That's because field sobriety tests aren't designed to find out if people are actually impaired, they are designed to give cops a reason to arrest people purely on their own discretion even when they otherwise lack any evidence of wrongdoing. And in doing so it boosts both the local cops and court's funding through mandatory court fines and fees and programs when they hammer down on people too poor to afford a lawyer.
Same with polygraph tests. It's not admissible in court. It's an interrogation tactic designed to give some perceived authority to the police's claims that a suspect is lying and give the suspect a reason to talk more.
I don’t think this it’s worth being reported for asking for a source on this kind of claim. I would argue of a middle ground though. I think field tests origins came from a good intent of trying to distinguish intoxicated drivers but has morphed over the years and used to give reason to search your belongings. I think the original post is wrong, the intent is not to arrest people but they are commonly used as a means to get cause to search your vehicle.
And I don’t have a source, so it’s anecdotal but one of those things where you read enough of these cases and even see how cops are trained that the intent for most stops unrelated to genuine traffic violations is to get cause to search the vehicle.
I think back to some of those corridors within the United States where law enforcement abuse cash forfeiture laws to take peoples money.
I recall that a lawyer who talked about how they were developed and explained how they work, came to that conclusion. The tests are completely subjective, and the way they are graded means that unless you are an Olympic-level athlete, you will fail it. Can you balance on one foot without swaying or puting the other foot down (even when you first start and find your balance), with your eyes closed, for one minute?
Might I suggest that you research it and post what you find.
So whats the solution? 37 people die every day in a crash involving an alcohol impaired driver. Do we think if we inhibit the police's ability to arrest drunk drivers, the world will be a better place? People are clearly not going to stop drinking and driving.
I am neither left nor right, but I feel like I need to say this much more in spaces that heavily lean left -- I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
Two things can be true:
- police should enforce the law to reduce or address crime or infractions
- police should have a standard of enforcement that corresponds with the way the court system should operate, which is that the state carries the burden of proving the crime
The right to demand a blood test or other mechanism of having the state own the burden of proof might be inconvenient but it's integral to a fairly operating system, just like the right to demand a lawyer or representation.
Violent crime like being robbed of your laptop at gunpoint is precisely one of those crimes "police are there to stop". And yet here we have someone who is being entrusted and paid by the public to stop that crime, actually creating more of that crime instead, and then using their privileged position to avoid accountability!
To support the societal belief in law and order, it is much more important to punish the meta issues where the government is itself causing harm. It's not that there should magically be no crime committed by police officers. But rather every single crime should be investigated and prosecuted to the utmost extent.
> inhibit the police's ability to arrest drunk drivers
They have breathalyzers and blood tests. Field sobriety tests are not there to help police arrest drunk drivers, they're there to help police arrest whomever they want to.
> I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
The U.S. is one of the most punishment-happy countries in the world. Nearly every politician vows to be "tough on crime". This is an incredible thing to say given the past 50 years of policing and justice in the U.S. Won't somebody please think of the children!?
> I am neither left nor right
The "center" is constantly moving and has been, on average, shifting far to the right over the last 20 years. Anyone who claims to be a centrist is therefore either changing their politics with the wind, or was far right all along.
> They have breathalyzers and blood tests. Field sobriety tests are not there to help police arrest drunk drivers, they're there to help police arrest whomever they want to.
You're wrong about that. "Sobriety" isn't limited to alcohol. You'll notice that most laws against drunk driving are actually against being "intoxicated" or "impaired". Breathalyzers and blood tests are for gathering indisputable evidence.
Field sobriety tests are there to determine if you're motor skills are impaired. If an officer observers a person driving erratically and they can't walk a straight line or touch their own nose, they shouldn't be driving. You can be arrested for DUI [of sleeping pills].
The only time police would specify a DUI was for alcohol is if a breathalyzer or blood test showed that. Even if the officer says there was a beer can on the floor and they smelled like alcohol, they could be under the legal limit and be on any number of other substances so the DUI wouldn't specify alcohol.
> If an officer observers a person driving erratically and they can't walk a straight line or touch their own nose, they shouldn't be driving.
There are plenty of reasons that someone might not be able to demonstrate this to the subjective opinion of an officer and be completely unimpaired and competent at driving. e.g. people with atypical minds or bodies
Police generally ask people to do these tests when they have already made up their mind about someone being impaired. The only point of the test, practically, is generate standardized documentation. It is a dog and pony show.
Other countries that have serious anti-driving-impairment programs don't use these types of subjective tests -- they test people for using the substances directly.
They'll have an opportunity to prove that in court. I know that's not a great solution (because of the penalties involved in simply being accused of a crime, but that's a different issue) but, remember, they were pulled over for driving erratically and the, through conversation, the officer would gain further reason to ask them to do the test. The problem is the driving, everything after that is evidence gathering.
These days, so much of that will be recorded on video, from the dash cam to the body cam, it's usually cut and dry that the person accused is under the influence of something.
> people with atypical minds or bodies
This is a reasonable concern so I don't want to dismiss it but this isn't even close to the typical situation and, to emphasize, the reason for the stop is usually bad driving and the officer is looking for an explanation. Before a sobriety test is administered, there is already a cause for being pulled over. So people who can't pass a sobriety test because they have a physical or mental reason they can't only have that one piece of evidence against them removed.
I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons.
> I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
Having criminal police is possibly worse than having no police. "First, do no harm" right?
I have tremendous respect for the work that good police do. I support laws that have higher penalties for crimes against police and other public workers. But respect is a two-way street. I also support higher penalties for crimes committed by police and other public workers.
The police aren't stopping the crime, therefore the police need to be reformed.
And note that “involving” is very much not the same thing as “caused by”. Yes, “caused by” will be a big chunk of it, but there's a reason the latter term is not used.
"People are clearly not going to stop drinking and driving" is such a strange statement to make in defense of DUI stops. Doesn't that imply that DUI stops don't help matters?
At any rate, the solution is to fire all of the corrupt cops and strictly enforce ethical and legal rules. Everything considered to be evidence needs to have an actual scientific basis for it. No more arresting people for being drunk because an officer with three months of training is considered to be an expert judge in impairment. Officers caught lying about the basis for an arrest should be imprisoned. Enforce the law, but do it in both directions.
A field sobriety test is distinct from a chemical analysis (breathalyzer or otherwise).
In California, you are required to submit to chemical testing (breath, urine, or blood — I don’t recall the rules for which applies in which situations). However, you are not required to otherwise talk to or perform the absurd procedure of the field sobriety test (“you have the right to remain silent”).
I was under the mistaken impression you could refuse and then would get a blood test, seems that was wrong/out-dated (also wrong!). The backup test at the station is also usually a breath test apparently. And it seems we have field sobriety tests but it looks like they're for drug-driving.
It's also an offense in most (all?) of the US. Even then, if someone is pulled over for DUI, at that point the officers are just collecting evidence. If someone has had anything to drink, it's in their best interest to say they want a lawyer and refuse all tests. Then there will be less evidence to argue against in court.
I would love to be corrected, but I was under the impression if you refused any testing, your driving license will be revoked. Drivers license is a privilege, not a right.
Depends on the state. Illinois refusal of everything is typically a 3 month suspension. But if you are guilty that is better than submitting to evidence that gets it suspended for 6 months+. If you are innocent, it is in your interest to pass the test.
Sure, but it's typically less than a DUI conviction and doesn't show up on your record as a DUI and you can avoid insurance increases.
If the police decide to have you exit the car and do the field tests, the odds are high they have already decided to arrest you. At that point, it's best to refuse all unless you have had absolutely zero drugs/alcohol. And then the question has to be why did they have you get out the car.
I don't understand how simple DWI testing is like that in your country. 3 seconds of a certified calibrated breathalyzer is sufficient, this walking in a straight line and saying the alphabet backwards sounds like a joke.
As others have said the intent is not to document sobriety but to have a subjective reason for an arrest which looks good in the scorecard.
Look for “if cops say I smell
Alcohol, say these words” on YouTube, gives you tips on how to respond if asked about alcohol use or doing a sobriety test.
I am curious about these 'smell' comments, or at least how you're supposed to react to it. The last time I got pulled over, the cop commented multiple times that something smelled like marijuana, and he asked if I had been smoking or had friends that smoked.
I said I hadn't and didn't know anybody who did. It's true that I don't and had not been around any and there's no way my car smelled like drugs. I think I was on the verge of heat stroke and basically didn't respond with any level of stress to anything he said. I was being pulled over for driving without a seatbelt, which I almost never do, but it was 95 degrees and my AC was broken and I couldn't bring myself to put my back against the chair (plus I was in the middle of nowhere).
Another cop also showed up reasonlessly to hang around behind the other one with his lights on after awhile (I'd pulled into a gas station), which I think was also supposed to freak me out. I ended up excusing myself to go stand in the gas station to cool down and when I came back they were gone
How to react to it is exactly what that video covers. Basically - don’t try to explain/justify it. It could be anything - maybe you drove through a cloud of pot smoke? Who knows. The advice from the video is to say you exercise your right not to discuss what you ate or smoked and ask if you’re detained or free to go.
I rather use a lawyer for legal advice than YouTube. There is a lot of sovereign citizen "you don't need a license to drive" "legal advice" on YouTube too.
Oh for sure. Have you asked your lawyer what to say if they pull you over and falsely claim to smell alcohol / drugs or want you to take a bogus sobriety test? If so, care to share? With the full understanding YANAL.
I don't have the card in front of me, but my lawyer has something like this on the back of her business card: Dear officer, I will not be answering any questions today. If I am under arrest I wish to consult with my attorney. If I am not under arrest I wish to leave as soon as possible. I have already provided my license, registration and insurance.
Of note, in my state implied consent applies after the arrest. I believe this limits the information the officer gets for free before making the judgement for your arrest. It's easier in her book to defend a case where they have to show probable cause for the arrest without that free information. I have never driven under the influence, I used her for a "I don't know how fast you were going but it was fast so here's a reckless driving ticket" before and this was the card she gave me. I wonder if this approach lets her use fruit of the poisoned tree approach to dismiss cases where the cause for the arrest was flimsy gets any evidence afterwards inadmissible. Again, I only watched her work one case. The judged called the case, she asked to confer with the prosecutor, then the prosecutor dropped all charges. Took five minutes.
Note, I am not a lawyer and I am recollecting information from 20 years ago. Things may have changed. Consult your lawyer, not YouTube.
I couldn't edit my other reply, but here's the text from the actual card:
> To Washington State Law Enforcement Agents Who Have Stopped, Detained, or Arrested Me.
> I want an attorney and help contacting one. I will not answer questions or speak to you except for identification purposes. I do not consent to detention or search of my person, belongings, automobile, or any other item or place. Since they are voluntary, I will not perform field sobriety tests or take the portable breath test (PBT). I will consent to take a breath or blood test at the station, unless my attorney advises me not to. I understand that if I refuse, DOL will suspend my license for at least 1 year.
More or less what I recalled, but written in a way that's both for the officer and yourself.
There are other forms of intoxication beyond alcohol. A device that measures your blood alcohol percentage does nothing for the driver who is half asleep from valium. A field sobriety test is more of an indicator of whether you are capable of operating a vehicle safely than of having a high alcohol intake recently. If you can't perform simple tasks, you probably shouldn't be operating a vehicle regardless of the cause.
The portable breathalyzer is inadmissable in court in my and most states. The Simon Says game is though (but it can be refused without penalty, hypothetically).
Why would a certified calibrated breathalizer test be inadmissible in court? How is it any different from catching speeders with a laser gun, or doing a DNA test?
And if giving every cop a calibrated breathalizer is too expensive: give them a reasonably-accurate one for in the field, then take everyone who fails it to the station for a retest on an expensive calibrated one.
This is changing. Most states have “permanent” properly calibrated breathalyzer at every dui checkpoint now. And in an increasing number of regular vehicles
You can. Refusing the field test allows them to arrest you. But it isn't sufficient to charge you. They also have to offer you a breathalyzer at the station and you can refuse that but demand a blood test.
But your car still gets towed even if you pass the tests at the station and don't ultimately get charged because you refused the field test.
In Michigan, refusing the roadside breathalyzer is $150 automatic fine. Refusing the chemical test once at the station is an automatic 1 year suspended license and 6 points, even if you are subsequently let go without charge.
What if you don't refuse, but just barely blow into the device or otherwise have a medical condition such as asthma that prevents the machine from getting a good sample?
He refused a blood test as was his right, and probably the correct decision given that this "top cop" (ie, the one they say had by far the most DUI arrests) was a criminal and shown to break the evidence chain of custody.