Passing a sobriety test

[qdmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
Mistake #1 Driving drunk (but you already know this)

Mistake #2 Telling the officer that you had been drinking earlier

Mistake #3 Actualy taking the field sobriety test


You boned this pretty hard man

[/ QUOTE ]

Mistake #4 Speeding while you are drunk. Seriously, if you're going to drive drunk, at least drive no more than 5 over so the cops have no reason to pull you over.

[keith123]

hmmm, this is a bit of a hijack, but we need to seriously re-evaluate drunk driving policies in america. until we come up with a reasonable, fair, consistent policy, there will continue to be way too many accidents and way to many disproportionate penalties.

why is it so hard for lawmakers to distinguish between drivers that may be slightly impeded after 2 or so beers, and drivers that have had 17 beers in a night? right now the penalty is the same. and cops are forced to be the decision makers - whether to risk their job (to whatever level it is in jeopardy) and the lives of others by leting someone drive off technically drunk and potentially kill someone, or to arrest someone after 2 or 3 drinks at dinner and ruin their lives. and i would MUCH rather rely on cops than on a strict following of a ridiculous law, but cops are human and maybe the one you run into is a jerk, or a racist, or he's having a bad day, or he thinks drinking and driving is ok and lets anyone off the hook. if the penalties were proportionate to how drunk a person was, cops would be more likely to enforce the law and people who are going to the bar anyway might stop after 6 drinks instead of drinking 9 or 10 because they know if they do get stopped, it will matter that they are less drunk.

[rjoefish]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you were drunk or not, the tests are to determine if you are coherent enough to drive. He stopped you for speeding. If you passed the tests, which you sound like you did, the officer had no reason to suspect that you were a danger on the road - although you probably were.

As one post said about the breathalyzer (PBT), at least in Pennsylvania, they cannot be used to determine your blood alcohol level. You can use them to see if an underage person has been drinking, but not as evidence for a DUI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was very skeptical after reading this. I've been looking forever and finally found this:

Portable Breathalyzer Testing (PBT)- The results of a PBT may not be offered into evidence at a summary proceeding on a charge of driving under the influence (DUI). 75 Pa.C.S. §3731. PBT's are devices approved by the Department of Health and are admissible for field screening purposes only, that is whether "probable cause" has been shown for an arrest of DUI. PBT's are not sufficiently reliable to establish at trial the essential elements of DUI. 75 Pa.C.S. §1547(k); Com v. Marshall, 824 A.2d 323 (2003).


They can use the PBT to get probable cause to take you to the station and do a real test is what I get out of that, so yes, they can use them to get a reading and arrest you.

Edit for the post above mine: For most people one serving of alcohol (shot, beer, glass of wine) raises the BAC by about .025, so having 2-3 at dinner would put you at .05-.075 not taking into account any food you've eaten or any amount your body has processed, so I don't think there are that many, if any at all, where people get arrested for actually having 2-3 drinks. (Unless they're 90 lb. girls)

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
Mistake #1 Driving drunk (but you already know this)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
Mistake #2 Telling the officer that you had been drinking earlier

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't remember exact details. I think he first said "Have you been drinking?" and then I said "No." He said "he smells alcohol." Asks if I have been drinking at any point. I say "no not recently, not since watching the KU basketball game."

[ QUOTE ]
Mistake #3 Actualy taking the field sobriety test

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm ignorant to the process. It is a good idea to refuse this test?



Also, I forgot to mention that when he gave me my ticket he asked if KU won the basketball game and said he was completing a 14 hour shift. I'm sure that helped my cause.

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
They can use the PBT to get probable cause to take you to the station and do a real test is what I get out of that, so yes, they can use them to get a reading and arrest you.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, however you can refuse to take the PBT, but you're required to take the breathalyzer at the station. The part that most people don't know is that you can stall a TON of time before you have to take the one at the station by telling them you want to call your lawyer and stuff like that. I think you have like 2 hours before you have to take the station breathalyzer. This can be enough time to lower you BAC enough that you wont get in trouble.

On a side note, it's a great idea to have a phone number for a lawyer who's good at DUI's in your phone for times like this. Most of them will come straight to the point where you're pulled over if you give them a call. Might cost a little money, but if you think it's gonna be close it's worth it. Especially because he might see something the officers did wrong that will get you off the hook.

[rjoefish]

Can you refuse a PBT? This site I'm getting the info from is a DUI lawyer in Penn. so I think its all legit but it may be off. It says:

In Pennsylvania, all drivers in the Commonwealth are deemed to have consented to a blood alcohol content (BAC) test when police have reasonable grounds to believe the driver was operating his/her vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. Com v. Stair, 548 Pa. 596, 699 A.2d 1250 (1997). Miranda warnings are not required in order to admit results of chemical tests, or a defendant’s refusal to take such tests, in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated. However, in Pennsylvania, the police must first advise a suspect that they do not have the right to remain silent and that a refusal to take a chemical test will result in an administrative license suspension. This is called an O’Connell warning and it must precede any testing request by police.

Probable cause is a higher standard for police to meet in showing a court of law that they had the requisite knowledge about the occurrence of some criminality before the stop of a vehicle. The police must show that they possessed some reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has occurred. Whereas, a reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard for the police to meet. It is more than mere suspicion or an educated “hunch.”



Therefore, if they have a 'hunch' that you've been drinking they can give you a test, and since you have agreed to the consent laws by driving then refusal would result in administrative penalties? Or am I reading this all wrong?

I reread your post and I think you're saying that you can refuse the PBT but then they'll just take you to the station and you'll for sure have to take that one, or face the penalties, is that what you're saying? lol :P

[ItalianFX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether you were drunk or not, the tests are to determine if you are coherent enough to drive. He stopped you for speeding. If you passed the tests, which you sound like you did, the officer had no reason to suspect that you were a danger on the road - although you probably were.

As one post said about the breathalyzer (PBT), at least in Pennsylvania, they cannot be used to determine your blood alcohol level. You can use them to see if an underage person has been drinking, but not as evidence for a DUI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are a police officer from your location?

How often or what portion of people pass field sobriety tests?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been on 3 traffic stops that resulted in Field Sobriety Tests, and all 3 have failed.

[melac]

I got a DWI in march and there went my whole poker bankroll Never ever drink and drive it costed me over 10 grand it is just not worth it

[ItalianFX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They can use the PBT to get probable cause to take you to the station and do a real test is what I get out of that, so yes, they can use them to get a reading and arrest you.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, however you can refuse to take the PBT, but you're required to take the breathalyzer at the station. The part that most people don't know is that you can stall a TON of time before you have to take the one at the station by telling them you want to call your lawyer and stuff like that. I think you have like 2 hours before you have to take the station breathalyzer. This can be enough time to lower you BAC enough that you wont get in trouble.

On a side note, it's a great idea to have a phone number for a lawyer who's good at DUI's in your phone for times like this. Most of them will come straight to the point where you're pulled over if you give them a call. Might cost a little money, but if you think it's gonna be close it's worth it. Especially because he might see something the officers did wrong that will get you off the hook.

[/ QUOTE ]

Klompy, you are partially correct. You can refuse to take the PBT and not be penalized for it, but, again, at least in Pennsylvania, the DUI laws state that you do not have the right to consult a lawyer. If the officer asks you to voluntarily submit to a BAC test, and you refuse, you are subject to the refusal penalities.

This is in Pennsylvania, so anywhere else, I could be wrong, but it's still the same idea.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
I got a DWI in march and there went my whole poker bankroll Never ever drink and drive it costed me over 10 grand it is just not worth it

[/ QUOTE ]
Just think of all the grammar lessons ten grand would have bought.

ItalianFX, serious question: you know how punitive a DUI/DWI is these days, would you let someone off the hook who you thought was "close", or do you go out of your way to test someone who is "close"? Curious about this. Thx.