How to handle a stop for suspected DUI?

[steam wright]

Hi everyone,

First post here so I apologize if this is in the incorrect section or if it has been answered before. Last night I was pulled over for suspected DUI. This happened in Dallas, TX if that is useful information. I'm a recreational pilot so losing my ticket would not be a career ending event but would have sucked big time nevertheless. It all ended happily, but I was doing some reading today on various advice on what to do and not to do and it turns out I went completely against the advice out there. So in case this ever happens again I want to make sure I do what is appropriate.

So let me back up. Yes, I was at a restaurant and bar and had a drink or two. When I left at about midnight the cop says he followed me to the highway onramp and that I drew attention to myself with a high acceleration down the onramp onto the highway. I always do that unfortunately just a habit of mine. I then merged with traffic and was going at the same speed as everyone else when a few minutes later the lights lit up behind me. I took the next offramp and found a safe place to stop then had my license and insurance all ready for him with the window open before he got to my door.

The officer started off by saying he pulled me over for speeding. He was leaning in quite close I think trying to get a good whiff of whatever I had going on in the car. I was very polite and admitted I didn't even know how fast I was going and that I was just following the traffic and I could very well have been speeding. He asked some sarcastic question about whether my speedometer was broken and I just said no sorry I just wasn't paying attention. He then asked me if I'd been drinking. All the internet based advice today I saw says to decline to answer any further questions. I did not feel intoxicated or drunk but of course didn't know for sure. I went ahead and told him yes I've been drinking. He asked how many, how long, where I was coming from, etc. I answered all these questions as politely as I could. He then said he was going to do a field sobriety test. I agreed to do it (again the advice out there is to not do this) but was thinking that if he went any further like wanting to do a breathalyzer test or more that I would decline. He waved a blue light in my eyes and told me to track it without moving my head which I did.

I was convinced he was going to take it further, but like I said earlier it ended happily. His tone totally changed and he explained to me that he was just looking for people who are drinking in excess and then driving and that in future I should probably not draw attention to myself by ripping down the onramp at midnight. I didn't get a speeding ticket.

So in retrospect how should I have handled this? If I had followed the advice online I may very well have got myself arrested. He was quite aggressive when he pulled me over. If I had shut up and refused to talk I think there is a good chance I would have been taking a ride in the back of his car.

I hope this never happens again but some advice from any knowledgeable individuals would be appreciated.

 

[evapilotaz]

Get a designated Driver next time. Enough Said.

 

[frcabot]

Hi everyone,

First post here so I apologize if this is in the incorrect section or if it has been answered before. Last night I was pulled over for suspected DUI. This happened in Dallas, TX if that is useful information. I'm a recreational pilot so losing my ticket would not be a career ending event but would have sucked big time nevertheless. It all ended happily, but I was doing some reading today on various advice on what to do and not to do and it turns out I went completely against the advice out there. So in case this ever happens again I want to make sure I do what is appropriate.

So let me back up. Yes, I was at a restaurant and bar and had a drink or two. When I left at about midnight the cop says he followed me to the highway onramp and that I drew attention to myself with a high acceleration down the onramp onto the highway. I always do that unfortunately just a habit of mine. I then merged with traffic and was going at the same speed as everyone else when a few minutes later the lights lit up behind me. I took the next offramp and found a safe place to stop then had my license and insurance all ready for him with the window open before he got to my door.

The officer started off by saying he pulled me over for speeding. He was leaning in quite close I think trying to get a good whiff of whatever I had going on in the car. I was very polite and admitted I didn't even know how fast I was going and that I was just following the traffic and I could very well have been speeding. He asked some sarcastic question about whether my speedometer was broken and I just said no sorry I just wasn't paying attention. He then asked me if I'd been drinking. All the internet based advice today I saw says to decline to answer any further questions. I did not feel intoxicated or drunk but of course didn't know for sure. I went ahead and told him yes I've been drinking. He asked how many, how long, where I was coming from, etc. I answered all these questions as politely as I could. He then said he was going to do a field sobriety test. I agreed to do it (again the advice out there is to not do this) but was thinking that if he went any further like wanting to do a breathalyzer test or more that I would decline. He waved a blue light in my eyes and told me to track it without moving my head which I did.

I was convinced he was going to take it further, but like I said earlier it ended happily. His tone totally changed and he explained to me that he was just looking for people who are drinking in excess and then driving and that in future I should probably not draw attention to myself by ripping down the onramp at midnight. I didn't get a speeding ticket.

So in retrospect how should I have handled this? If I had followed the advice online I may very well have got myself arrested. He was quite aggressive when he pulled me over. If I had shut up and refused to talk I think there is a good chance I would have been taking a ride in the back of his car.

I hope this never happens again but some advice from any knowledgeable individuals would be appreciated.

If you were over .08 then you deserved to get arrested. If you only had a drink or two then it would be pretty near impossible for you to be over the limit unless you weigh about 100 lbs. http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html

He probably would have required you to breathalyze before arresting you. If you really only had a drink or two you should have passed the breathalyzer with flying colors. The field sobriety test is far more subjective and as ******* cop can claim you failed when you didn't. As a lawyer, if I was sure I only had a drink or two, I would ask for the breathalyzer directly and not do the sobriety test. The breathalyzer doesn't lie.

To avoid in the future? Don't drink and drive.

Edit: here's a better chart. http://easytexasdefensivedriving.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bacchart.jpg
This is immediately after consuming. Passage of time obviously decreases BAC.

Re not answering questions. Totally legal, however all the cop needs to arrest you is probable cause. If he can smell alcohol on your breath and you appear intoxicated or your driving is erratic, you can be arrested for DUI even if you refuse a breathalyzer test or field sobriety test. After being arrested they will likely try to obtain a warrant to draw your blood. In many states refusing to take a breathalyzer = immediate administrative loss of license for a period of time! even if you weren't intoxicated.

If you really ARE over the legal limit, then you're an idiot. Best chance is to avoid answering questions,refuse the field sobriety test, let yourself be arrested, refuse the chemical tests (urine, blood, breathalyzer) and let the cops try and get a warrant. That all takes time and there's a possibility that by the time your blood is drawn (if it ultimately is) your BAC will have decreased to below the legal limit. In which case you'll lose your license, you may/will be charged, but you may also escape conviction (many states have presumptions whereby a refusal to take a breathalyzer/blood test is evidence of consciousness of guilt which the jury can consider in determining whether you were under the influence). But again, this is so idiotic. Just don't drive. It's not worth the thousands of dollars in lawyers fees, court costs, loss of license (driver and pilot), potential loss of employment, potential prison time, etc. Not to mention you put yourself and others at risk.

 

[frcabot]

By the way, there are TONS of examples of people who allegedly "failed" field sobriety tests and when their blood was drawn ended up having no drugs and no alcohol in their system. The field sobriety tests are totally subjective and many cops will claim you failed even if you think you passed with flying colors. If I was sure I was below the legal limit, I would simply say "sir, I don't want to take the field sobriety test but I would be happy to take a breathalyzer test." Also, often times cops don't have a breathalyzer in their car so they need to call another unit out or take you to the police station, which takes some time and may get you below the limit. A blood test is even more accurate and takes even more time, so that might be even better if you thought you were teetering on the edge of a 0.08. Keep in mind you can be charged with DUI in most states (if not all) even if below the per se (0.08) limit.

 

[frcabot]

Also just to emphasize again I am NOT condoning driving under the influence. I personally have never been stopped or suspected of DUI, or driven when I thought I was impaired or had more than a drink or two. It is stupid and inexcusable. Don't do it.

 

[jesse]

By the way, there are TONS of examples of people who allegedly "failed" field sobriety tests and when their blood was drawn ended up having no drugs and no alcohol in their system. The field sobriety tests are totally subjective and many cops will claim you failed even if you think you passed with flying colors. If I was sure I was below the legal limit, I would simply say "sir, I don't want to take the field sobriety test but I would be happy to take a breathalyzer test." Also, often times cops don't have a breathalyzer in their car so they need to call another unit out, which takes some time and may get you below the limit.

Bad advice if you live in a state that requires a chemical test to convict you for a DUI. In that case, you're better off taking the field sobriety test first. You might just "trick" the officer into thinking you are fine. If you fail they still need to do the real test.

Know your state laws. Universal advice does not apply state to state.

 

[JeffDG]

Bad advice if you live in a state that requires a chemical test to convict you for a DUI. In that case, you're better off taking the field sobriety test first. You might just "trick" the officer into thinking you are fine. If you fail they still need to do the real test.

Know your state laws. Universal advice does not apply state to state.

The issue is, the FST will be used as the probable cause for obtaining a warrant for a blood test. Absent the FST, you can potentially challenge the blood test and have it declared inadmissible if it was taken without PC.

 

[jesse]

The issue is, the FST will be used as the probable cause for obtaining a warrant for a blood test. Absent the FST, you can potentially challenge the blood test and have it declared inadmissible if it was taken without PC.

They don't need a warrant for a chemical test in the State of Nebraska. Once again, you need to know your state laws. The best way to proceed varies dramatically from state to state.

If they have enough cause to have you do a field sobriety test they have enough cause to require you take a chemical test, in Nebraska.

 

[JeffDG]

They don't need a warrant for a chemical test in the State of Nebraska. Once again, you need to know your state laws. The best way to proceed varies dramatically from state to state.

If they have enough cause to have you do a field sobriety test they have enough cause to require you take a chemical test, in Nebraska.

Whether they need a warrant or not, they do need probable cause.

They can't require a FST at all. That's purely a request. If you refuse to do so, you do not provide them with PC for a blood test. If you consent, however, you've waived your rights at that point, and as mentioned, they can make the FST say whatever they want, and you've effectively waived your right to PC.

 

[Brad Z]

OK, I filtered out some unnecessary words from your post:

I was drinking at a bar and when I left at about midnight, I drew attention to myself with a high acceleration down the onramp onto the highway.

So in retrospect how should I have handled this?

I think you can now answer your own question.

 

[AdamZ]

First just to be sure a field sobriety test is not a chemical test. They are tests that are used to help the officer determine if there is probable cause to arrest for DUI and request a chemical test. Of course your jurisdiction may differ.

So to answer the question specifically, As Jesse said laws differ from state to state. Which means that:
1) A Criminal Defense attorney from Rhode Island can't tell you what is best practice in Texas.
2) A Divorce attorney from Texas should defer to a criminal defense attorney from Texas.
3) In short don't ever rely on legal advice that you get on this webboard. To get an accurate answer to your question you should consult with a criminal defense attorney who practices in Texas.

 

[jesse]

Whether they need a warrant or not, they do need probable cause.

They can't require a FST at all. That's purely a request. If you refuse to do so, you do not provide them with PC for a blood test. If you consent, however, you've waived your rights at that point, and as mentioned, they can make the FST say whatever they want, and you've effectively waived your right to PC.

Like I said. If they have enough probable cause to pull you over they have enough probable cause to require you take a chemical test. You may pass a field sobriety test at 0.09 whereas you aren't going to pass the chemical test.

It takes essentially zero probable cause to require you to take the chemical test in the State of Nebraska. Nebraska is an "implied consent" state. The moment you take the wheel you've given consent to take the test. I don't like it but that's the way it is.

You will not get a DUI for failing a field sobriety test in the State of Nebraska. You will get one for failing a chemical test. There is a strong possibility that you can pass a field sobriety test and walk away. The officer is hunting for drunks and wasting a substantial portion of his time on someone that might pass is a waste when he can pull the next person over who definitely won't.

 

[jesse]

First just to be sure a field sobriety test is not a chemical test. They are tests that are used to help the officer determine if there is probable cause to arrest for DUI and request a chemical test. Of course your jurisdiction may differ.

So to answer the question specifically, As Jesse said laws differ from state to state. Which means that:
1) An Criminal Defense attorney from Rhode Island can't tell you what is be practice in Texas.
2) A Divorce attorney from Texas should defer to a criminal defense attorney from Texas.
3) In short don't ever rely on legal advice that you get on this webboard. To get an accurate answer to your question you should consult with a criminal defense attorney who practices in Texas.

What Adam says. Things vary dramatically from state to state.

 

[docmirror]

First, I would like to welcome the new guy here. I'm a bit disgusted with the moralizing already in this thread about someone who came here specifically for info on how to handle something, with a decent explanation of a situation we can all find ourselves in.

Now, on to cases. Since you are in TX, here's a decent link regarding the FST.

http://www.austin-texas-dwi.com/parts/fst.htm

Beyond that, it's best to fall back on the old tried and true; "Do not talk to police!". This goes for a DWI/DUI stop as well. "Am I under arrest? Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" If any of these, the next word is "lawyer". Barring that, if you want to verbally spar with the traffic cop, anything you say, do, or even how you act will get you arrested.

Factors that I, and only I think are important. If you are arrested based on FST only: The next test you are asked for will be a breathalizer. If you refuse, you face a 90 day suspension of your license. Note that this is a suspension, not revocation and not an admission of guilt to DWI, but something different called implied consent. After that, you will be processed, and will be given a blood or urine test. If you are given a choice, always go for the blood test. It takes longer to set up, and is far, far more accurate. If you fail the blood test, you are toast. Next, a refusal to cooperate by law cannot be a factor in the cops decision to press forward. Of course, this is the book law, and the case law is entirely different. Once you begin to refuse to help convict yourself, you start to look and sound guilty. The best bet is to clearly state to the LEO that you are not willing to assist in the process of arresting and convicting yourself, despite not being guilty of anything.

I am NOT a lawyer. I have been arrested several times(no DWI, thank goodness), I have a perfect no conviction and no nolo plea record. Because I'm careful when dealing with LEO. We don't chat, we don't dialogue, we don't jabber. I smile, hand over the required papers, and keep asking "am I free to go?". Once in while, you'll be arrested, but every time, you'll be let go when the PA realizes that there is nothing to go on.

YMMV, don't try this at home, objects in mirror, pro driver on a closed course, may cause anal leakage.

 

[frcabot]

Like I said. If they have enough probable cause to pull you over they have enough probable cause to require you take a chemical test. You may pass a field sobriety test at 0.09 whereas you aren't going to pass the chemical test.

It takes essentially zero probable cause to require you to take the chemical test in the State of Nebraska. Nebraska is an "implied consent" state. The moment you take the wheel you've given consent to take the test. I don't like it but that's the way it is.

You will not get a DUI for failing a field sobriety test in the State of Nebraska. You will get one for failing a chemical test. There is a strong possibility that you can pass a field sobriety test and walk away. The officer is hunting for drunks and wasting a substantial portion of his time on someone that might pass is a waste when he can pull the next person over who definitely won't.

All a cop needs to pull you over is a reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is a higher standard meaning more likely than not that you're guilty.

 

[acrophile]

If you only had a drink or two then it would be pretty near impossible for you to be over the limit unless you weigh about 100 lbs.

Depends. If you're referring to a US "standard drink", then yes. A standard drink has about the amount of alcohol in one sixth of a bottle of wine. But a beverage served in a restaurant or bar might contain two or three times as much alcohol as a standard drink.

Saying you just now had "a drink or two" gives the impression you had more: if it had really been only one or two, you'd probably remember which it was. On the other hand, OP might have meant they had one beverage with a possible content of one or two standard drinks.

 

[frcabot]

I don't think the moralizing is uncalled for. The easiest way to handle a DUI or DWI stop is to avoid the situation that gets you stopped in the first place. Many if not most people have never been stopped for a suspected DUI.

 

[flyingron]

Understand there is NO such thing as a legal limit. .08 is only the per se limit where the police don't actually have to show evidence of intoxication. You are presumed to be intoxicated at that point. You CAN be convicted for DUI at lower levels.

If you have been drinking, declining to do the FSTs is probably a good idea. They are voluntary and exist NOT for exculpating you but to collect evidence against you. Of course, the cops will probably just arrest you anyhow. Probable cause isn't much, they probably had that before they stopped you.

A pilot probably should NOT decline the chemical test (even in states where that is an option). The FAA, in the light of a refusal, assumes you're highly intoxicated or otherwise developed alcohol resistance and will make the subsequent medical certificate action much more severe.

 

[steam wright]

frcabot, thank you, I was not drunk. I knew for sure I was not drunk. What I was more concerned about is having a bad experience with a bad cop who somehow convinces himself that I need to be taken in and tested. I am 100% confident that if I'd had a blood test I would have been well under the limit. I get what you're saying but implying I was drunk is not right.

Ripping down an onramp at midnight was dumb in retrospect especially coming from a bar/restaurant area (75 and Knox/Henderson for those of you who know). But I'm not some drunk just wanted some advice on the best way to handle these kinds of situations. He would have pulled me over if I had no drinks at all, he didn't like my burst of speed.

I do appreciate the info everyone.

 

[JeffDG]

Like I said. If they have enough probable cause to pull you over they have enough probable cause to require you take a chemical test. You may pass a field sobriety test at 0.09 whereas you aren't going to pass the chemical test.

They don't NEED probable cause to pull you over, they need reasonable suspicion, a much lower bar, and not only that, they need reasonable suspicion that you've done something, not that you are DUI. In order to demand a blood sample, they need the higher burden of probable cause, and they need that PC to be for DUI. Just because you didn't signal a lane change doesn't mean they can take a blood sample.

 

[Shawn]

I will first say that if you drink and drive drunk, you deserve what you get...now with that said, I head a lecture from an actual police officer talking to folks on their rights and how to protect themselves. Many of us will go to dinner and have a drink or two like the OP...and for a good amount of the population that would typically not be enough to impair judgement, especially with a meal. In this exact type of situation his advice was to NEVER admit to drinking, even if it is truly a drink or two. You are NOT under oath when being questioned by an officer. You will NEVER be able to talk your way out of anything, only give the officer information to use against you to build his case.The logic being that as soon as you admit to having ONE drink, you essentially admit to DWI...DUI is the "legal limit" in your state and where the real consequences begin, but Driving While Intoxicated can happen at any limit and the officer is gonna try and push and see if you are a DUI.

I believe in being friendly and courteous to diffuse the situation, but be careful what you volunteer when talking.

If you keep your mouth shut it is on the officer to prove otherwise through probable suspicion then a field sobriety and/or blood test when you are pulled over on a bogus charge while they are fishing for a DUI.

 

[jesse]

They don't NEED probable cause to pull you over, they need reasonable suspicion, a much lower bar, and not only that, they need reasonable suspicion that you've done something, not that you are DUI. In order to demand a blood sample, they need the higher burden of probable cause, and they need that PC to be for DUI. Just because you didn't signal a lane change doesn't mean they can take a blood sample.

Nebraska requires they have reasonable cause to arrest you for a DUI at which point you must do the chemical test. They can say they smelled alcohol or whatever else they dream up that is just an opinion you can't challenge later. You're not going to get it tossed if you fail the chemical test that you must take as the officer needs essentially nothing to make the arrest in the first place.

If the officer asks you to do a field sobriety test around here and you say no you will be arrested and then you will do the chemical test. I don't like it but that's how it is.

You're pretty screwed if you put yourself in this situation to begin with. I personally believe with the way our laws are written and the way the cases play out that you are generally best off taking a swing at the field sobriety test here. Do whatever you'd like when you get pulled over in Nebraska

 

[JeffDG]

Nebraska requires they have reasonable cause to arrest you for a DUI at which point you must do the chemical test. They can say they smelled alcohol or whatever else they dream up that is just an opinion you can't challenge later. You're not going to get it tossed if you fail the chemical test that you must take as the officer needs essentially nothing to make the arrest in the first place.

If the officer asks you to do a field sobriety test around here and you say no you will be arrested and then you will do the chemical test. I don't like it but that's how it is.

Actually, they need probable cause to arrest you. That's the basic standard. If they ask you to do a FST, they don't have PC yet, otherwise they wouldn't bother with the FST. The purpose of the FST is to establish PC for arrest/blood draw.

If they infer guilt from your refusal to consent to an FST, that's a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Same thing if they infer guilt or PC from your refusal to answer questions.

Can you stop the cop from lying about smelling alcohol? Nope. But at the least, if you don't give them the extra evidence, you can argue probable cause before a judge, and if the judge decides they didn't have PC, the chemical test isn't worth the paper it's printed on with respect to securing your conviction.

You're pretty screwed if you put yourself in this situation to begin with. I personally believe with the way our laws are written and the way the cases play out that you are generally best off taking a swing at the field sobriety test here. Do whatever you'd like when you get pulled over in Nebraska

Meh...I drink so little it's never been an issue for me. A dozen beer will last months in my fridge for example.

 

[rbridges]

Bad advice if you live in a state that requires a chemical test to convict you for a DUI. In that case, you're better off taking the field sobriety test first. You might just "trick" the officer into thinking you are fine. If you fail they still need to do the real test.

Know your state laws. Universal advice does not apply state to state.

that's what I was wondering. I live in GA, but I thought you had to have a breathalyzer or blood test to confirm DUI. In the OP's case, it ended the situation. I would think declining the test would lead to going downtown and getting more tests done.

 

[deltaindia]

Not sure about other states, but in NJ even a portable breathalyzer carried in a cop car is something that you have to agree to be tested with.

The lawyer advice I got after my DUI arrest (which is extensively covered in a thread here in the medical section with lots of moralizing comments) was:

1.) Never admit to drinking anything if asked. You don't have to tell them where you came from, where you're going. Nothing.
2.) Never agree to the field test (light in eyes, standing on one leg, walking toe to heel)
3.) Never agree to a portable breathalyzer test (these are not held to the same high calibration standards that a unit in the station is)

Of course, doing all these things may make the officer a bit more irritated and label you as someone who's either been down the DUI road before, or is an arrogant legal expert.

Politely explain to the officer that you know you are not obligated to do any of those things but are willing to go do the station for an official breathalyzer and/or blood test. Say nothing else about your night and activities. He/she will often try to ask you probing, indirect questions. It's all going on record, so politely decline to answer anything that could hurt your case - if it comes down to an arrest.

If it comes to it in court, they will only have the breath test(or blood test), produced by following strict protocole during the testing. There will be no other evidence the cop can use against you (except the reason he pulled you over).

Sometimes these protocols that the officer needs to follow can be challenged and the case gets tossed. Sometimes not, and the DUI sticks...

 

[dell30rb]

I'm glad things ended well for you, obviously you were not drunk or this would have ended differently. Being polite and cooperating is the best thing you can do unless the officer is requesting a search he does not have cause or a warrant for etc... Typically if you are stopped for speeding or any other violation the officer has probable cause to perform a sobriety test.

Reminds me of a time in college we had a designated driver for our boat, a buddy of ours who we all knew had a minor case of dyslexia and had extra time on tests etc... So of course we get stopped by the first cop that sees a bunch of young guys on a boston whaler for a 'safety inspection'. Well after the safety inspection is passed, a sobriety test is promptly begun on our 100% sober DD. When the cop asked our dyslexic friend to say his ABC's backwards things got really interesting. It started with a snicker or two, then we were all laughing so hard, i'm sure the officer thought we were all on drugs.

That ended well too, after a little explaining.

We didn't make it 500 yards before being pulled over by the next officer (definitely profiled) That also ended well but shows what happens if police don't need probable cause to stop you.

 

[RoscoeT]

You CAN be convicted for DUI at lower levels.

Never heard of that. Not the case in my state. I've known people who got arrested on suspicion, hauled downtown for the official breathalyzer, blew a .07, cop says "damn" (as in I wasn't able to nail your ass), and they walk out of there.

 

[JeffDG]

Typically if you are stopped for speeding or any other violation the officer has probable cause to perform a sobriety test.

Um...no.

If you are speeding, the officer has probable cause to cite you for speeding. Unless you want to claim that those who are driving over the speed limit are probably drunk. I am aware of no statistical link between speeding and drunkenness, and I've been known to have a heavy foot from time to time, and I really don't drink.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

The requirement, found in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search or recieve a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for arrest) and that evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for search).

So, in order to arrest you for DUI, and thus demand a breath/blood sample, the officer must have evidence that you have actually committed DUI.

 

[comanchepilot]

Bad advice if you live in a state that requires a chemical test to convict you for a DUI. In that case, you're better off taking the field sobriety test first. You might just "trick" the officer into thinking you are fine. If you fail they still need to do the real test.

Know your state laws. Universal advice does not apply state to state.

NEVER take the FST. NEVER speak to the officer about anything.

Greet them politelty and tell them you do not answer investigatory questions. Do not roll down your window when you hand them your DL.

At that point they have you for speeding. No smell. No slurred speech. No admission of drinking. No alcohol on the breath, no smell in the car.

Will you get pulled out of the car? You bet. Get out. Look down [many cops put their leg in your way so you stumble getting out of the car and then they can testify you stumbled. . .. ]

Keep your mouth shut. Don't answer questions. Refuse the FST. Invoke your Fifth Amendment right AGAIN.

Now, you had no stumbling. No slurring of speech. No odor of alcohol [hopefully] and you did not show evidence of intoxication on the FST because you refused it. What are the grounds for arrest again?

Most states require an arrest before you are required to blow.

As for the OP here - what is there to report? Did you get a ticket? Did you get arrested?

So what is there to report on the medical application that you are asking about?

 

[comanchepilot]

Never heard of that. Not the case in my state. I've known people who got arrested on suspicion, hauled downtown for the official breathalyzer, blew a .07, cop says "damn" (as in I wasn't able to nail your ass), and they walk out of there.

Thats silly because if a police officer observes you weaving, or going over lane lines or showing evidence of intoxication . . . .07 shows you were driving under the influence of alcohol but it is not presumptive for being impaired. . . . the other evidence is proof of impairment.

 

[flyingron]

Never heard of that. Not the case in my state. I've known people who got arrested on suspicion, hauled downtown for the official breathalyzer, blew a .07, cop says "damn" (as in I wasn't able to nail your ass), and they walk out of there.

I don't know what state it is but it's not any of the ones around here (or California). Now the officer might not have sufficient evidence to charge a driver without the results over the per se limit, but a .07 coupled with adverse results from the field sobriety tests, etc... can certainly result in a conviction just about anywhere.

I was in GDC in Fairfax County and watched a case with no BAC being tried. It ended up being tossed but it took a concerted effort on the defendant's attorney to challenge all the evidence presented. Frankly, I was not sure how the judge was going to rule on that one, I could have seen it going either way.

 

[comanchepilot]

Nebraska requires they have reasonable cause to arrest you for a DUI at which point you must do the chemical test. They can say they smelled alcohol or whatever else they dream up that is just an opinion you can't challenge later. You're not going to get it tossed if you fail the chemical test that you must take as the officer needs essentially nothing to make the arrest in the first place.

If the officer asks you to do a field sobriety test around here and you say no you will be arrested and then you will do the chemical test. I don't like it but that's how it is.

You're pretty screwed if you put yourself in this situation to begin with. I personally believe with the way our laws are written and the way the cases play out that you are generally best off taking a swing at the field sobriety test here. Do whatever you'd like when you get pulled over in Nebraska

You are mixed up there - the levels are:
Reasonable suspicion a crime has been or is about to be committed
Probable cause to believe a crime has been committed
A Warrant

You should never never never take an FST. Period. They are not designed to 'pass,' they are designed to show evidence of impairment - sometimes whether you are impaired or not. My 79 year old mother in law would show evidence of intoxication without any alcohol. My 20 autistic son likewise would show evidence of intoxication without any consumption of alcohol.

I have done everything I am counseling you to do here and I have NEVER been arrested. Even after consumption of alcohol that day, albeit hours and hours prior to being stopped. By standing on your rights you display the attitude to the officer that he better right - because you intend to deny him the ability to convict you. That generally shows a lack of intoxication right there - since most yahoos admit to drinking 'a little bit' which is an admission you have been drinking. Stupid.

I was stopped once with 3 drunk friends in a car - I had stopped drinking 7 hours earlier. I had two beers at dinner. 7 hours later I was driving home and all of them were drunk. I refused to answer questions, refused the FST, avoided the cops foot, stood in front of his camera, clearly delineated by rights and refusal based on those rights. Got called a smartass Philadelphia lawyer by the police officer, right on tape.

He called over supervisor, I heard the whole conversation . . . from the whats up to the 'so is he intoxicated,' then the discussion about my rights, to 'is he a lawyer?' Then the 'oh, f$*k,' to the supervisor coming over and explaining why I need to cooperate to my 'Sergeant, the only reason your officer pulled me out of line is because I invoked my rights - and I did it clearly. The only probable cause was my invocation of rights. You want to pretend otherwise thats fine - but you will hear from me again."

So anyway - why do you think the cop is talking to you on late night which is traditional for drinking and driving? Deny them the probable cause to arrest you. It is not that hard to develop probable cause, but if you clearly invoke your rights, the facts needed by the officer go up an order of magnitude in order to not see that you are being further investigated for invoking your rights. There are many many cases of which I am aware when that happened a marginal case was sent home. . . . because the cop knows the path he is going down . . . .

 

[flyingron]

They don't need probable cause to give FSTs. Once they have an articulable suspicion of a crime being committed they are allowed to stop your vehicle (and boy Randy Babbitt lucked out on that one). Once you're legally stopped, they're free to go on a legal fishing expedition, but nothing there is mandatory at your part.

Also non-discriminate sobriety checkpoints have been determined to be legal as well (i.e., as long as they stop people without discretion on the police's part as to who they pull in) they can do so.

 

[N801BH]

Hi everyone,

........ and that I drew attention to myself with a high acceleration down the onramp onto the highway. I always do that unfortunately just a habit of mine. I then merged with traffic and was going at the same speed as everyone else.......


The officer started off by saying he pulled me over for speeding. He was leaning in quite close I think trying to get a good whiff of whatever I had going on in the car. I was very polite and admitted I didn't even know how fast I was going and that I was just following the traffic and I could very well have been speeding. He asked some sarcastic question about whether my speedometer was broken and I just said no sorry I just wasn't paying attention. .

Accelerating down an highway entrance ramp is not a crime.. Especially if you get to the end and not have to hit the brakes to blend in with traffic... If you didn't spin the wheels during the accelerating event then how can the charge of speeding convict you..... That fact alone is as subjective as a FST... IMHO...

 

[ron22]

Accelerating down an highway entrance ramp is not a crime.. Especially if you get to the end and not have to hit the brakes to blend in with traffic... If you didn't spin the wheels during the accelerating event then how can the charge of speeding convict you...

Personally I think that is the proper way to get into a freeway. I do it every time.

 

[frcabot]

Personally I think that is the proper way to get into a freeway. I do it every time.

In fact the purpose of an on ramp is to accelerate to freeway speed. Would be pretty hard if cars drove onto the freeway at 30 mph. Other cars would have to slam on the brakes.

 

[flyingron]

Safe speed is subjective but if the officer can articulate the fact that you were driving too fast for conditions that is enough for the stop. You don't have to be found guilty or even written up for whatever infraction the officer says you were doing when he stopped you.

 

[docmirror]

Time for a funny story. Back in the day, I lived in SoCal and we used to go over to Imperial sand dunes in the winter to race around in the sand with buggies. Well, one of my best friends had a brother with a modest case of Cerebral Palsy. He was a heck of a nice guy, and had his unrestricted CA drivers license, but sometimes the palsy just got the better of him. So - we're tootling down the interstate 8, headed east in a caravan of about 4 trucks with trailers. The cops know where we're headed, and usually they were quite cool.

Well, old Bruce was not having a good CP day, and he was number 4 in line back there, and he started doing the weave with the trailer behind a 63 Ford van(which is why we left him in back, just in case). I was watching in the mirror, and beeped to the guy ahead to watch Bruce, so we were all laughing pretty good as he danced around the lanes and median. So a CHP on the other side, does a U turn, and pulls in behind, and we knew what was coming, so all of us pull over en-masse as the cops runs the plate, and gets out of his cruiser, and saunters up to the van.

Bruce was about 6' and wiry but strong as hell, and he rolls the window down and swings his big head in a jittery way over toward the CHP. Then, the cop sorta stumbles back into the lane, and jerks his torso back and almost falls on his ass right there on the I state! We were laughing our asses off as the cop grabs his holster like he's gonna pull his piece. Oh jeez... that was hilarious. Then - Bruce waves his hands in the air and I'm sure he starts in "nont thooot! I habe PPPallseeee!"

Finally, I hopped out of my truck and walked slowly back and had tears running down my face as I approached slowly. The cop was pretty recovered, and we had a nice chat, and he calmed down and had a chuckle too. He said we should have someone else drive, but all we had left for drivers was a GF up in one of the other trucks and she was prolly worse than Bruce. So, anyway he let us go, and said to take it slow, and find another driver on the way home. Bruce took siht for that all weekend, but he was a good sport.. "nont thoot! I habe PPPaaalseeeeeeee!!!!"

 

[acrophile]

Safe speed is subjective but if the officer can articulate the fact that you were driving too fast for conditions that is enough for the stop.

High acceleration (which is what the OP spoke of) doesn't imply high speed, though.

 

[FWTxPilot]

I had a similar situation happen to me, and I got off with a warning. Some of you will think this is stupid, but I will not drive after even half a drink anymore. I take a cab or arrange a dd, but 99% of the time I will let my friends have a good time and be their dd. I know too many who have gotten nailed and spent thousands fighting a case. I have too much to lose to take the risk.