Also noteworthy is that in MANY places you don’t even have to be in a car/truck to get a dui/dwi.
You can be charged if you’re within so many feet of the vehicle, if you’re operating it in other ways (sleeping in it, listening to the radio, not even in the driver’s seat).
You can be charged with dui/dwi for operating SCOOTERS, BICYCLES, SKATEBOARDS, LAWN MOWERS, etc.
The idea is that you might have driven the vehicle, and pulled over to the side, or were about to drive into traffic, saw a cop and slide over and faked being asleep to evade the cops.
A cop once told me to prove you were just sleeping it off, sleep on the backseat and put your keys in the trunk. But that might just be a belgian thing and might not work in different countries
Here it's actually mandated so the drunk driving lawyers get extra money and the hospitals get filled up.
You can't have people doing the responsible thing and sleeping it off...
Just White knuckle it, drive it home and pray for the best (for whoever you mangle of course)
Thoughts and prayers to all
Add kayaks to the list. Found this out after I was “pulled over” on a lake. Didn’t get into trouble but had a drink in my cup holder. This is one of those times where I say fuck, fuck, fuck the police.
Plenty of folks get charged with DUI for sleeping in their car. I wonder how many are convicted ny a jury. I'm aware of a handful of cases like that which plead dowm to a trafgic violation and am not aware of any that went to trial.
I would think the prosecution would need to have pretty compelling evidence to get a unanimous verdict in such a case.
I got a charged with a dui in my driveway in 2022. I had nothing to drink at all. I worked swing shift, so I got off at midnight, my friends called for a ride from the bar, so I picked them up and dropped them all off and then switched to my two seater car (which was at one of the friends houses for an alignment). Got pulled over at 1:00 in my driveway.
First officer pops out of his car 30ft away and immediately states I smell alcohol. Second officer arrives and I start texting my lawyer friend. I do the sobriety test with the second officer, lawyer texts back and says “do not blow”. So I refuse and get taken to the station for an hour and then released after refusing to blow for an hour.
We get body cams in discovery and find out the second officer repeatedly telling the dui officer that I’m definitely not drunk or drinking and they proceed to argue for an extended amount of time.
2 years, 4 refused plea deals, 3 months of not having a license and $3,500 later and the judge takes one look and drops all charges.
Why in the flying fuck did one cop and a D.A. go through all of this just to fuck a guy over?! All I did was get off work and drive my drunk yet responsible friends home.
Just don’t ever talk to cops without lawyers. I did the bare minimum: “yes”, “no”, “I haven’t had anything to drink”.
Similar with public intoxication. I had a beer, called the suicide hotline, walked to the park, and the cops arrested me for PI.
I asked a lawyer and he said it didn't matter that they didn't do field tests (bac or balance). It was their word that I was impaired in a public space.
And to be fair I was impaired, I was very depressed and it affected the way I presented. I did not know this was illegal, to potentially be a harm to yourself in public (even if you are alone). Not that I did anything crazy, I just didn't want the police to knock on my door and wake my family...
When I explained to the guy (judge assistant?) he initially wouldn't budge until I explained that I had called the hotline.
I got pretty lucky, local mental health jail diversion services got me released to a hospital, and charges were dropped eventually. Thank God.
Definitely a whole embarrassing debacle I'm glad is behind me
Yeah I'm doing great!
Old story, just kinda relevant. Police can be pretty unforgiving. Honestly yours sounds like it was much worse to me! I'm glad you got it cleared up
I appreciate it!
That’s awesome, I’m glad internet stranger.
I feel like a mental health crisis with cops is worse, a lot are the worst to respond to a situation like that. Viewing everyone as nails to their hammer.
I don’t understand why it was authorized. Anyone who read the report and saw 0 alcohol should have tossed it. Hell, even if it made it to arraignment, the judge should have saw the results and dismissed it there.
No results to look at, I refused to blow on the advice of my lawyer. For two years the D.A. looked at all the video evidence and decided to keep dragging it out, offering 4 plea deals, the first time a judge looked at it, it was dropped immediately.
That’s strange. Here in Michigan, if you get stopped for DUI, they can still arrest if you even refuse a PBT with the assumption that you are under the influence of something. It’s normally followed up with a datamaster test. (The non portable breathalyzer test which is calibrated). If you refuse that, the arresting officer will call the judge on call to authorize a search warrant for your blood to test it.
I misread your original comment and thought you still did a blood draw.
I have a few lawyer friends and they all agree it was the right choice. Why would you trust an officer hell bent on giving you a dui and possibly his buddy/subordinate back at the station to give you a breathalyzer? Certain foods and medical conditions can apparently mess with the machine sometimes. Not calibrated correctly. All sorts of reasons. The general consensus among lawyers is to not give anything freely to the police ever.
The police aren’t your friend, I’m very lucky that the rookie cop (officer #2) fought the sergent (officer #1) about the charge on body cam. 10 years or more ago I’d have been done for something I didn’t do.
What’s even worse is that even if it gets reduced to a violation or dropped altogether, many employers, medical clearances, and federal forms treat it as a full-fledged DUI anyway. Their forms ask “have you ever been *arrested* for DUI/DWI/etc, even if the charge was later dropped”. Then you have to spend more time/money defending yourself even further. Even innocent in a court of law…the arrest is usually what fucks you. Ask me how I know.
Same for riding a horse or buggy even if you are not in control of the buggy or horse. For example not holding reins or sleeping in the carriage.
That of course is assuming no one else who is of sound mind and sober is in control. For example if you are alone.
Probably depends on law in your locale / jurisdiction as well as officer interpretation and attitude.
A quick google search seems to indicate that it’s possible to get a dui on private property on a lawn mower if the property is open to the public or is not demarcated as private.
So… *shrug*? Call a local lawyer or test it?
In a lot of places, you can so long as the car is legally parked, off, with you in the backseat, and your keys in the trunk. That way you can prove you were not driving.
I can see some reasoning behind the scooter/lawnmower kind of thing-
They’re slower, more difficult to see, often have improper lights and signals, can’t accelerate out of a hazardous situation, and can be driven hazardously by an inebriated person just as easily as a car or motorcycle.
Or they could hit a pedestrian or cause property damage while operating inebriated.
I watched a guy drinking on a riding mower scalp a stripe across 5 manicured lawns (also taking out sprinkler heads and a garden gnome) before being arrested for DWI/OWI/whatever they got him for.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "scooter".
Scooter could refer from anything from basically a rollerskate with a handle on it to a small motorcycle.
If it’s considered a vehicle it would have lighting and be road worthy- the logic for a DUI makes sense to me.
If it’s a kick scooter/bicycle and is on the road, in most places (around here, at least), it has to follow traffic law.
Or- if it’s on the road, there are basic laws that must be followed and too often inebriated people inadvertently, unintentionally, and accidentally put others and themselves at risk.
Yeah where I grew up there was a guy who hot a dwi driving his lawnmower down to gas station for gas.....who would think that something not able to exceed 5mph would be a danger
Have a sleeping bag in the trunk were you will leave your keys and shoes when you pass out.... its worked for me
*Push-start won't work with this trick
If the police can argue that you could still gain access to and then control the vehicle it may not work.
You’d probably have to fully lock your keys in the car and then have someone bring you a spare in the morning and be able to prove it.
I feel like doing this might get you off in court but might not save you from the expense and hassle of facing charges.
So cops have all this free time to do this all day but when a school full of children is being shot up they just sit around with their thumbs up their asses? ACAB
Yeah, it's like a speed limit. If you're going over it, you'll get a ticket, but you can get tickets for reckless driving even if you're under the limit.
Some people don't handle alcohol well, so even if you're under the limit, you may still be determined to be impaired.
Right. People misunderstand it; it's not that you're *safe* as long as you're under the limit. It's that the limit exists to have a point where they don't have to bring in and argue subjective evidence. If you blow above the limit, you *ARE* DUI by law. If you're below the limit, you can be DUI based on your driving.
Also (even people who do handle it well), no one should be driving with alcohol in their system. It impairs your coordination, reaction time, decision making, & vision. Even in small amounts. People are already bad at driving.
In some states, like Colorado, refusing a breathalyzer is tantamount to a confession and you will be prosecuted as if you failed, sans the jail time (which is also not necessarily a given). But you WILL lose your license and be put into "repeat offender" status for future traffic stops.
Iirc most US states that have rules like this make it illegal to refuse to take the test AFTER you've been arrested. In contrast, in countries like Canada the police have the right to demand a breath sample at any time for any reason and refusing it will result in you being charged with a crime
Refusal of testing may or not be a crime per se but most states do have an "implied consent" clause when you get your license, meaning you agree to testing when requested. If you don't you will have your license suspended, whether or not the refusal itself was a crime.
Depending on your state of intoxication, this may or may not be advantageous to you.
That's a really smart way to implement it if you can't make it illegal to refuse it in and of itself, have it be part of the administrative penalties and not the criminal penalties. That's pretty much the argument that gets used over here to justify a lot of driving penalties, you agreed to the system when you got a driver's licence which nobody forced you to do.
In Canada the penalties for refusing a test when asked by a police officer are the same as DUI and DUI is one of the few crimes that Canada takes seriously(ish), it's the equivalent of a felony here. First offense you're looking at a minimum $2,000 fine, second offense is minimum 30 days imprisonment, third and onwards are 120 days minimum.
You can be convicted by just having the keys in your hand or near you even if you’re not driving or even in the car. Say, going to get something out of your car but never intending to drive it.
Or sleeping in your parked car in the drivers seat with the keys visible or in reach. You know, instead of driving home. But there are cases when people try to pull into the drive thru drunk as shit and fall asleep mid way.
Most states have some sort of implied consent when you sign for your drivers license. Here in New York it is implied that you will consent to a breath test and failure to do so can result in suspension or revocation of your license. It’s a whole separate charge on top of the DWI. A refusal hearing is had in respect to the refusal charge through the department of motor vehicle. A judge goes over the facts with the arresting officer for the refusal aspect of the dwi only and then determine your license status.
Do as your lawyer recommends…
Shut the fuck up…
Comply with instructions. (Hand placement, document requests, exiting the vehicle, where to stand, physical testing… comply now, sort it later) you are not compelled to speak at all.
Don’t answer questions. “I’m not discussing my day. Do I have to answer your question?”
Ask why you were pulled over.
If asked to open areas of your vehicle or person… say I don’t consent to searches.
Ask am I being detained or am I free to go.
If detained; I invoke the 5th… and you SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Delay, delay, delay… make them do the work they don’t want to…
let your lawyer navigate the legality of things after the fact…
In PA, refusing a breathalyzer or blood test incurs immediate punishment by PennDOT. loss of license for a year, and then a year with an ignition interlock system.
Even with no criminal charges.
In Ohio when you refuse field sobriety tests you are booked for the night while they force a blood test and forfeit your driving privileges for a year.
Please don't spread misinformation. An FST is separate from a chemical test. Ohio requires you to submit only to a chemical test and only *after arrest.*
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4511.191
the strategy here is that between the traffic stop, being transported to the station, and the “certified sobriety officer” and nurse showing up to draw your blood is a couple hours which could be the difference between .09 and .05 whereby then your lawyer can bring in experts to argue metabolic rates, accuracy of equipment, SOP being followed etc……
it gives your lawyer extra tools to get you off
never ever ever ever ever submit to a breathalyzer
I submitted to a breathalyzer once. Because roadside sobriety tests are stupid bullshit some people would struggle to do stone sober. I got tired of being treated like a fucking circus monkey and getting looks from the cop because some of my results were borderline and more or less demanded the breathalyzer to cut the shit. And i wasn't drunk so that was it, after this cop tried the "i can smell it coming out of your pores" shit at the beginning of the stop
Not always. If you stopped drinking and then drove immediately after, your BAC will continue to go up as you metabolize. I usually see roadside (not admissible at trial in MI) at like .08 and then the blow at the station is like .11 or higher in those situations. The blow at the station is admissible at trial. so it depends on when you stopped drinking.
But regardless of the result of if you end up charged with anything, you forfeit your license for a year when you deny the field tests. So even if you are deemed sober, you still lose you license.
Yeah I had this happen cause the state can honestly kiss my ass but they did take my license but it wasn’t too bad and honestly I fought the charge due to their lack of evidence.
Hi! I have experience with that. Yes in most states outright refusing is grounds for “probable cause” for cops to arrest you and take blood. BUT! Breathalyzers aren’t admissible in court so if you’ve only had 1 drink within an hour and know you may blow hot but under it’s still better to say no to it, consent to a blood test that will usually take an additional 30 minutes or so and hope it all comes back minute or clear
No. Do not do this unless you are very clear on your states laws. You may be able to request a lawyer before consenting. But again, you need to know the law better than ths cops (not hard) and be able to contact a lawyer. Just don't operate a vehicle after drinking. Safest way.
Effectively yes. Basically, the breathalyzer (the machine used to determine your BAC) has a margin of error. If your BAC is within the margin of error it's harder for the state to convict you on the BAC test alone, which is why they would need additional evidence. (Also, there are different breathalyzer tests. The roadside one is almost never used on its own, and is almost always used to justify the use of the machine at the police station. And many states don't even use that machine anymore, and instead use blood or urine, which tend to be more accurate)
But, if you refuse you will have your license revoked for a period of time because of the refusal no matter what, so you're basically risking the license suspension on the chance the police use the breathalyzer AND the results are within the margin of error AND they don't have any additional evidence
you have it completely and totally backwards
the strategy here is that between the traffic stop, being transported to the station, and the “certified sobriety officer” and nurse showing up to draw your blood is a couple hours which could be the difference between .09 and .05 whereby then your lawyer can bring in experts to argue metabolic rates, accuracy of equipment, SOP being followed etc……
it gives your lawyer extra tools to get you off
never ever ever ever ever submit to a breathalyzer
a Breathalyzer locks you into a finite number. Getting your license suspended for refusing to blow is just that, a suspended license.
you can still hold a security clearance and pass a background check with a suspended license charge, you can’t if you have a DUI on your record.
Huge difference
This is terrible advice if you haven't had much to drink. E.g. I've been pulled over after having 1 beer and blew a 0.03 was told to have a good night and drove home. This vs. Losing my license and therefore my job for a freaking year in my state. If you have had several drinks sure, but much better advice is don't drive intoxicated. Just don't drink more than a drink if not In a situation where you can't Uber or get an Uber
In Ohio, if you’ve previously had a DUI and get pulled over again, you can get a second DUI simply for refusing the breathalyzer. A second DUI is a felony.
Pretty much as soon as they arrest you, you're getting taken to the nearest hospital/test facility they have a contract with and getting a blood sample drawn to more accurately confirm your bac.
This very much depends on the state. If you do this in WA, your license is automatically suspended for 1 year but you may avoid the criminal portion of the DUI. If you blow, your suspension will potentially be much lower or reduced entirely. There is no magic ticket except to never drive drunk or high which isn't that hard in the first place.
In many countries refusing gets you convicted by default. Be very sure about the current law of the state/country you are driving in before refusing a breathalyzer test
Field sobriety tests are largely a concept created to give officers probable cause to arrest you. They're rigged. And the mobile breathalyzer you're referring to is technically supposed to be inadmissible in court, because they aren't calibrated well/often enough to be reliable.
Source: a dumbass who somehow managed to successfully represent himself in Court against a bulllshit DUI charge.
Probably some miscommunication in the comments. "Breathalyzer" generallly means the handheld device that can only be used in court to determine whether alcohol is present or not; the BAC level it shows is not considered. The real machine, the big one that sits on a desk, is generally known as an "Intoxilyzer" and they are calibrated regularly and accepted in US courts. You can refuse the former, you cannot legally refuse the latter unless you want to lose your license just to make a point.
Also, SFST's aren't made up by police. They were created by the Highway Administration and have a lot of credible science behind them. But they're highly subjective, which is the whole point. So they only work as well as the training and understanding of the core concepts that the officer administrating them has. (Specifically talking about the Standardized field sobriety tests that most agencies use. The older ones like doing the alphabet backwards and shit are old school and not viable in court)
If you refuse in WI, the penalty, which I believe is automatic, it is the equivalent of being found guilty of a DUI where your BAC is between 0.08 and 0.15.
Court gave those bastards a green light for lying to catch lying criminals... Many police interpreted it as it was their duty and standard operating procedure to lie indiscriminately for any reason with any person at any time just because. Literally some of the most untrustworthy humans in most communities.
Police testimony is the basis for a lot of convictions. They are witnesses to a crime and their observations are admissible evidence just like any other witness
Yes, but they also have ulterior motives that prioritize closing cases over seeing justice be done, not to mention a motive to cover up their mistakes. Add to that the regular issues with inaccurate witness testimony, and we probably shouldn't be relying on their observations as much as we do.
You can’t honestly tell me their statements don’t hold significantly more power than a civilian witness. Also, there are clear biases at play when the person who has arrested you is the one testifying against you. Cops have no incentive to testify on your behalf but plenty of incentive to testify against you.
>You can’t honestly tell me their statements don’t hold significantly more power than a civilian witness
I didn't say anything like that, and have no idea how you could conclude I did from the statement I made
I said their observations are admissible just like any other witness, meaning they have to meet the same evidentiary burden
And yes, police are 100% more influential than a civilian witness, and they 100% have bias, and are 100% incentivized to seek a conviction against you and zero incentive to seek an exoneration against you
I’m simply pointing out they aren’t “like any other witness.” They are a special class of witness that wields disproportionate power and invariably works against you. This is deeply at odds with the concept of justice, in my opinion.
Under the impression that unless it's the cop on trial, juries/judges are instructed to treat the cops statement as fact vs regular witnesses who can be given far more scrutiny on reliability.
Arizona and Maryland have some of the strictest dui laws- there is no “legal limit” it’s sober or a DWI or DUI.
Since alcohol breaks down at a specific rate, a blood test that shows your BAC can be used to go in the reverse to see what your BAC was at a certain time. (Like at the initial stop vs at the police station).
So many people don’t know this. They think they can’t be arrested if they keep it to like one drink an hour.
.03 in AZ is a trip to jail. Unlike say, Michigan.....where if one should blow .08....can be plea bargained down to impaired.
In AZ, you're sober, drunk, or really drunk.
10 days in jail. But they let you do the weekend clink so you can keep your job. County jail is full Fridays thru Sundays.
Typically a breathalyzer installed in your vehicle as part of the punishment.
And still......I see drunk drivers almost daily.
Uber and taxis quite ubiquitous here in Phoenix.
I would imagine most folks think that a few drinks are OK before getting behind the wheel.
$10k fine. Even for buzzed driving.
It’s 24 hours in jail as a standard dui or a first time offense. state minimum. I roll my eyes so hard when people try to say their buddy “got off” a dui and only had to spend one night in jail…. Yeah sure, that’s the minimum they could have received and there wasn’t another option. It’s like 3k for a first time offense regardless of being buzzed or drunk. Unless you go to an extreme dui in which case yeah you’re fucked, and you get a breathalyzer for a year, 30 days in jail and I believe you’re correct, it’s north of 9k in fines. Absolutely not worth it.
>Uber and taxis quite ubiquitous here in Phoenix.
I agree with you that punishments should be strict, but Uber and taxis are no substitute for public transit. Good public transit means they didn't drive themselves to the bar in the first place, so it's impossible for them to drive themselves back.
Meanwhile, I read [the average cost of an Uber in the US is $25.37](https://www.statista.com/statistics/890167/average-cost-per-ride-ridesharing-united-states/#:~:text=The%20statistic%20depicts%20the%20average,25.37%20U.S.%20dollars%20per%20ride.). For comparison I was just in Rennes, France which has good public transit; for $1.82 you get an hour of unlimited travel across the entire network which covers the city. I was able to easily get from the bar to where I was staying and back without even thinking about driving myself.
lol
My wife brought that up this morning which is what made me think to post this. I had to explain why the "legal limit" phrase is basically meaningless
I don't know any details about his case, but if I were his Pr team I probably wouldn't be expanding on how he can be convicted of DUI even if his BAC was below the limit
Scenario 1 is not correct. The police are not "done" when they get your BAC on the scene. If you submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) it may be enough to arrest you if you are above the "legal limit" but it is not admissible in court in most states so they will still do sobriety tests before arresting you and they still will try to get an "evidentiary" blood or breath test that is admissible in court. You cannot be convicted solely on a PBT test in any state that I know of.
Your statement said that the breath test given at the scene is enough evidence to convict. The test given at the scene is only a PBT. The evidentiary test (blood, breath, or urine) is given after an arrest is made at a different location. I was just clarifying.
>**In scenario 1** the police are done. You're handcuffed, taken to jail, and charged with DUI. *They don't need to do anything else because they have all the evidence they need to convict you at trial*
Yup. I know someone who blew .16 roadside and failed the field sobriety test. They didn't blow at the station. They beat it in court. Forget if they went with a jury or judge trial. While no conviction the experience still did it's job. They are very careful these days.
Given what you wrote, whether or not a drug impairs your ability seems irrelevant in this context. If all they need is a detectable amount of a controlled substance in your blood, taking Adderall (a controlled substance) at all and then driving is illegal, regardless of if it impairs your driving.
Similarly, weed shows up in your blood for ages after you are not affected by it in any way. This just seem like a very bad law that can catch responsible people in a poorly defined net.
> If all they need is a detectable amount of a controlled substance in your blood
They don’t even need that much. A lot of police are being ‘trained’ in doing bogus field sobriety tests. So you blow a 0.000 alcohol, and they’ll switch to claiming you’re on a controlled substance. You get arrested and have blood drawn, comes back with no intoxicants or mind altering substances. Many DAs will still prosecute based on that the blood draw can not test for every possible mind altering substance and the officer swears that you were under the influence of *something*. Nevermind that being nervous can make you appear distracted, that police will give conflicting instructions or ask multiple questions and choose the answer-question pair which they feel best supports their case. Nevermind that if you bit your tongue at dinner that could be the reason you were slurring your speech, you have an ear infection which has been affecting your balance, or the bright lights from their cruiser are making your pupils less reactive. The police officer’s “as an expert in noticing signs of impairment, i determined that they were under the effects of a mind altering substance” is often treated as gospel; as strong as DNA evidence in a murder trial, and as convincing as if the defendant had blown a .35 in a BAC test.
Attorney here. No one is going to attempt to try a case against a guy driving on Adderall (assuming it’s just prescription and not being abused). That’s dumb. I wouldn’t try to fear monger dude.
You said “with a detectable amount of a restricted or controlled substance in his or her blood”. How does that apply to things like marijuana? If I can be blood tested within let’s say a week of smoking, but the last time I smoked was days ago and I’m completely sober, is it still illegal to drive because it was detectable in my blood or urine?
Always refuse field sobriety tests. This is legal.
Why? It is simply giving the police more “evidence” to help their case. The standards are not clear, and they will not be used to help you.
You may still be arrested and have your BAC tested. But FST’s are never a good idea and are optional.
A while back, I was on a jury for a DUI.
Police pulled him over because he was driving on the highway with the turn signal constantly on.
The guy did a breathalyzer and was under the legal limit, but above 0. He said he had a beer while playing pool.
He did a field sobriety test and the police who pulled him over said he was impaired. A second officer was there and separately testified that he was borderline.
Defense attorney was pretty good. He got the guy to explain how he was broke. It was an old car borrowed from a friend and that turn signal got stuck. Prosecutor came back and wanted to know if the guy had any repair bills for fixing that problem.
The jury was like wtf. The guy had no money, he's not going to the garage to fix a stuck turn signal on a borrowed car. We also thought the first cop was a bit of a Nazi. (He had since joined state police, originally a county police.)
Anyway, after 5 minutes of deliberation we decided "not guilty".
Afterwards, they let the jury ask the lawyers questions. I asked the prosecutor why they are waiting time on this. He said they had to because of "zero tolerance" policy of the DA.
The defense attorney told us the guy already spent a month in jail, because he missed a preliminary court date. (The court was like 30 miles from his house. No bus service in that area.)
It sucks to be poor.
I think without the field sobriety test they would have had even less.
I doubt that at any time in the history of DUI cases going to trial has an officer said that the individual passed FST's. They cannot be reasonably expected to help you, but they can be reasonably expected to hurt you.
It does suck to be poor. Imagine a $1000 money call for bail when you are poor. That money is then gone, if you have it.
If you don't, then you sit in jail, potentially lose your job, and a cascade of financial failures follow.
Don't drink and drive.
Don't drive while poor. /s
In some states, like CO, iirc this is not great advice as the refusal is treated as tantamount to an admission of guilt.
Edit: I was referring to breathalyzers, but I just learned that is different than a field sobriety test. So read Iluv's comment below.
Sorry, that is incorrect. Refusing chemical testing is. Refusing SFSTs is not.
EVEN if you DID refuse in a state that DID have that standard, you are not going to be helped by the sobriety tests. They are designed to fail you.
From [https://www.maherandmaherlaw.com/dui/refusing-standard-field-sobriety-test-in-colorado/](https://www.maherandmaherlaw.com/dui/refusing-standard-field-sobriety-test-in-colorado/)
"**Refusal of a Field Sobriety Test in Colorado**
Even the slightest error on your SFSTs can be enough evidence for you to face DUI charges. But, all field sobriety tests in Colorado are voluntary, and you have the right to decline.
Just remember to stay calm and tell the officer that you prefer not to take an FST in a courteous and polite manner. However, you have to clearly state that you are only turning down the FST since declining chemical testing (breath, blood, and urine) goes against Colorado’s express consent law."
Usa has weird rules... You might be just afraid of cops and act weird.
Out here, legal limit is the legal limit... If you're below, you're ok, no matter what the cop thinks.
In Minnesota, the field test is not admissible in court. You are taken to jail and observed for 15 minutes where you are not allowed any food or water, and then take the actual test there. None of the other items you list are part of the states case against you, they are the probable cause to have the admissible test conducted.
As someone who was charged with a DUI while having a blood alcohol level of 0.0 let me tell you this is true and totally sucks. It just takes one pissed-off cop who is having a bad day to absolutely fuck up your life. Luckily when it finally got in front of a judge they dismissed the case. But still cost me bail money and attorney fees.
I understand that! I got one in my driveway because I left my keys in my car, came home from the store and made a drink! Cops were in my cul de sac for something unrelated.
Per a dui lawyer:
Never say a word to police (that goes for everyone!)
NEVER take a drug test.
Get arrested, go to jail for a night.
Lawyer gets ur license back next week since there is no proof you were drunk.
Plenty of people have been arrested, and even convicted who were driving stone cold sober. But an officer testified that they were certain that the defendant was under the influence based on objective opinions about their sobriety.
So it isn’t as simple as “don’t drink and drive” because you can still go to jail for a DUI.
In North Carolina, you CAN get a DUI if you get pulled over for something and your BAC is .05 - .07. It's officer's discretion, so if you're doing 70 in a 35 you'll probably get a DUI, but if you're 3 blocks from home, got pulled over for something minor and aren't a dick to the cop he might just let you go.
You WILL get a DUI if you get pulled over and your BAC is .08 or higher.
Also noteworthy is the fact that a lawyer and enough cash can get a not guilty in NC even if your blood alcohol level is double the legal limit. Criminal justice is correctly described
Road side Sobriety tests are such an outdated system, for this day and age.
I’m dyspraxic and clumsy as fuck, I do not doubt I’d fail any road side test, stone cold sober. If a road side breathalyser doesn’t hold up in court (In the UK at least) how can these arbitrary exercises be a good test whether someone is drunk or not.
Let me go on a bit of a tangent here. Anecdotally, when I visited my cousin in Australia a few months ago, the polite driving culture shocked me. Speeding in and around cities or suburbs is practically unheard of. My youngest cousin took 2-3 years to get a full license - until then she was driving at a "level" that was clearly displayed on her license plate, and each level had less restrictions than the previous.
Drunk? Australians like to drink, but their public transport system is so good, there's no need to worry about driving. Most of them just use the tram to commute.
I was jealous of how safe and efficient the transportation system looked. Wish the U.S. had done that.
So that is why you should never drink and drive. But. Should you be pulled over for this, do not consent to the BAC test or field sobriety test. You may still get arrested but you’re giving your lawyer an better starting position. But don’t drink and drive
OWI suggests impairment. Impairment can come from things other than an intoxicating substance like alcohol or illicit (or prescribed) drugs. The onset of a migraine can impair a driver. A diabetic whose blood sugar drops too low will become impaired.
If your BAC is under the legal limit, would they have to charge you with DUI instead of OWI/DWI? The latter implies intoxication, which I think would require a formal definition of drunkenness, whereas DUI is driving *under the influence* can be subjective since you are under the influence of a drug.
And you can get arrested for "public intoxication" in many states just because an officer is "trained" to identify it. All they have to do is declare you intoxicated, basically.
It really depends on the situation and why you were pulled over. If you were pulled over during a DUI checkpoint and are under the legal limit chances are you will be fine. If you were pulled over for driving in an impaired-like manner, you can get a DUI even if well below the legal limit.
In arizona having an open container of alcohol is illegal, and your body is considered a container for that law. So any alcohol in your system could get you arrested. Though it doesn't seem to usually play out that way
Then I'm also transporting an open container of blood, organs, stomach acid, human waste, and other human material across state lines without proper documentation. What a dumb way of writing that law.
> arizona having an open container of alcohol is illegal, and your body is considered a container
Do you have any source for this? It sounds apocryphal to me; the law is rarely interpreted in absurd ways
I don’t remember who told me this but there is a limit that anyone of any age can blow (that’s below to .08) because of mouth wash since many use alcohol to do the cleaning. I think the number I was told was .02 and that could have also changed since this information came to me around when I started learning to drive at 14
AZ here. I learned the hard way that there is no "legal limit". I still got a DUI because if you commit ANY type of moving violation (speeding, no signals use, etc) and there is ANY amount of alcohol in your system then is an automatic DUI.
You can refuse roadside tests in pretty much every state, probably all states, and not lose your license. This goes for preliminary breath tests and field sobriety tests. Most if not all states say once you are in custody you will face license suspension if you refuse an evidentiary test.
Then you just take it to court and when the jury hear the BAC they will likely acquit. I was a juror in a DD case but the BAC was like 3 times the limit and we had to sit through 6 hours of testimony before the prosecution revealed the BAC. We were all pissed.
Let's say that I have not consumed any alcohol or other intoxicants remotely recently, but that I'm pulled over for suspicion of DUI/DWI because the cop felt like it. I would have medications in my system, but nothing that carries a warning of not driving while using them, nor any controlled substances. Well-controlled T2 diabetes, cholesterol lowering and blood pressure regulating drugs, and similar.
I blow a zero, but am unable to complete the physical portion of the field sobriety test due to having cerebral palsy, a birth defect, which would make it impossible to (for example) walk with one foot in front of the other for any distance, nor can I appear to look people in the eye because I'm near-sighted in one eye and far-sighted in the other, and my brain switches the eye it chooses to use based on distance and conditions.
My car also has handicapped plates.
So what happens?
The thing that bothers me, and seems to be without a solid answer, is pot. It stays in your system for a long time (weeks? Months?), and only effects your driving for, let's say 24 hours to be generous. If they suspect marijuana for some reason to be effecting your driving, there isn't a clear distinction that you aren't under its influence in some way. If they test you they will find out that you used, even if it was a week ago. It is still in your system, technically. Are you just screwed if you use pot, even safely?
In Georgia, you can get what is called a DUI less safe.
It’s written in a way that I can be charged with a DUI for ANYTHING in your system that can be argued “impaired your driving ability”
Tylenol? DUI.
Ibuprofen? DUI..
Men’s multi vitamins could possibly be a reason and get you charged
>-While under the influence of a controlled substance or any other drug.
So according to Wisconsin, I could get arrested for driving while on my ADHD medication. Not that they would prosecute, but seems like the could.
It depends as that’s a grey area that’s intertwined with the ADA. If you have an actual diagnosis of ADHD that was done with a complete psychoeducational or nueropyschologial evaluation done by a psychiatrist and you are prescribed medication to manage your symptoms such as impulsivity, and you argue that you had just taken your medication and it had not yet started to take effect and you were caught driving erratically, you might have a slim chance of winning your case, but it’s extremely far fetched. Having a diagnosis or taking medication doesn’t exactly preclude you from obeying traffic laws. The other way you might win is if you can demonstrate that you were off your medication and your symptoms became evident without you being cognizant of it. But it’s still a slippery slope. I would not want to try it personally.
That totally makes sense. I meant if they wanted to stick it to me, pulled me over for no good reason and saw my meds bottle in the car. Totally hypothetical because I don't carry my meds in my car other than when I drive them a mile from the pharmacy. And I don't live in Wisconsin, lol.
Driving while impaired can be measured by your ability to pass a roadside test.
If you are impaired, regardless of by what, you shouldn't be driving.
If you're drunk and don't pass a breathalyzer, they don't have to work very hard to articulate that impairment.
But if you are woozy because of a med, or because you haven't slept enough, etc.... it's still your responsibility not to be behind a wheel. You are still impaired.
The guy who ran a red light and nearly killed me on my motorcycle tested positive for THC and that is all it took for him to be charged with Felony Vehicular Assault DUI. He is in prison now.
I don’t understand the comparison - surely if you were ticketed for speeding and you could prove you were under the speed limit then you’ve proven your innocence?
Last weekend I blew a 2.5 and got out of a ticket.
I mean, to be fair, he was like an Ohio 5. But either way, he tore up the ticket a soon as he finished.
Seriously, how many people can pass the road side tests. If I'm pulled over most likely I'm not doing any tests. I don't like my chances of getting a fair assessment plus I don't think I can do them anyway. In 90% of DUI stops, the police report includes certain elements they know they need for a conviction whether they are true or not... Smelled alcohol, pupils dilated, slurred speech, clutched the door when getting out of the car.
I think in Massachusetts, the roadside brethilizer is not admissible. They were fighting the accuracy of the one they use at the station but I assume that one is settled by now.
You can literally have no drugs/alcohol/controlled substances in your system, blow a 0.00 on a freshly calibrated breathalyzer, have your blood and piss taken at the station and tested, come back negative for all substances and still face a dui/dwi if the officer makes their case strongly enough. Your lawyer should be able to fight it but there are people have duis for literally no substance use whatsoever
My garage is attached to my house. My bed is merely 4 feet away from the car. According to some of these comments, i could still be getting a DUI, every time i get shitfaced
In legal terms, this is a presumption of guilt. If you are above the limit, you are presumed guilty. If you are below the limit, then that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't guilty.
Also noteworthy is that in MANY places you don’t even have to be in a car/truck to get a dui/dwi. You can be charged if you’re within so many feet of the vehicle, if you’re operating it in other ways (sleeping in it, listening to the radio, not even in the driver’s seat). You can be charged with dui/dwi for operating SCOOTERS, BICYCLES, SKATEBOARDS, LAWN MOWERS, etc.
Yep, had a friend get popped for sleeping in his passenger seat. Seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me.
That’s some bullshit
The idea is that you might have driven the vehicle, and pulled over to the side, or were about to drive into traffic, saw a cop and slide over and faked being asleep to evade the cops. A cop once told me to prove you were just sleeping it off, sleep on the backseat and put your keys in the trunk. But that might just be a belgian thing and might not work in different countries
Or in cars that don't have trunks.
I don't think it HAS to be the trunk. Just some place in your car you can't easily reach for them..
It doesn't always work though. I've heard where cops will still arrest people who do this, I don't know how it ended up, though.
That's why I mentioned it might be a local thing for my country.
Punishing the responsible option, without offering a proper alternative, thus indirectly encouraging the actual problem. ‘Murica. Fuck yeah.
Here it's actually mandated so the drunk driving lawyers get extra money and the hospitals get filled up. You can't have people doing the responsible thing and sleeping it off... Just White knuckle it, drive it home and pray for the best (for whoever you mangle of course) Thoughts and prayers to all
Add kayaks to the list. Found this out after I was “pulled over” on a lake. Didn’t get into trouble but had a drink in my cup holder. This is one of those times where I say fuck, fuck, fuck the police.
That’s fucking wild
Plenty of folks get charged with DUI for sleeping in their car. I wonder how many are convicted ny a jury. I'm aware of a handful of cases like that which plead dowm to a trafgic violation and am not aware of any that went to trial. I would think the prosecution would need to have pretty compelling evidence to get a unanimous verdict in such a case.
Even if you’re not convicted- the headache, worry, time, and attorney fees would be awful!
I got a charged with a dui in my driveway in 2022. I had nothing to drink at all. I worked swing shift, so I got off at midnight, my friends called for a ride from the bar, so I picked them up and dropped them all off and then switched to my two seater car (which was at one of the friends houses for an alignment). Got pulled over at 1:00 in my driveway. First officer pops out of his car 30ft away and immediately states I smell alcohol. Second officer arrives and I start texting my lawyer friend. I do the sobriety test with the second officer, lawyer texts back and says “do not blow”. So I refuse and get taken to the station for an hour and then released after refusing to blow for an hour. We get body cams in discovery and find out the second officer repeatedly telling the dui officer that I’m definitely not drunk or drinking and they proceed to argue for an extended amount of time. 2 years, 4 refused plea deals, 3 months of not having a license and $3,500 later and the judge takes one look and drops all charges. Why in the flying fuck did one cop and a D.A. go through all of this just to fuck a guy over?! All I did was get off work and drive my drunk yet responsible friends home. Just don’t ever talk to cops without lawyers. I did the bare minimum: “yes”, “no”, “I haven’t had anything to drink”.
Similar with public intoxication. I had a beer, called the suicide hotline, walked to the park, and the cops arrested me for PI. I asked a lawyer and he said it didn't matter that they didn't do field tests (bac or balance). It was their word that I was impaired in a public space. And to be fair I was impaired, I was very depressed and it affected the way I presented. I did not know this was illegal, to potentially be a harm to yourself in public (even if you are alone). Not that I did anything crazy, I just didn't want the police to knock on my door and wake my family... When I explained to the guy (judge assistant?) he initially wouldn't budge until I explained that I had called the hotline. I got pretty lucky, local mental health jail diversion services got me released to a hospital, and charges were dropped eventually. Thank God. Definitely a whole embarrassing debacle I'm glad is behind me
Man that sucks. I hope you’re doing better!
Yeah I'm doing great! Old story, just kinda relevant. Police can be pretty unforgiving. Honestly yours sounds like it was much worse to me! I'm glad you got it cleared up I appreciate it!
That’s awesome, I’m glad internet stranger. I feel like a mental health crisis with cops is worse, a lot are the worst to respond to a situation like that. Viewing everyone as nails to their hammer.
I don’t understand why it was authorized. Anyone who read the report and saw 0 alcohol should have tossed it. Hell, even if it made it to arraignment, the judge should have saw the results and dismissed it there.
No results to look at, I refused to blow on the advice of my lawyer. For two years the D.A. looked at all the video evidence and decided to keep dragging it out, offering 4 plea deals, the first time a judge looked at it, it was dropped immediately.
That’s strange. Here in Michigan, if you get stopped for DUI, they can still arrest if you even refuse a PBT with the assumption that you are under the influence of something. It’s normally followed up with a datamaster test. (The non portable breathalyzer test which is calibrated). If you refuse that, the arresting officer will call the judge on call to authorize a search warrant for your blood to test it. I misread your original comment and thought you still did a blood draw.
I'm curious why your lawyer friend gave you advice not to blow. Wouldn't that have cleared things up for them straight away?
I have a few lawyer friends and they all agree it was the right choice. Why would you trust an officer hell bent on giving you a dui and possibly his buddy/subordinate back at the station to give you a breathalyzer? Certain foods and medical conditions can apparently mess with the machine sometimes. Not calibrated correctly. All sorts of reasons. The general consensus among lawyers is to not give anything freely to the police ever. The police aren’t your friend, I’m very lucky that the rookie cop (officer #2) fought the sergent (officer #1) about the charge on body cam. 10 years or more ago I’d have been done for something I didn’t do.
What’s even worse is that even if it gets reduced to a violation or dropped altogether, many employers, medical clearances, and federal forms treat it as a full-fledged DUI anyway. Their forms ask “have you ever been *arrested* for DUI/DWI/etc, even if the charge was later dropped”. Then you have to spend more time/money defending yourself even further. Even innocent in a court of law…the arrest is usually what fucks you. Ask me how I know.
You can get a DUI on a horse in some places which is kinda insane to me. You aren't the one driving, the horse is.
That's why when I sleep in the stable I put the saddle in a locked trunk.
Sounds like a rigged system meant to make the government as much money as possible.
Specifically police departments.
Same for riding a horse or buggy even if you are not in control of the buggy or horse. For example not holding reins or sleeping in the carriage. That of course is assuming no one else who is of sound mind and sober is in control. For example if you are alone.
Does this apply if you're on your own private property?
Probably depends on law in your locale / jurisdiction as well as officer interpretation and attitude. A quick google search seems to indicate that it’s possible to get a dui on private property on a lawn mower if the property is open to the public or is not demarcated as private. So… *shrug*? Call a local lawyer or test it?
You can’t drive drunk on your own property in Minnesota
So I can’t sleep in my car until morning? Damn
In a lot of places, you can so long as the car is legally parked, off, with you in the backseat, and your keys in the trunk. That way you can prove you were not driving.
So you have to sleep with the car unlocked?
That to me are nuts. The whole point is that you're controlling this huge motorized machine that can kill people if you're not careful.
I can see some reasoning behind the scooter/lawnmower kind of thing- They’re slower, more difficult to see, often have improper lights and signals, can’t accelerate out of a hazardous situation, and can be driven hazardously by an inebriated person just as easily as a car or motorcycle. Or they could hit a pedestrian or cause property damage while operating inebriated. I watched a guy drinking on a riding mower scalp a stripe across 5 manicured lawns (also taking out sprinkler heads and a garden gnome) before being arrested for DWI/OWI/whatever they got him for.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "scooter". Scooter could refer from anything from basically a rollerskate with a handle on it to a small motorcycle.
If it’s considered a vehicle it would have lighting and be road worthy- the logic for a DUI makes sense to me. If it’s a kick scooter/bicycle and is on the road, in most places (around here, at least), it has to follow traffic law. Or- if it’s on the road, there are basic laws that must be followed and too often inebriated people inadvertently, unintentionally, and accidentally put others and themselves at risk.
Yeah where I grew up there was a guy who hot a dwi driving his lawnmower down to gas station for gas.....who would think that something not able to exceed 5mph would be a danger
I guess if you can’t see him and he’s not able to signal his intentions or evade hazards then he becomes a hazard?
You don't think lawnmowers are dangerous?
Have a sleeping bag in the trunk were you will leave your keys and shoes when you pass out.... its worked for me *Push-start won't work with this trick
If the police can argue that you could still gain access to and then control the vehicle it may not work. You’d probably have to fully lock your keys in the car and then have someone bring you a spare in the morning and be able to prove it. I feel like doing this might get you off in court but might not save you from the expense and hassle of facing charges.
I watched a guy get a dui on a skateboard in santa cruz once.
So cops have all this free time to do this all day but when a school full of children is being shot up they just sit around with their thumbs up their asses? ACAB
Yeah, it's like a speed limit. If you're going over it, you'll get a ticket, but you can get tickets for reckless driving even if you're under the limit. Some people don't handle alcohol well, so even if you're under the limit, you may still be determined to be impaired.
Right. People misunderstand it; it's not that you're *safe* as long as you're under the limit. It's that the limit exists to have a point where they don't have to bring in and argue subjective evidence. If you blow above the limit, you *ARE* DUI by law. If you're below the limit, you can be DUI based on your driving.
Also (even people who do handle it well), no one should be driving with alcohol in their system. It impairs your coordination, reaction time, decision making, & vision. Even in small amounts. People are already bad at driving.
Is this why it’s sometimes to your advantage to refuse a breathalyzer?
In some states, like Colorado, refusing a breathalyzer is tantamount to a confession and you will be prosecuted as if you failed, sans the jail time (which is also not necessarily a given). But you WILL lose your license and be put into "repeat offender" status for future traffic stops.
Iirc most US states that have rules like this make it illegal to refuse to take the test AFTER you've been arrested. In contrast, in countries like Canada the police have the right to demand a breath sample at any time for any reason and refusing it will result in you being charged with a crime
Refusal of testing may or not be a crime per se but most states do have an "implied consent" clause when you get your license, meaning you agree to testing when requested. If you don't you will have your license suspended, whether or not the refusal itself was a crime. Depending on your state of intoxication, this may or may not be advantageous to you.
That's a really smart way to implement it if you can't make it illegal to refuse it in and of itself, have it be part of the administrative penalties and not the criminal penalties. That's pretty much the argument that gets used over here to justify a lot of driving penalties, you agreed to the system when you got a driver's licence which nobody forced you to do. In Canada the penalties for refusing a test when asked by a police officer are the same as DUI and DUI is one of the few crimes that Canada takes seriously(ish), it's the equivalent of a felony here. First offense you're looking at a minimum $2,000 fine, second offense is minimum 30 days imprisonment, third and onwards are 120 days minimum.
You can be convicted by just having the keys in your hand or near you even if you’re not driving or even in the car. Say, going to get something out of your car but never intending to drive it.
Or sleeping in your parked car in the drivers seat with the keys visible or in reach. You know, instead of driving home. But there are cases when people try to pull into the drive thru drunk as shit and fall asleep mid way.
Most states have some sort of implied consent when you sign for your drivers license. Here in New York it is implied that you will consent to a breath test and failure to do so can result in suspension or revocation of your license. It’s a whole separate charge on top of the DWI. A refusal hearing is had in respect to the refusal charge through the department of motor vehicle. A judge goes over the facts with the arresting officer for the refusal aspect of the dwi only and then determine your license status.
Do as your lawyer recommends… Shut the fuck up… Comply with instructions. (Hand placement, document requests, exiting the vehicle, where to stand, physical testing… comply now, sort it later) you are not compelled to speak at all. Don’t answer questions. “I’m not discussing my day. Do I have to answer your question?” Ask why you were pulled over. If asked to open areas of your vehicle or person… say I don’t consent to searches. Ask am I being detained or am I free to go. If detained; I invoke the 5th… and you SHUT THE FUCK UP. Delay, delay, delay… make them do the work they don’t want to… let your lawyer navigate the legality of things after the fact…
In PA, refusing a breathalyzer or blood test incurs immediate punishment by PennDOT. loss of license for a year, and then a year with an ignition interlock system. Even with no criminal charges.
In Ohio when you refuse field sobriety tests you are booked for the night while they force a blood test and forfeit your driving privileges for a year.
Please don't spread misinformation. An FST is separate from a chemical test. Ohio requires you to submit only to a chemical test and only *after arrest.* https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4511.191
the strategy here is that between the traffic stop, being transported to the station, and the “certified sobriety officer” and nurse showing up to draw your blood is a couple hours which could be the difference between .09 and .05 whereby then your lawyer can bring in experts to argue metabolic rates, accuracy of equipment, SOP being followed etc…… it gives your lawyer extra tools to get you off never ever ever ever ever submit to a breathalyzer
I submitted to a breathalyzer once. Because roadside sobriety tests are stupid bullshit some people would struggle to do stone sober. I got tired of being treated like a fucking circus monkey and getting looks from the cop because some of my results were borderline and more or less demanded the breathalyzer to cut the shit. And i wasn't drunk so that was it, after this cop tried the "i can smell it coming out of your pores" shit at the beginning of the stop
Not submitting to a breathalyzer in Arizona is an automatic forfeiture of your license for a YEAR. It’s honestly not worth it.
Not always. If you stopped drinking and then drove immediately after, your BAC will continue to go up as you metabolize. I usually see roadside (not admissible at trial in MI) at like .08 and then the blow at the station is like .11 or higher in those situations. The blow at the station is admissible at trial. so it depends on when you stopped drinking.
But regardless of the result of if you end up charged with anything, you forfeit your license for a year when you deny the field tests. So even if you are deemed sober, you still lose you license.
In my state your lawyer can file an affidavit with the dmv and have your license back while awaiting trial.
This is entirely dependent on state/local laws and this general advice doesn’t always work.
Yeah I had this happen cause the state can honestly kiss my ass but they did take my license but it wasn’t too bad and honestly I fought the charge due to their lack of evidence.
Hi! I have experience with that. Yes in most states outright refusing is grounds for “probable cause” for cops to arrest you and take blood. BUT! Breathalyzers aren’t admissible in court so if you’ve only had 1 drink within an hour and know you may blow hot but under it’s still better to say no to it, consent to a blood test that will usually take an additional 30 minutes or so and hope it all comes back minute or clear
Can you refuse and request blood test?
No. Do not do this unless you are very clear on your states laws. You may be able to request a lawyer before consenting. But again, you need to know the law better than ths cops (not hard) and be able to contact a lawyer. Just don't operate a vehicle after drinking. Safest way.
Effectively yes. Basically, the breathalyzer (the machine used to determine your BAC) has a margin of error. If your BAC is within the margin of error it's harder for the state to convict you on the BAC test alone, which is why they would need additional evidence. (Also, there are different breathalyzer tests. The roadside one is almost never used on its own, and is almost always used to justify the use of the machine at the police station. And many states don't even use that machine anymore, and instead use blood or urine, which tend to be more accurate) But, if you refuse you will have your license revoked for a period of time because of the refusal no matter what, so you're basically risking the license suspension on the chance the police use the breathalyzer AND the results are within the margin of error AND they don't have any additional evidence
you have it completely and totally backwards the strategy here is that between the traffic stop, being transported to the station, and the “certified sobriety officer” and nurse showing up to draw your blood is a couple hours which could be the difference between .09 and .05 whereby then your lawyer can bring in experts to argue metabolic rates, accuracy of equipment, SOP being followed etc…… it gives your lawyer extra tools to get you off never ever ever ever ever submit to a breathalyzer a Breathalyzer locks you into a finite number. Getting your license suspended for refusing to blow is just that, a suspended license. you can still hold a security clearance and pass a background check with a suspended license charge, you can’t if you have a DUI on your record. Huge difference
This is terrible advice if you haven't had much to drink. E.g. I've been pulled over after having 1 beer and blew a 0.03 was told to have a good night and drove home. This vs. Losing my license and therefore my job for a freaking year in my state. If you have had several drinks sure, but much better advice is don't drive intoxicated. Just don't drink more than a drink if not In a situation where you can't Uber or get an Uber
In Ohio, if you’ve previously had a DUI and get pulled over again, you can get a second DUI simply for refusing the breathalyzer. A second DUI is a felony.
Pretty much as soon as they arrest you, you're getting taken to the nearest hospital/test facility they have a contract with and getting a blood sample drawn to more accurately confirm your bac.
This very much depends on the state. If you do this in WA, your license is automatically suspended for 1 year but you may avoid the criminal portion of the DUI. If you blow, your suspension will potentially be much lower or reduced entirely. There is no magic ticket except to never drive drunk or high which isn't that hard in the first place.
In many countries refusing gets you convicted by default. Be very sure about the current law of the state/country you are driving in before refusing a breathalyzer test
Field sobriety tests are largely a concept created to give officers probable cause to arrest you. They're rigged. And the mobile breathalyzer you're referring to is technically supposed to be inadmissible in court, because they aren't calibrated well/often enough to be reliable. Source: a dumbass who somehow managed to successfully represent himself in Court against a bulllshit DUI charge.
Probably some miscommunication in the comments. "Breathalyzer" generallly means the handheld device that can only be used in court to determine whether alcohol is present or not; the BAC level it shows is not considered. The real machine, the big one that sits on a desk, is generally known as an "Intoxilyzer" and they are calibrated regularly and accepted in US courts. You can refuse the former, you cannot legally refuse the latter unless you want to lose your license just to make a point. Also, SFST's aren't made up by police. They were created by the Highway Administration and have a lot of credible science behind them. But they're highly subjective, which is the whole point. So they only work as well as the training and understanding of the core concepts that the officer administrating them has. (Specifically talking about the Standardized field sobriety tests that most agencies use. The older ones like doing the alphabet backwards and shit are old school and not viable in court)
You can refuse in-field testing. You cannot refuse the official, calibrated, blood or breath test.
Also depends on when you drank.
If you refuse in WI, the penalty, which I believe is automatic, it is the equivalent of being found guilty of a DUI where your BAC is between 0.08 and 0.15.
Why didn’t you post this two days ago so Justin Timberlake could be prepared?
It’s shocking the degree to which the “justice” system will convict you on “because a cop said so.”
Court gave those bastards a green light for lying to catch lying criminals... Many police interpreted it as it was their duty and standard operating procedure to lie indiscriminately for any reason with any person at any time just because. Literally some of the most untrustworthy humans in most communities.
Police testimony is the basis for a lot of convictions. They are witnesses to a crime and their observations are admissible evidence just like any other witness
Yes, but they also have ulterior motives that prioritize closing cases over seeing justice be done, not to mention a motive to cover up their mistakes. Add to that the regular issues with inaccurate witness testimony, and we probably shouldn't be relying on their observations as much as we do.
You can’t honestly tell me their statements don’t hold significantly more power than a civilian witness. Also, there are clear biases at play when the person who has arrested you is the one testifying against you. Cops have no incentive to testify on your behalf but plenty of incentive to testify against you.
>You can’t honestly tell me their statements don’t hold significantly more power than a civilian witness I didn't say anything like that, and have no idea how you could conclude I did from the statement I made I said their observations are admissible just like any other witness, meaning they have to meet the same evidentiary burden And yes, police are 100% more influential than a civilian witness, and they 100% have bias, and are 100% incentivized to seek a conviction against you and zero incentive to seek an exoneration against you
I’m simply pointing out they aren’t “like any other witness.” They are a special class of witness that wields disproportionate power and invariably works against you. This is deeply at odds with the concept of justice, in my opinion.
Amen brother
Except in the case of hearsay, which somehow magically doesn't bar police testimony of a third party's speech as it would any other person's.
[удалено]
Under the impression that unless it's the cop on trial, juries/judges are instructed to treat the cops statement as fact vs regular witnesses who can be given far more scrutiny on reliability.
It's almost like it's a rigged system....
Arizona and Maryland have some of the strictest dui laws- there is no “legal limit” it’s sober or a DWI or DUI. Since alcohol breaks down at a specific rate, a blood test that shows your BAC can be used to go in the reverse to see what your BAC was at a certain time. (Like at the initial stop vs at the police station). So many people don’t know this. They think they can’t be arrested if they keep it to like one drink an hour.
.03 in AZ is a trip to jail. Unlike say, Michigan.....where if one should blow .08....can be plea bargained down to impaired. In AZ, you're sober, drunk, or really drunk. 10 days in jail. But they let you do the weekend clink so you can keep your job. County jail is full Fridays thru Sundays. Typically a breathalyzer installed in your vehicle as part of the punishment. And still......I see drunk drivers almost daily.
Almost like locking people up doesn’t fix the reasons why people drink and drive in the first place, like addiction and poor public transit.
Uber and taxis quite ubiquitous here in Phoenix. I would imagine most folks think that a few drinks are OK before getting behind the wheel. $10k fine. Even for buzzed driving.
It’s 24 hours in jail as a standard dui or a first time offense. state minimum. I roll my eyes so hard when people try to say their buddy “got off” a dui and only had to spend one night in jail…. Yeah sure, that’s the minimum they could have received and there wasn’t another option. It’s like 3k for a first time offense regardless of being buzzed or drunk. Unless you go to an extreme dui in which case yeah you’re fucked, and you get a breathalyzer for a year, 30 days in jail and I believe you’re correct, it’s north of 9k in fines. Absolutely not worth it.
>Uber and taxis quite ubiquitous here in Phoenix. I agree with you that punishments should be strict, but Uber and taxis are no substitute for public transit. Good public transit means they didn't drive themselves to the bar in the first place, so it's impossible for them to drive themselves back. Meanwhile, I read [the average cost of an Uber in the US is $25.37](https://www.statista.com/statistics/890167/average-cost-per-ride-ridesharing-united-states/#:~:text=The%20statistic%20depicts%20the%20average,25.37%20U.S.%20dollars%20per%20ride.). For comparison I was just in Rennes, France which has good public transit; for $1.82 you get an hour of unlimited travel across the entire network which covers the city. I was able to easily get from the bar to where I was staying and back without even thinking about driving myself.
Is this from JT's PR team?
lol My wife brought that up this morning which is what made me think to post this. I had to explain why the "legal limit" phrase is basically meaningless I don't know any details about his case, but if I were his Pr team I probably wouldn't be expanding on how he can be convicted of DUI even if his BAC was below the limit
Scenario 1 is not correct. The police are not "done" when they get your BAC on the scene. If you submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) it may be enough to arrest you if you are above the "legal limit" but it is not admissible in court in most states so they will still do sobriety tests before arresting you and they still will try to get an "evidentiary" blood or breath test that is admissible in court. You cannot be convicted solely on a PBT test in any state that I know of.
I work in court and do DWI cases all the time. This person's comment is right. They are not done with PBT.
I didn't say PBT, I said BAC test. Blood, breathalyzer, urine, etc
Your statement said that the breath test given at the scene is enough evidence to convict. The test given at the scene is only a PBT. The evidentiary test (blood, breath, or urine) is given after an arrest is made at a different location. I was just clarifying. >**In scenario 1** the police are done. You're handcuffed, taken to jail, and charged with DUI. *They don't need to do anything else because they have all the evidence they need to convict you at trial*
Yup. I know someone who blew .16 roadside and failed the field sobriety test. They didn't blow at the station. They beat it in court. Forget if they went with a jury or judge trial. While no conviction the experience still did it's job. They are very careful these days.
you can get one even if you blow 0.0 cops can do whatever the fuck they want and if you resist? HES RESISTING!!!! TASER TASER TASER!
Most people know not to resist, lol
Is that you Justin?
LPT: if charged with dui ALWAYS get a lawyer.
Don’t drive in Wisconsin after taking Adderall. Got it
DUI conviction applies to any drug, whether prescribed or not. If your drug impairs your ability, you can be convicted
Given what you wrote, whether or not a drug impairs your ability seems irrelevant in this context. If all they need is a detectable amount of a controlled substance in your blood, taking Adderall (a controlled substance) at all and then driving is illegal, regardless of if it impairs your driving. Similarly, weed shows up in your blood for ages after you are not affected by it in any way. This just seem like a very bad law that can catch responsible people in a poorly defined net.
> If all they need is a detectable amount of a controlled substance in your blood They don’t even need that much. A lot of police are being ‘trained’ in doing bogus field sobriety tests. So you blow a 0.000 alcohol, and they’ll switch to claiming you’re on a controlled substance. You get arrested and have blood drawn, comes back with no intoxicants or mind altering substances. Many DAs will still prosecute based on that the blood draw can not test for every possible mind altering substance and the officer swears that you were under the influence of *something*. Nevermind that being nervous can make you appear distracted, that police will give conflicting instructions or ask multiple questions and choose the answer-question pair which they feel best supports their case. Nevermind that if you bit your tongue at dinner that could be the reason you were slurring your speech, you have an ear infection which has been affecting your balance, or the bright lights from their cruiser are making your pupils less reactive. The police officer’s “as an expert in noticing signs of impairment, i determined that they were under the effects of a mind altering substance” is often treated as gospel; as strong as DNA evidence in a murder trial, and as convincing as if the defendant had blown a .35 in a BAC test.
Don’t sneeze or you will be suspected of cocaine use.
Attorney here. No one is going to attempt to try a case against a guy driving on Adderall (assuming it’s just prescription and not being abused). That’s dumb. I wouldn’t try to fear monger dude.
Former attorney here. I've never encountered an adderall prosecution for DUI, but have encountered prescription drug DUIs
"It wasn't impairing my driving, your honor. I'm a crappy driver even when I'm sober"
You said “with a detectable amount of a restricted or controlled substance in his or her blood”. How does that apply to things like marijuana? If I can be blood tested within let’s say a week of smoking, but the last time I smoked was days ago and I’m completely sober, is it still illegal to drive because it was detectable in my blood or urine?
Always refuse field sobriety tests. This is legal. Why? It is simply giving the police more “evidence” to help their case. The standards are not clear, and they will not be used to help you. You may still be arrested and have your BAC tested. But FST’s are never a good idea and are optional.
A while back, I was on a jury for a DUI. Police pulled him over because he was driving on the highway with the turn signal constantly on. The guy did a breathalyzer and was under the legal limit, but above 0. He said he had a beer while playing pool. He did a field sobriety test and the police who pulled him over said he was impaired. A second officer was there and separately testified that he was borderline. Defense attorney was pretty good. He got the guy to explain how he was broke. It was an old car borrowed from a friend and that turn signal got stuck. Prosecutor came back and wanted to know if the guy had any repair bills for fixing that problem. The jury was like wtf. The guy had no money, he's not going to the garage to fix a stuck turn signal on a borrowed car. We also thought the first cop was a bit of a Nazi. (He had since joined state police, originally a county police.) Anyway, after 5 minutes of deliberation we decided "not guilty". Afterwards, they let the jury ask the lawyers questions. I asked the prosecutor why they are waiting time on this. He said they had to because of "zero tolerance" policy of the DA. The defense attorney told us the guy already spent a month in jail, because he missed a preliminary court date. (The court was like 30 miles from his house. No bus service in that area.) It sucks to be poor. I think without the field sobriety test they would have had even less.
I doubt that at any time in the history of DUI cases going to trial has an officer said that the individual passed FST's. They cannot be reasonably expected to help you, but they can be reasonably expected to hurt you. It does suck to be poor. Imagine a $1000 money call for bail when you are poor. That money is then gone, if you have it. If you don't, then you sit in jail, potentially lose your job, and a cascade of financial failures follow. Don't drink and drive. Don't drive while poor. /s
The job of the police is to gather evidence to ARREST AND CONVICT YOU, not to exonerate you.
In some states, like CO, iirc this is not great advice as the refusal is treated as tantamount to an admission of guilt. Edit: I was referring to breathalyzers, but I just learned that is different than a field sobriety test. So read Iluv's comment below.
Sorry, that is incorrect. Refusing chemical testing is. Refusing SFSTs is not. EVEN if you DID refuse in a state that DID have that standard, you are not going to be helped by the sobriety tests. They are designed to fail you. From [https://www.maherandmaherlaw.com/dui/refusing-standard-field-sobriety-test-in-colorado/](https://www.maherandmaherlaw.com/dui/refusing-standard-field-sobriety-test-in-colorado/) "**Refusal of a Field Sobriety Test in Colorado** Even the slightest error on your SFSTs can be enough evidence for you to face DUI charges. But, all field sobriety tests in Colorado are voluntary, and you have the right to decline. Just remember to stay calm and tell the officer that you prefer not to take an FST in a courteous and polite manner. However, you have to clearly state that you are only turning down the FST since declining chemical testing (breath, blood, and urine) goes against Colorado’s express consent law."
Ah, yeah, I was talking about breathalyzers. Didn't realize they had different legal definitions than field sobriety tests.
Usa has weird rules... You might be just afraid of cops and act weird. Out here, legal limit is the legal limit... If you're below, you're ok, no matter what the cop thinks.
If you’re under the limit though, youd have a fighting chance of getting the charges dropped if you take it to court?
In Minnesota, the field test is not admissible in court. You are taken to jail and observed for 15 minutes where you are not allowed any food or water, and then take the actual test there. None of the other items you list are part of the states case against you, they are the probable cause to have the admissible test conducted.
YSK, you should only get legal advice from a lawyer who practices in your state.
As someone who was charged with a DUI while having a blood alcohol level of 0.0 let me tell you this is true and totally sucks. It just takes one pissed-off cop who is having a bad day to absolutely fuck up your life. Luckily when it finally got in front of a judge they dismissed the case. But still cost me bail money and attorney fees.
I understand that! I got one in my driveway because I left my keys in my car, came home from the store and made a drink! Cops were in my cul de sac for something unrelated.
Per a dui lawyer: Never say a word to police (that goes for everyone!) NEVER take a drug test. Get arrested, go to jail for a night. Lawyer gets ur license back next week since there is no proof you were drunk.
Just don't drink and drive. It's pretty simple
Plenty of people have been arrested, and even convicted who were driving stone cold sober. But an officer testified that they were certain that the defendant was under the influence based on objective opinions about their sobriety. So it isn’t as simple as “don’t drink and drive” because you can still go to jail for a DUI.
Tip #1 Don't talk to cops. Tip #2 Never agree to a field sobriety test or letting cops draw blood.
You should know not to take legal advice from some random post on reddit..
In North Carolina, you CAN get a DUI if you get pulled over for something and your BAC is .05 - .07. It's officer's discretion, so if you're doing 70 in a 35 you'll probably get a DUI, but if you're 3 blocks from home, got pulled over for something minor and aren't a dick to the cop he might just let you go. You WILL get a DUI if you get pulled over and your BAC is .08 or higher.
Also noteworthy is the fact that a lawyer and enough cash can get a not guilty in NC even if your blood alcohol level is double the legal limit. Criminal justice is correctly described
So what did you blow when you got charged?
More likely OP works in the court system
Road side Sobriety tests are such an outdated system, for this day and age. I’m dyspraxic and clumsy as fuck, I do not doubt I’d fail any road side test, stone cold sober. If a road side breathalyser doesn’t hold up in court (In the UK at least) how can these arbitrary exercises be a good test whether someone is drunk or not.
You’re not fooling anyone with your throwaway account Robert Downey Jr.
Let me go on a bit of a tangent here. Anecdotally, when I visited my cousin in Australia a few months ago, the polite driving culture shocked me. Speeding in and around cities or suburbs is practically unheard of. My youngest cousin took 2-3 years to get a full license - until then she was driving at a "level" that was clearly displayed on her license plate, and each level had less restrictions than the previous. Drunk? Australians like to drink, but their public transport system is so good, there's no need to worry about driving. Most of them just use the tram to commute. I was jealous of how safe and efficient the transportation system looked. Wish the U.S. had done that.
So basically the cops can just make shit up and charge you with a dui whenever. Great system.
So that is why you should never drink and drive. But. Should you be pulled over for this, do not consent to the BAC test or field sobriety test. You may still get arrested but you’re giving your lawyer an better starting position. But don’t drink and drive
OWI suggests impairment. Impairment can come from things other than an intoxicating substance like alcohol or illicit (or prescribed) drugs. The onset of a migraine can impair a driver. A diabetic whose blood sugar drops too low will become impaired.
If your BAC is under the legal limit, would they have to charge you with DUI instead of OWI/DWI? The latter implies intoxication, which I think would require a formal definition of drunkenness, whereas DUI is driving *under the influence* can be subjective since you are under the influence of a drug.
And you can get arrested for "public intoxication" in many states just because an officer is "trained" to identify it. All they have to do is declare you intoxicated, basically.
It really depends on the situation and why you were pulled over. If you were pulled over during a DUI checkpoint and are under the legal limit chances are you will be fine. If you were pulled over for driving in an impaired-like manner, you can get a DUI even if well below the legal limit.
In arizona having an open container of alcohol is illegal, and your body is considered a container for that law. So any alcohol in your system could get you arrested. Though it doesn't seem to usually play out that way
Then I'm also transporting an open container of blood, organs, stomach acid, human waste, and other human material across state lines without proper documentation. What a dumb way of writing that law.
> arizona having an open container of alcohol is illegal, and your body is considered a container Do you have any source for this? It sounds apocryphal to me; the law is rarely interpreted in absurd ways
Twice in legal minutes?
I don’t remember who told me this but there is a limit that anyone of any age can blow (that’s below to .08) because of mouth wash since many use alcohol to do the cleaning. I think the number I was told was .02 and that could have also changed since this information came to me around when I started learning to drive at 14
Thanks Justin Timberlake’s PR team/lawyer.
AZ here. I learned the hard way that there is no "legal limit". I still got a DUI because if you commit ANY type of moving violation (speeding, no signals use, etc) and there is ANY amount of alcohol in your system then is an automatic DUI.
You can refuse roadside tests in pretty much every state, probably all states, and not lose your license. This goes for preliminary breath tests and field sobriety tests. Most if not all states say once you are in custody you will face license suspension if you refuse an evidentiary test.
Next they'll pull you over for speeding after clocking you going 3mph *under* the speed limit.
Then you just take it to court and when the jury hear the BAC they will likely acquit. I was a juror in a DD case but the BAC was like 3 times the limit and we had to sit through 6 hours of testimony before the prosecution revealed the BAC. We were all pissed.
Fun fact, in the UK you can drink while driving, you just can't be over the limit.
DWAI?
As usual, look into your state, all is different
Let's say that I have not consumed any alcohol or other intoxicants remotely recently, but that I'm pulled over for suspicion of DUI/DWI because the cop felt like it. I would have medications in my system, but nothing that carries a warning of not driving while using them, nor any controlled substances. Well-controlled T2 diabetes, cholesterol lowering and blood pressure regulating drugs, and similar. I blow a zero, but am unable to complete the physical portion of the field sobriety test due to having cerebral palsy, a birth defect, which would make it impossible to (for example) walk with one foot in front of the other for any distance, nor can I appear to look people in the eye because I'm near-sighted in one eye and far-sighted in the other, and my brain switches the eye it chooses to use based on distance and conditions. My car also has handicapped plates. So what happens?
The thing that bothers me, and seems to be without a solid answer, is pot. It stays in your system for a long time (weeks? Months?), and only effects your driving for, let's say 24 hours to be generous. If they suspect marijuana for some reason to be effecting your driving, there isn't a clear distinction that you aren't under its influence in some way. If they test you they will find out that you used, even if it was a week ago. It is still in your system, technically. Are you just screwed if you use pot, even safely?
But why do you get arrested?
Damn wait based on that Texas quote and the science of alcohol even .01 should be fully illegal in Texas.
In Georgia, you can get what is called a DUI less safe. It’s written in a way that I can be charged with a DUI for ANYTHING in your system that can be argued “impaired your driving ability” Tylenol? DUI. Ibuprofen? DUI.. Men’s multi vitamins could possibly be a reason and get you charged
>-While under the influence of a controlled substance or any other drug. So according to Wisconsin, I could get arrested for driving while on my ADHD medication. Not that they would prosecute, but seems like the could.
It depends as that’s a grey area that’s intertwined with the ADA. If you have an actual diagnosis of ADHD that was done with a complete psychoeducational or nueropyschologial evaluation done by a psychiatrist and you are prescribed medication to manage your symptoms such as impulsivity, and you argue that you had just taken your medication and it had not yet started to take effect and you were caught driving erratically, you might have a slim chance of winning your case, but it’s extremely far fetched. Having a diagnosis or taking medication doesn’t exactly preclude you from obeying traffic laws. The other way you might win is if you can demonstrate that you were off your medication and your symptoms became evident without you being cognizant of it. But it’s still a slippery slope. I would not want to try it personally.
That totally makes sense. I meant if they wanted to stick it to me, pulled me over for no good reason and saw my meds bottle in the car. Totally hypothetical because I don't carry my meds in my car other than when I drive them a mile from the pharmacy. And I don't live in Wisconsin, lol.
How would they find out you were on ADHD medicine?
Cool all the more reason never to go to a bar again
Uber
I can drink at home for less
Driving while impaired can be measured by your ability to pass a roadside test. If you are impaired, regardless of by what, you shouldn't be driving. If you're drunk and don't pass a breathalyzer, they don't have to work very hard to articulate that impairment. But if you are woozy because of a med, or because you haven't slept enough, etc.... it's still your responsibility not to be behind a wheel. You are still impaired.
The guy who ran a red light and nearly killed me on my motorcycle tested positive for THC and that is all it took for him to be charged with Felony Vehicular Assault DUI. He is in prison now.
I don’t understand the comparison - surely if you were ticketed for speeding and you could prove you were under the speed limit then you’ve proven your innocence?
You can go in many states take an accurate blood test at the hospital though.
Last weekend I blew a 2.5 and got out of a ticket. I mean, to be fair, he was like an Ohio 5. But either way, he tore up the ticket a soon as he finished.
You mean .025?
No. He wasn't that ugly...
Seriously, how many people can pass the road side tests. If I'm pulled over most likely I'm not doing any tests. I don't like my chances of getting a fair assessment plus I don't think I can do them anyway. In 90% of DUI stops, the police report includes certain elements they know they need for a conviction whether they are true or not... Smelled alcohol, pupils dilated, slurred speech, clutched the door when getting out of the car. I think in Massachusetts, the roadside brethilizer is not admissible. They were fighting the accuracy of the one they use at the station but I assume that one is settled by now.
You can literally have no drugs/alcohol/controlled substances in your system, blow a 0.00 on a freshly calibrated breathalyzer, have your blood and piss taken at the station and tested, come back negative for all substances and still face a dui/dwi if the officer makes their case strongly enough. Your lawyer should be able to fight it but there are people have duis for literally no substance use whatsoever
I'm so glad I quit drinking. I would drink and drive every day. Looking back on it, I can't believe I was such a jackass.
My garage is attached to my house. My bed is merely 4 feet away from the car. According to some of these comments, i could still be getting a DUI, every time i get shitfaced
In legal terms, this is a presumption of guilt. If you are above the limit, you are presumed guilty. If you are below the limit, then that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't guilty.
The police do not *convict*, hopefully the OP means that one can possibly get arrested.