Let's Talk Sober DUI

[Stevea621j]

And that is the problem with allowing civil agencies and boards to use an arrest as determination of guilt, versus actual conviction. In my mind, this is a clear violation of constitutional rights.

I agree. Then go a little deeper and look at our constitutional right for a fair trial if you do get arrested. 95%+ of criminal cases end in a plea deal. Even if it is a bogus arrest, attorneys, judges, and prosecutors will push for a plea deal, threatening maximum punishment if you do inconvenience them by going to trial and get convicted. That is our justice system. Tack on as many charges as they can think of, offer a deal to make all those charges go away, and even most innocent people just plead to something because it is so much easier.

 

[midwestpa24]

I agree. Then go a little deeper and look at our constitutional right for a fair trial if you do get arrested. 95%+ of criminal cases end in a plea deal. Even if it is a bogus arrest, attorneys, judges, and prosecutors will push for a plea deal, threatening maximum punishment if you do inconvenience them by going to trial and get convicted. That is our justice system. Tack on as many charges as they can think of, offer a deal to make all those charges go away, and even most innocent people just plead to something because it is so much easier.

I agree, but even more hate the plea deal process for those that are actually guilty even more. There have been several cases near here lately that I had personal connections to those involved. Cases with pretty serious felony charges, with clear evidence and witnesses, and should have received hefty mandatory prison time, get plead down to a suspended sentence and probation. Even when the person later violates that probation with new charges, again a new plea deal, another suspended sentence, and new probation terms. Our local courts are tied up with repeat offenders, because they refuse to prosecute and sentence those offenders. They could clear the dockets if they would just enforce the laws.

 

[Lindberg]

That whole recite the alphabet backwards? Don’t think I could do it front words now.

That's OK because saying the alphabet backwards isn't a real field sobriety test. And what officers are mostly looking at during the SFST is your behavior and how you react to the tests and how well you can divide your attention. If you've ever tried to get a drunk friend to hold a train of thought, you know what they are looking for for the SFST. It's not a test of IQ or gymnastic ability.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/dwi-detection-and-standardized-field-sobriety-test-sfst-resources

Of course, neither SFSTs, breathalyzers, nor blood tests are 100% accurate and reliable. And guilt isn't the standard for arrest. If either of those things were true, we wouldn't need prosecutors, courts, or juries.

 

[Wagondriver]

I personally have been victimized by corrupt cops. It happened over a period of 30 years. I finally gave up and moved away. My rights were violated on many occasions, if it weren’t for a non corrupt cop in the department that I became friends with, I’d probably be in jail for something I didn’t do.
I spend over $40,000 in attorney fees defending myself from made up charges. Some times the charges were based on incidents that never happened. How do you prove you didnt do something that actually never happened? I was threatened in a voice mail from the sheriff himself. I was told that if I kept turning people in for crimes, That they would cite me for something, stating that citing everyone involved usually resulted in no more problems, or at least no one reported the problems anymore.

I spoke with a high profile attorney to see about going after the sheriffs department. I found out that civil rights violations had a statute of limitations, I was a couple years too late.

Corruption is very real, and in this instance nearly everyone in the department was corrupt. They forced out the ones that weren’t corrupt, that’s why my friend there left, he saw the set up coming and got out after 20 years.

 

[Wagondriver]

I was charged with “crimes” that happened while I was provably out of state. Charge with crimes I knew nothing of. Charged with stalking of a woman I’d never met, didnt know her name, and had never been around. I was able to prove I was not where she said an event took place, case dismissed. But not without taking my guns away for 3 weeks waiting for the hearing, and not without spending several thousand dollars to defend myself.

 

[Darryl Snover]

Don't talk to the police. Even the good ones.

 

[AV8R_87]

How about this guy?

 

[Lindberg]

Don't talk to the police. Even the good ones.

Wow, I must be seriously screwed. I talk to multiple police officers every day.

 

[midwestpa24]

Thought I'd bring this thread back.

Nope, sober DUI arrest never happen...

Investigation finds completely sober drivers charged with OWI, with no tracking system in place

Completely sober Iowa drivers are being arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated, according to a months-long investigation that found no system tracks how often it happens.

www.kcrg.com

Minnesota also had a recent issue with breathalyzer calibrations

Hundreds of DWI cases in doubt after breathalyzer goof

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has ordered law enforcement agencies statewide to inspect and verify their breathalyzer machines after calibration errors made hundreds of DWI tests inadmissible in court. The agency has also suspended use of the devices until they’re reviewed and...

www.mprnews.org

 

[Lindberg]

Nope, sober DUI arrest never happen...

Has anyone ever said that?

Allow me to repeat myself:

Of course, neither SFSTs, breathalyzers, nor blood tests are 100% accurate and reliable. And guilt isn't the standard for arrest. If either of those things were true, we wouldn't need prosecutors, courts, or juries.

 

[TCABM]

Thought I'd bring this thread back.

Nope, sober DUI arrest never happen...

Investigation finds completely sober drivers charged with OWI, with no tracking system in place

Completely sober Iowa drivers are being arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated, according to a months-long investigation that found no system tracks how often it happens.

www.kcrg.com

Minnesota also had a recent issue with breathalyzer calibrations

Hundreds of DWI cases in doubt after breathalyzer goof

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has ordered law enforcement agencies statewide to inspect and verify their breathalyzer machines after calibration errors made hundreds of DWI tests inadmissible in court. The agency has also suspended use of the devices until they’re reviewed and...

www.mprnews.org

I’ll pick on MN since it’s what was brought up, but similar elements exist in most states.
The relevant MN statute includes this element:

(3) the person is under the influence of an intoxicating substance and the person knows or has reason to know that the substance has the capacity to cause impairment;

Sec. 169A.20 MN Statutes

That element means driving under the influence of Sudafed can result in a DWI charge or whatever they call it up there. And that won’t show up on a breathalyzer or tox screen.

Doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it does show bad elements of the law can result in bad things happening to ordinary people.

 

[Velocity173]

Well I don’t know if two fired troopers are the ones to be trusted but it seems Tennessee does have a problem with incentive DUIs.

 

[bluerooster]

Bad Cops doing bad things are a separate thing than sober DUI.

The changes need to be at the FAA.

Bad drivers doing bad things are dangerous to all of us. A co worker started his day at 7 AM, and elected to drive his VW Beetle home at 6 AM the next day. On US 50, near Freeway airport, he drifted out of his lane, onto the paved shoulder, and struck the rear of a garbage truck. Blood tests, sober. Impaired? certainly, lack of sleep. On an undivided street, that could have been an oncoming car on the other side of the center line.

I avoid giving LEO a bad time when stopped, and have a good record of more than fair treatment.

I have friends who hassle cops at every stop, and have mostly received tickets for those stops.

So, had your friend been stopped for some minor infraction prior to the wreck, should he have been arrested for DUI/DWI?

 

[geezer]

His driving would have warranted a stop. He was apparently staggering tired, and was in fact driving with his eyes closed long enough to drift completely off the traffic lanes, onto the shoulder.

If he had been given a citation, he could have defended dui, but not driving impaired.

Fortunately, no other driver or passenger was involved.

His wife and daughter, on the other hand...

 

[pfarber]

The labs are backed up to the point where many cases are taking 8-9 months just to get back a result,

If you are going to fight it you can pay any lab for a blood draw and get results in 3 days. Look for Occupational Health clinics... they can do walk ins off the street. It will cost you money but it will prove your not guilty. You can due 2-3 tests at different clinics if you want.

LEO are usually following guidance from higher ups/local gov't. Traffic infractions are a huge money maker for municipalities. I beat 3 speeding tickets by showing the local muni violated state law and changed the posted speed limits.

 

[Lindberg]

Well I don’t know if two fired troopers are the ones to be trusted but it seems Tennessee does have a problem with incentive DUIs.

I saw exactly nothing in there from the higher-ups instructing troopers to arrest innocent people for DUI. And the troopers they interviewed weren't just fired. One was convicted for leaving the scene of a single-car accident (now, why would you do that?), and the other is at risk of losing her license for fixing a DUI for a relative. Not remotely reliable sources, especially when they're contradicted by the evidence that supposedly supports their thesis.

I'm not saying I support quotas, but telling troopers, "We have a problem with sink drivers, you better be making DUI arrests," isn't remotely the same as encouraging them to arrest innocent drivers. Arresting innocent drivers wouldn't address the problem they're trying to fix.....

 

[Velocity173]

I saw exactly nothing in there from the higher-ups instructing troopers to arrest innocent people for DUI. And the troopers they interviewed weren't just fired. One was convicted for leaving the scene of a single-car accident (now, why would you do that?), and the other is at risk of losing her license for fixing a DUI for a relative. Not remotely reliable sources, especially when they're contradicted by the evidence that supposedly supports their thesis.

Yeah I think he was simply saying they have a real DUI problem and need to get as many off the roads as possible. Problem is though, when you’re constantly pressured like that for numbers, I think you’ll have a few a little over zealous trying to get their numbers up. Kinda like command pressure to fly in the military.

 

[Lindberg]

Yeah I think he was simply saying they have a real DUI problem and need to get as many off the roads as possible. Problem is though, when you’re constantly pressured like that for numbers, I think you’ll have a few a little over zealous trying to get their numbers up. Kinda like command pressure to fly in the military.

Over zealous, maybe. But where's the evidence they get points for bogus arrests? I would expect the opposite. If trooper. Bob makes 30 DUI arrests in a month, and 10 of them have 0 BAC, I think he's getting a talking to, not kudos.

 

[Jon Wilder]

Over zealous, maybe. But where's the evidence they get points for bogus arrests? I would expect the opposite. If trooper. Bob makes 30 DUI arrests in a month, and 10 of them have 0 BAC, I think he's getting a talking to, not kudos.

They don’t “get points for bogus arrests”, nor are they told to make bogus arrests. They’re told to “get their numbers up”. Some cops take their numbers seriously and will do anything to get their numbers up…even if it means making bogus arrests.

 

[Lindberg]

They don’t “get points for bogus arrests”, nor are they told to make bogus arrests. They’re told to “get their numbers up”. Some cops take their numbers seriously and will do anything to get their numbers up…even if it means making bogus arrests.

So you keep saying. Maybe you have evidence of that. But the video was allegedly evidence that their superiors were "forcing" them to ruin lives.

 

[wellknow]

The video said the boss was imposing quotas. that inevitably leads to misconduct and false arrests.

 

[Bob Noel]

quotas are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause misconduct and false arrests.

 

[dans2992]

So, for pilots, the guidance is “say no” to field sobriety tests (ie stand on one leg, etc), but go for breathalyzer/blood tests, right?

Field sobriety tests can safely be declined?

 

[Tools]

Well, yes. And don’t do a PBT (preliminary breathalyzer test, a form of a field sobriety test). Once arrested, refusing THOSE TESTS (blood or breath) are what checks the “refusal” box.

And saying ANYTHING can do nothing but hurt you. “I detected a little slur…” counts as a field sobriety test essentially as it gives them a basis to arrest, and now EVEN IF YOU BLEED OR BLOW A ZERO you have been arrested and have to report. For an alcohol event….

 

[Lindberg]

So, for pilots, the guidance is “say no” to field sobriety tests (ie stand on one leg, etc), but go for breathalyzer/blood tests, right?

Field sobriety tests can safely be declined?

Depends what you mean by "safely." The FAA will care about the arrest, and your BAC. If you can flawlessly perform the FST, you might avoid the arrest altogether.

 

[Tools]

Well, what’s “flawlessly”? If you don’t do it, he’s gotta justify the arrest without that subjective little jewel in his pocket. They generally don’t go back and write a report stating how they used a FST to justify not arresting you.

The field sobriety test is to find a reason to arrest you, not let you go. Well, way more than usually. There are exceptions.

Buddy of mine pulled over a Mexican gentleman for slightly speeding or something. Smelled alcohol… How much ya been drinking? NONE!!

Ya sure buddy… out of the car and into a battery of FSTs… which he performs flawlessly! They simply couldn’t find a reason to arrest him but damn… sure could smell the alcohol. Off he drives.

They STILL smell the alcohol. Wha?? Middle of the night, Imperial Valley CA, late 80s. Break out the cop flashlight/searchlight, they were right next to a 200 acre field full of rotting melons! Wups!!

 

[Jon Wilder]

Depends what you mean by "safely." The FAA will care about the arrest, and your BAC. If you can flawlessly perform the FST, you might avoid the arrest altogether.

There is no "flawlessly". Those FSTs are meant for you to fail by design.

FST's are ANY test the officer performs in the field for the establishment of probable cause. The ONLY purpose of FSTs is for the officer to gather sufficient probable cause to arrest. Because of the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, they cannot legally impose consequences for refusing them. So why would you voluntarily give any officer probable cause to arrest?

Now...the argument is "Well if you refuse the FSTs, he's just going to arrest you anyway." He's going to arrest you regardless, even though legally he's not allowed to without probable cause (refusal of the FSTs is insufficient to establish probable cause on its own). The goal isn't to avoid arrest. The goal is to establish a case you can successfully have dismissed, and then file a lawsuit against the arresting agency's governing body (city/county/state). This gives you a leg to stand on to fight the arrest.

The long and short...from the very first question the officer asks ("How are you doing tonight?" "Where you headed to/coming from?" "Do you know why I stopped you?", etc), inform the officer "I'm sorry officer, but I don't answer questions without my lawyer present. I hereby refuse any searches of my vehicle. I wish to exercise my right to remain silent." From that point on, you say nothing. NOT...ONE...WORD.

Now...he can order you to step out of the vehicle (Pennsylvania v. Mimms). He can also perform a limited pat-down for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous (Terry v. Ohio). Let him say whatever he wants. "I smell alcohol/marijuana/whatever"...YOU SAY NOTHING! You've already verbally invoked your 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

Yes the cop may be ****ed. Yes the cop may arrest you. Yada yada yada. He may even intimidate you. Or play the classic "Look I'm just trying to help you", "Help me help you", "I'm just doing my job", "If you don't cooperate I'll...", "I can arrest you for obstruction", etc. Don't buy it (for the record he can't get you for obstruction solely for exercising your rights).

But doing these things is going to give you the ammo to get the whole entire thing dismissed. The judge will find no probable cause. Then you can turn around and sue the **** out of the city/county/state that governs the arresting agency. They can argue qualified immunity all they want. Qualified immunity goes out the window for arrests with no probable cause (5th Circuit Court of Appeals, De La Cruz v. Robinson, which is based on SCOTUS ruling in Malley v. Briggs).

Now...if you are arrested, you will be given the opportunity to conduct a blood, breath, or urine chemical test at the station. Refusal of this test violates implied consent law. This is what the FAA will be looking at. Do this test, this test only, and nothing else.

Bottom line...the goal isn't to avoid arrest. The goal is to establish a case you can successfully have dismissed, and then file a lawsuit against the arresting agency's governing body (city/county/state).

 

[Lindberg]

There is no "flawlessly". Those FSTs are meant for you to fail by design.

FST's are ANY test the officer performs in the field for the establishment of probable cause. The ONLY purpose of FSTs is for the officer to gather sufficient probable cause to arrest. Because of the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, they cannot legally impose consequences for refusing them. So why would you voluntarily give any officer probable cause to arrest?

Now...the argument is "Well if you refuse the FSTs, he's just going to arrest you anyway." He's going to arrest you regardless, even though legally he's not allowed to without probable cause (refusal of the FSTs is insufficient to establish probable cause on its own). The goal isn't to avoid arrest. The goal is to establish a case you can successfully have dismissed, and then file a lawsuit against the arresting agency's governing body (city/county/state). This gives you a leg to stand on to fight the arrest.

The long and short...from the very first question the officer asks ("How are you doing tonight?" "Where you headed to/coming from?" "Do you know why I stopped you?", etc), inform the officer "I'm sorry officer, but I don't answer questions without my lawyer present. I hereby refuse any searches of my vehicle. I wish to exercise my right to remain silent." From that point on, you say nothing. NOT...ONE...WORD.

Now...he can order you to step out of the vehicle (Pennsylvania v. Mimms). He can also perform a limited pat-down for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous (Terry v. Ohio). Let him say whatever he wants. "I smell alcohol/marijuana/whatever"...YOU SAY NOTHING! You've already verbally invoked your 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

Yes the cop may be ****ed. Yes the cop may arrest you. Yada yada yada. He may even intimidate you. Or play the classic "Look I'm just trying to help you", "Help me help you", "I'm just doing my job", "If you don't cooperate I'll...", "I can arrest you for obstruction", etc. Don't buy it (for the record he can't get you for obstruction solely for exercising your rights).

But doing these things is going to give you the ammo to get the whole entire thing dismissed. The judge will find no probable cause. Then you can turn around and sue the **** out of the city/county/state that governs the arresting agency. They can argue qualified immunity all they want. Qualified immunity goes out the window for arrests with no probable cause (5th Circuit Court of Appeals, De La Cruz v. Robinson, which is based on SCOTUS ruling in Malley v. Briggs).

Now...if you are arrested, you will be given the opportunity to conduct a blood, breath, or urine chemical test at the station. Refusal of this test violates implied consent law. This is what the FAA will be looking at. Do this test, this test only, and nothing else.

Bottom line...the goal isn't to avoid arrest. The goal is to establish a case you can successfully have dismissed, and then file a lawsuit against the arresting agency's governing body (city/county/state).

That sounds like a big hassle. I just tell them I'm not driving, I'm traveling, and I didn't have to identify myself because I'm a person, not a corporation.

 

[Dana]

That sounds like a big hassle. I just tell them I'm not driving, I'm traveling, and I didn't have to identify myself because I'm a person, not a corporation.

Not a "sovereign citizen"???