I rarely drink but I would have no problem getting behind the wheel after a couple beers. That’s because I’m able to just have a couple beers, continue chatting it up for another hour or so, pee a couple times, and roll on out.
I don’t have the solution to the underlying issue with alcohol and driving under the influence; I was just pointing out the extreme difference in punishment for similar hazardous activities. People that are extremely drunk pose an incredible risk to create “victims”. Same goes for those who are incredibly sleepy or distracted, etc. Risk does not guarantee an upset.

 

[RJM62]

I think “victimless” gets applied because the mere act of driving a car on a public street while intoxicated does not necessarily harm anyone else. And people focus on that label because of cases where someone is charged with a DUI improperly and the standards used are subject to abuse, as noted by many in this thread.

That is of course sort of a over-simplification because it is well established that driving with a BAC above certain limits substantially increases the odds that the driver will hurt someone else.

Sort of an interesting political theoretical question. How dangerous does someone else’s activity have to be to another to justify the other or the state on their behalf coercively intervening before the damage is done?

The standard with respect to using lethal force in self defense is fairly well established. In other areas, less so, and I do think that we have had in our society generally a drift toward a lesser and lesser threat or clarify of threat being used to justify coercion by the state.

OTOH, I think it is fairly clear cut in the case of drunk driving above a certain BAC.

Sometimes the best we have is probability. The probability is that a person impaired enough to be incapable of competently controlling their vehicle will eventually hit someone or something, so I have no issues at all with stops precipitated by erratic driving.

I'm less-supportive of the random roadblocks. I grudgingly tolerate them if they're done with a minimum of disruption to a sober person's movements, but that's mainly because I'm also familiar with the aftermath of drunk driving. It's a case of informed pragmatism overriding my libertarian tendencies.

Rich

 

[RJM62]

I have a clean driving record; I can’t have such crap on my record to maintain my employment. Doesn’t look good in court if my driving record is worse than the defendant.
I rarely drink but I would have no problem getting behind the wheel after a couple beers. That’s because I’m able to just have a couple beers, continue chatting it up for another hour or so, pee a couple times, and roll on out.
I don’t have the solution to the underlying issue with alcohol and driving under the influence; I was just pointing out the extreme difference in punishment for similar hazardous activities. People that are extremely drunk pose an incredible risk to create “victims”. Same goes for those who are incredibly sleepy or distracted, etc. Risk does not guarantee an upset.

My impression from talking to my younger relatives who live in more-populated places is that texting while driving is becoming socially unacceptable. They all seem to know someone who died that way, which drove home the risks to the point that they don't do it. I don't know if they're "typical" young people or not.

I don't know any people my own age who text while driving, probably because we weren't raised with the idea that always being connected was normal, much less necessary.

Where I live it's less of an issue because there are so many stretches of road that have no signal anyway, and those sections that do have become de facto "text stops." People have no choice but to pull over and stop because the signal will disappear a hundred yards or so down the road. Some of these pull-offs have actually been signed as such after becoming de facto text stops by common usage.

Tickets for most other forms of "distraction," such as drinking a cup of coffee while driving, smack of quota stops to me. Adding milk and sugar while driving might qualify as distraction; but simply sipping a beverage or munching on a snack, not so much.

Fatigue is not the same as DUI because in most cases, there are no elements of deliberation or intentionality involved. A person who felt fine at the beginning of a trip can become fatigued while driving. In that case, if the driver is amenable, an escort to the nearest safe area to take a nap makes more sense than an arrest or forcible detention.

Rich

 

[FLEXCopMNPD]

Fatigue is not the same as DUI because in most cases, there are no elements of deliberation or intentionality involved.

Rich

What I meant by fatigue being similar to DUI is physiological. The effects of being fatigued, not just simply tired, has been shown to be similar in nature and function to being chemically impaired, whether it be drugs, alcohol, or even a combo of the two. There have been recent studies conducted that have shown reaction times, decision making ability, risk acceptance, etc to be very similar and almost indistinguishable between fatigued persons and intoxicated persons. It was a really interesting study. I would not have considered a fatigued driver as potentially dangerous as an impaired driver prior to that training.

 

[YooperMooney]

Here is a fresh 2020 HS graduate doing the dance at this exact moment: