[lr4444lr]

> At the gas station, Bradley accused Holland of driving under the influence. When asked if he would submit to field sobriety tests, Holland calmly refused.

Much as I hope Bradley would be fired and lose his pension for abuse of power, this part is on Holland. In my state, refusing a breathalyzer is by law an automatic penalty because of the "implied consent statute" that you accept when you get behind the wheel: automatic license suspension for 1 year, and you still have to face the officer's testimony. There are consequences to the refusal that have nothing to do with the officer.

[compscistd]

You're confusing a breathalyzer with a field sobriety test, the latter of which no one should agree to. It's the sort of test that asks you to walk straight, hop on one leg, allow an officer to use a flashlight on your eyes, or recite the alphabet backwards. They're designed to allow the officer to use their discretion to determine if you've failed rather than use an objective reading (like a breathalyzer).

Ask yourself why an officer would want to use a set of tests that require being subjective instead of deferring to a breathalyzer.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Cops gotta meet that quota.

A cop pulled me over once, claiming I ran a red light (It was bullshit, and I had the dash cam footage to prove it). He insisted on me doing a field sobriety test based on my breath supposedly smelling like alcohol, despite me not having anything to drink.

I wanted to just skip the bullshit and take a breathalyzer. It was freezing cold out, and I'm a Wears Shorts Year-Round Guy(tm), which normally doesn't bother me since I'm only outside for like 15 seconds between my car and whatever building I'm going into/out of, but a field sobriety was gonna have me in the cold for several minutes.

He basically said that if I wanted to take a breathalyzer, he'd gladly drive me down to the station to do it.

This cop already decided I was guilty of two crimes with zero evidence because he has an arrest quota to meet.

And sure, you can argue that arrest quotas are illegal and don't exist, but it's one of those things where it doesn't exist on paper, but they basically still have a de facto existence because of performance tracking.

[post_break]

Incorrect. Field sobriety test like walking a straight line or doing those bizarre tests can be difficult for those who haven't been drinking. Now if he refused a breathalyzer or blood sample and he was sober, that's the wrong move. If he refused a breathalyzer or blood sample AND he was NOT sober, that's the correct move. It's far cheaper to take the one year license suspension than get a DUI and deal with all of those issues. This has nothing to do with the officer, but protecting yourself.

[technothrasher]

This is not true in Illinois. Field sobriety tests before you are arrested are entirely voluntary and you can refuse them without triggering implied consent penalties.

[Ylpertnodi]

An fst after being arrested would be difficult for most people.

[qingcharles]

Almost never lose their pensions. The cops I know in Illinois who all did bad shit and were investigated for it were all given the chance to resign to keep their pensions.

[learn_more]

field sobriety test != breathalizer

[hydrolox]

Stop spreading misinformation.

>No. Field sobriety tests are not mandatory in Illinois. A driver may legally refuse to participate in field sobriety testing without violating Illinois law. These roadside tests are voluntary and are not part of the State’s implied consent laws.

https://dohmanlaw.com/refusing-a-field-sobriety-test-in-illi...