It’s to establish reasonable suspicion to use a breath test. Secondly, defense lawyers will attack the accuracy of the equipment used for breath tests. There’s a whole legal industry based on defense of drunk driving charges. Borderline calls require absolute precision in the equipment or the charge will be dismissed. I think the blood alcohol limit is lower in the UK too, but I don’t know. Here it’s .08%, I think in all states but Utah, where it’s .05%.

I don't know about laws in all the states, but here if someone refuses to take the test or blow in the breathalizer, they have the right to do that.... and the police have the right to arrest them on suspicion of DWI, take them to the station and have them take a blood test. That they cannot refuse.

Another thing about large parts of the US driving population: lots of them are under the influence of other narcotics, both legal and illegal, that wouldn't show up in a breath test.

Roadside sobriety tests are a sham. They are subjective and there is really no way to pass them. If a police officer asks you to take one, chances are high that they have already decided to arrest you and are now just acquiring evidence against you (which they can get regardless of your sobriety).

In the US, organizations like MADD incentivize and reward DUI arrests… not convictions, which are two very different things. Additionally, there is no punishment, discipline or extra training required when those charges are dropped or the accused is found not guilty. So the police in the US have lots of motivation to make arrests with nothing to lose if they get it wrong.

The best thing you can do when interacting with the police is press your lips together tightly after you politely explain that you would like to remain silent, then actually remain silent. That includes not doing any of their acrobatic roadside balance tests on the side of the highway with a flashlight in your face and traffic blasting by and your heart pumping knowing that you are about to be arrested.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

Roadside sobriety tests are a sham. They are subjective and there is really no way to pass them. If a police officer asks you to take one, chances are high that they have already decided to arrest you and are now just acquiring evidence against you (which they can get regardless of your sobriety).

In the US, organizations like MADD incentivize and reward DUI arrests… not convictions, which are two very different things. Additionally, there is no punishment, discipline or extra training required when those charges are dropped or the accused is found not guilty. So the police in the US have lots of motivation to make arrests with nothing to lose if they get it wrong.

The best thing you can do when interacting with the police is press your lips together tightly after you politely explain that you would like to remain silent, then actually remain silent. That includes not doing any of their acrobatic roadside balance tests on the side of the highway with a flashlight in your face and traffic blasting by and your heart pumping knowing that you are about to be arrested.

---

I agree with you that it can be abused or miss used..

But still irratic driving mst be investigated..

For all concerned..

On that.

I will defer..to the Cops..observation n judgment.

I can barely get my underwear on without falling over, never mind pass a drunk test.

One misunderstanding among the general populous that breathalyzers are actually a form of Field Sobriety Test (FST). Legally speaking, the physical test and the breathalyzer the same thing and neither are admissible as "evidence" in the court of law. The purpose of the FST is to establish probably cause or reasonable suspicion to hold the suspect for further investigation, a failure (or refusal) is sufficient to allow them to arrest you and bring you either to a hospital for a blood test or back to the precinct for an official alcohol test that will be admissible in court as evidence.

Another thing people don't realize, is that officers cannot simply give an FST any time they want. If you're pulled over, they are only allowed to question you for the specific thing for which they pulled you over. And they are not allowed to hold you once that specific thing has been addresed, unless they have reasonable suspicion that another crime has occured. If you do not provide them further reason to hold you, they must let you go. If a cop performs an FST without reasonable suspicion of OWI/DUI beyond the initial traffic stop, the case will be thrown out regardless of the results. 

It is true that they are a sham, the same as the K9 unit. They're simply a tool that allows officers to claim justification for arrests and "evidence fishing". The FSTs, and K9 units, will say whatever the officer in charge of them wants them to say.

The best thing to do is to always refuse FSTs, let them arrest you, and then plead not guilty. The vast majority of the time, they do not actually have any admissible evidence. And in the time it takes them to go get an actual test for evidence, your BAC will go down. This is the legal advice from my attorney, who was the DA for 10+ years here.

OWI laws, and all driving licensure and auto registration laws, are a blatant violation of constitutional rights. It is our duty as free citizens to resist them at every turn.

What Joel said. It's just a way to gather evidence for a stronger case for conviction.

In most states you don't have to answer any questions (Miranda Rights) and you also can and should refuse to participate in any field sobriety test. However, you cannot refuse a breathalyzer test or you will automatically get a DUI.

I never had to do the roadside "perp" walk. However, looking back, I would have failed a number of times, likely. In high school, back in the 60s, the common treatment when pulled over late at night by law enforcement, was to, ask for id's to check age, smell the inside of the car, confiscate all unopened bottles of beer, then follow you home with the best available driver to drive. They would kindly not even stop as you pulled into the drive, and risk alerting your parents. Brad

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddur

However, you cannot refuse a breathalyzer test or you will automatically get a DUI.

---

This is false. Refusal to take an FST is not evidence in court and will not result in an OWI/DUI charge.

Refusal of FST is a violation of the terms of your Drivers License and will result in automatic suspension of the license. That suspension is a civil matter between the license issuing agency and the citizen, and the courts/judicial branch are not involved in that administrative process. The OWI/DUI charges are a separate issue entirely. 

FSTs are not evidence, and refusal of FST is protected by the 5th Amendment. In order to do the actual blood alcohol test, the police are required to obtain an actual warrant, which is why it's not a 5A violation even if you don't consent.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by STUD figmo Al

<snip> But still irratic driving mst be investigated..  For all concerned..

On that. I will defer..to the Cops..observation n judgment.

---

I doubt that there are any reliable stats on officers' observations and judgment ..... whether there was/wasn't any significant erratic driving, but I do "wonder."  My suspicion is that more often than not it's the latter.   

Well KC, In PA you can refuse FSTs without penalty...however, you cannot refuse a breathalyzer or blood test without penalty.

So I'm really not sure what is actually false.

Tom, a breathalyzer IS an FST. They are one and the same. The physical test and the roadside breathalyzer are both forms of field sobriety test, and neither are admissible as evidence in court.

Blood tests (and breath tests performed in the precinct) are entirely different, and require a warrant. These tests cannot be performed without a signed warrant from a judge.

The penalty for refusal is not an OWI charge from the Court, it's a license suspension from the DMV. Two very different things. One is a court proceeding with the Judicial Branch, the other is an administrative process with the Executive Branch. A license suspension is just that, a temporary suspension of licensure privileges. An OWI charge is entirely different, and involves fun stuff like hearings, lawyers, judges, jail and fines, and permanent marks on your legal record.

The irony is that many police seem to think they are “protecting” the public and “keeping people safe”.

Yet they try and trick people into standing on the shoulder of a highway, with traffic whizzing by, in the middle of the night, and have you play balancing games.

Parents, you should keep your children safe by letting them play balancing games on the side of a highway while shining a flashlight in their eyes. Because that is a safe place to be.

"... seem to think ... "   

I get it, KC. Thanks.

Anyone see those YT vids, I think just for DUI checkpoints, that show you should only roll the window down a few inches, state that you do not answer questions, hold your license and other documents up to the window, and refuse to get out of the car, etc.? I understand this works, but it sure makes you look guilty by default.

Well, thanks for all of the responses. I kind of figured it was in order to gain enough 'evidence' to request a breath test - seems like you've I was thinking in the right direction. It just seemed a bit odd (as an outsider) why they just don't go for the breath test.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KCJones

OWI laws, and all driving licensure and auto registration laws, are a blatant violation of constitutional rights. It is our duty as free citizens to resist them at every turn.

---

I obviously don't have any constitutional rights, but I'd have thought that being killed by a drunk driver was a bigger travesty of justice.  Having had direct family experience of this,  I have to say I'm a huge supporter of the police getting drunk drivers off the road by any way or means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buddur

I get it, KC. Thanks.

Anyone see those YT vids, I think just for DUI checkpoints, that show you should only roll the window down a few inches, state that you do not answer questions, hold your license and other documents up to the window, and refuse to get out of the car, etc.? I understand this works, but it sure makes you look guilty by default.

---

I've seen a few of those Tom, and they usually end up with the driver face down in the asphalt with a busted windo courtesy of 'Pennsyvania vs Mimms' 

Jonty, just a clarification my friend. You do indeed have constitutional rights. In the US, precedent has been set by court cases that our constitution applies to all people subject to actions of our government, and not just citizens. So you're protected just as much as anyone else. Additionally, our constitution simply enumerates inherent rights that all humans have, it does not actually grant those rights. So even if the constitution didn't exist, you (and everyone else) would still have those rights.

Ive taken and failed a dozen FSTs, so I know they are BS because I do not drink alcohol. What I have is a strong southern accent which northern cops always take as slurred speach.

One cop took me and my wife into the county police station because we were staggering and in need of water after hiking to the bottom and up in the Grand Canyon. Jerk wouldnt give us water until after we agreed to a breath test. He did get fired because he broke the AZ good samaritan laws and I had a friend who worked in the DAs office. But he was never charged.

One thing you don't want to do is if the driver of the car you are in gets pulled over and he ends up performing FSTs....don't roll down the window and tell your friend he has the right to refuse those tests. You could spend the night in jail for obstruction.

Ask me how I know.

Read the fine print. When you get your drivers licence you agree to do FSTs. Refusal results in a suspension of said drivers license.

findlaw.com/dui/arrests/implie...laws.html

I wonder how much weight is given to  the qualifiers I see in ^^ article/link:  "... and the police have probable cause... " and, "... a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion ...  ."

Unless US policing is markedly different than Canadian policing, I suspect [i.e. no stats at all] that "probable cause"  and "reasonable suspicion" routinely get ignored. 

Again, that's my suspicion; I don't know how it should be determined whether that element was present or not, and I don't know what, if anything, should be done about it.  

P.S. and N.B. ..... I'm no lawyer.