The roadside field sobriety test exists purely for the cop (s) to claim they saw further evidence you were intoxicated or under the influence and can be refused in most of not all states. It is never going to prove you are sober and is not in anyone’s best interests except the cop’s; check your state laws and never consent to the sobriety tests.
Similarly, the hand held portable breathalyzer can be refused in most of not all states, but if they (cop) decide to arrest you and bring you to the station then refusing the calibrated breathalyzer test machine (or blood or urine tests in some cases) there typically is worded as an admission of guilt in many states. Check your state laws and never agree to any breathalyzer unless doing so explicitly results in license forfeiture or implied admission of guilt. Even then, it may still be in a person’s best interests to refuse.
There’s this show On Patrol Live where they follow cops around with a camera. I see plenty of them arrest people for refusing to do the test. That leads me to believe it’s more common than what you are suggesting above. (I.e. refusing isn’t that great of an option either.) But as you say, check your local laws.
Refusing isn’t an admission of guilt. You agree to submit to a chemical test in order to have a driver’s license. The calibrated instruments are considered evidentiary tests, so refusal of either a blood or calibrated breath test results in an immediate revocation of your license, it’s unrelated to whether or not you were sober.
The handheld devices can only provide probable cause to the officer, and they’re usually ripped apart in court. They also only work with alcohol, so if there are any other drugs involved, they need to do a SFST anyway.
If you are actually sober why on earth would you not take a breathalyzer test. There may be some slight inaccuracies but you are NEVER going to blow over the limit unless you’ve been drinking. I could see MAYBE refusing a test if you think you are close to the legal limit but that’s your problem for drinking and driving.
Assuming you’re talking about the handheld roadside units and not the calibrated stationary units, those ‘slight inaccuracies’ can be the difference between being let go or giving the cop any evidence to claim you’re intoxicated and hauling you into the station for processing. And again, the cop is only looking for excused to list as grounds for further suspicion and justification for hauling you in. Don’t do their jobs for them by voluntarily participating in any investigation that isn’t required by law.
If you’re referring to my comment about potentially refusing the breathalyzer at the station knowing it likely constitutes an admission of guilt; that can be the difference between being just over the limit or facing an Aggravated DUI charge for having a recklessly high BAC and finding out there are some distinct increases in penalties between the two. Realistically, someone with a BAC that puts them into Aggravated DUI territory isn’t likely to be thinking clearly enough to make that decision, but still with mentioning.
Obviously, no one should drink and drive in the first place, but if someone finds themselves in such a situation and is arrested it’s likely better to know the difference in consequences, legally.
Here’s a crazy thought: stop driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, or any other intoxicant for that matter. People who do that are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, and need removing from the road as swiftly as possible.
If you’re sober you wouldn’t, but if you were a prick that drives drunk and is not much over you could hope to refuse and then by the time you get to the station you might have sobered up enough to pass the test here.
They have them and can do both. I think field sobriety tests might be more common these days if they suspect you’re on something other than alcohol though.
They do. Cops in America just want to jerk you around. People elect to participate because refusing usually means being detained and taken for chemical testing. Breathalyzers and roadside sobriety field tests dont work consistently and can be bypassed easily.
It’s the same here. When someone tests positive they’re brought back to the station to a machine that’s actually calibrated and can be used as evidence (sometimes it’s in the back of the van if they’re doing a lot of testing, but it’s not carried in a car).
It’s wild to think a machine which is built to detect alcohol in your breath is less reliable than a human interpreting the dance of another human. “The breathalyzer showed 0.07 but I let them do the dance and it looked more like a 0.09 to me, so I took them in.”
And for anyone claiming other substances will not show in a breathalyzer but the dancing. That’s what swab tests are for. Collect sample, let chemicals do their thing and decide on wether the indicator turned red or green, with way less interpretation needed than an arbitrary dance.
Having worked in the industry, the machines detecting alcohol aren’t unreliable, and the way they work gives the benefit of the doubt to the person blowing.
Why don’t American cops have breathalyzers in the car and instead elect to do this interpretive dance on the side of the road?
That’s the weird thing, they do. And if they’re asking you to do field sobriety tests they’re 100% going to breathalyze you too
Dance monkey. How dare you not know the alphabet back to front?
The roadside field sobriety test exists purely for the cop (s) to claim they saw further evidence you were intoxicated or under the influence and can be refused in most of not all states. It is never going to prove you are sober and is not in anyone’s best interests except the cop’s; check your state laws and never consent to the sobriety tests.
Similarly, the hand held portable breathalyzer can be refused in most of not all states, but if they (cop) decide to arrest you and bring you to the station then refusing the calibrated breathalyzer test machine (or blood or urine tests in some cases) there typically is worded as an admission of guilt in many states. Check your state laws and never agree to any breathalyzer unless doing so explicitly results in license forfeiture or implied admission of guilt. Even then, it may still be in a person’s best interests to refuse.
There’s this show On Patrol Live where they follow cops around with a camera. I see plenty of them arrest people for refusing to do the test. That leads me to believe it’s more common than what you are suggesting above. (I.e. refusing isn’t that great of an option either.) But as you say, check your local laws.
Refusing isn’t an admission of guilt. You agree to submit to a chemical test in order to have a driver’s license. The calibrated instruments are considered evidentiary tests, so refusal of either a blood or calibrated breath test results in an immediate revocation of your license, it’s unrelated to whether or not you were sober.
The handheld devices can only provide probable cause to the officer, and they’re usually ripped apart in court. They also only work with alcohol, so if there are any other drugs involved, they need to do a SFST anyway.
If you are actually sober why on earth would you not take a breathalyzer test. There may be some slight inaccuracies but you are NEVER going to blow over the limit unless you’ve been drinking. I could see MAYBE refusing a test if you think you are close to the legal limit but that’s your problem for drinking and driving.
Assuming you’re talking about the handheld roadside units and not the calibrated stationary units, those ‘slight inaccuracies’ can be the difference between being let go or giving the cop any evidence to claim you’re intoxicated and hauling you into the station for processing. And again, the cop is only looking for excused to list as grounds for further suspicion and justification for hauling you in. Don’t do their jobs for them by voluntarily participating in any investigation that isn’t required by law.
If you’re referring to my comment about potentially refusing the breathalyzer at the station knowing it likely constitutes an admission of guilt; that can be the difference between being just over the limit or facing an Aggravated DUI charge for having a recklessly high BAC and finding out there are some distinct increases in penalties between the two. Realistically, someone with a BAC that puts them into Aggravated DUI territory isn’t likely to be thinking clearly enough to make that decision, but still with mentioning.
Obviously, no one should drink and drive in the first place, but if someone finds themselves in such a situation and is arrested it’s likely better to know the difference in consequences, legally.
Here’s a crazy thought: stop driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, or any other intoxicant for that matter. People who do that are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, and need removing from the road as swiftly as possible.
Ok fair enough. I thought you were saying you should never consent to a breathalyzer test even if you were sober.
If you’re sober you wouldn’t, but if you were a prick that drives drunk and is not much over you could hope to refuse and then by the time you get to the station you might have sobered up enough to pass the test here.
Right exactly. The comment I was reply to though says you should always refuse the test though, that’s what I was disputing.
They have them and can do both. I think field sobriety tests might be more common these days if they suspect you’re on something other than alcohol though.
They do. Cops in America just want to jerk you around. People elect to participate because refusing usually means being detained and taken for chemical testing. Breathalyzers and roadside sobriety field tests dont work consistently and can be bypassed easily.
The handheld ones can’t be used as evidence in most jurisdictions. SFSTs can be.
It’s the same here. When someone tests positive they’re brought back to the station to a machine that’s actually calibrated and can be used as evidence (sometimes it’s in the back of the van if they’re doing a lot of testing, but it’s not carried in a car).
It’s wild to think a machine which is built to detect alcohol in your breath is less reliable than a human interpreting the dance of another human. “The breathalyzer showed 0.07 but I let them do the dance and it looked more like a 0.09 to me, so I took them in.”
And for anyone claiming other substances will not show in a breathalyzer but the dancing. That’s what swab tests are for. Collect sample, let chemicals do their thing and decide on wether the indicator turned red or green, with way less interpretation needed than an arbitrary dance.
Having worked in the industry, the machines detecting alcohol aren’t unreliable, and the way they work gives the benefit of the doubt to the person blowing.
Breathalyzers won’t catch other forms of impairment like benzos, narcotics etc