DUI screening stop

comanchepilot said:
if you are not under arrest you are not required to consent to any test of your blood, breath or urine for alcohol.
Click to expand...

I say this knowing we will probably disagree..... You are absolutely correct that before an arrest there is no legal requirement to do anything other than show your drivers license. However, I have on several occasions dealt with someone who had been drinking and was very tired who appeared impaired. It was only after they demonstrated their ability to complete the tests that I knew they were not impaired. Had they refused, I would have had no choice but to have gone on all the information I had at the time, which would have indicated they were impaired and they would have been arrested.

I know it can be a catch 22 but a lot of times, especially in my dealings, it has benefited people to do the tests.
 
First is obviously depends in which state you live what the police can do and what you can do. In PA where I live the police can have check points but they must meet specific criteria to have the check point be valid. Among other things they must also advertise the check point.

As for pleading the fifth, well that's the tricky part. As Comanche pilot said opening up your mouth can be a problem. I know of very few folks who carry that card he describes. Once you open your mouth to say I assert my rights under the 5th amendment and decline to answer, well then the officer can say:

1) He notice the smell of alcohol emanating from your person, nose and mouth and from with in the vehicle.

2) You slurred your words.

3) Your eyes were bloodshot and glassy.

The officer will ask for your license and registration.

You will then look for your wallet and search through your glove compartment after which he will say:

4) That you fumbled through your wallet yada yada yada and that your head bobbed while looking for the registration yada yada yada

So he will arrest you on suspicion of DUI and ask you to submit to a blood or breath test ( by the way in PA they have Pre Breath Tests called PBTs that are hand held units which numeric results are not admissible but are used for probable cause to arrest for suspicion of DUI.

If you refuse the breath or blood test the Dept of Transportation will suspend your license for one year, which is a civil penalty not a criminal one.

If your BAC comes back above a .08 in PA your charged if its your first offense you likely have a non adjudicative probation option which for most folks is hard to refuse. If not you better hope for a reasonable judge who will suppress the BAC test results. The kicker is in PA you don't need a BAC test to be convicted of DUI you can be convicted if the Officer testifies, that in his opinion you were intoxicated to a degree which rendered you incapable of safe driving and the judge buys it. Thats when a BAC test result below .08 is going to help.

Don't even get me started on the Drug Recognition Exams or as I call them Hocus Poscus.
 
Last edited:
Jalloway502 said:
I say this knowing we will probably disagree..... You are absolutely correct that before an arrest there is no legal requirement to do anything other than show your drivers license. However, I have on several occasions dealt with someone who had been drinking and was very tired who appeared impaired. It was only after they demonstrated their ability to complete the tests that I knew they were not impaired. Had they refused, I would have had no choice but to have gone on all the information I had at the time, which would have indicated they were impaired and they would have been arrested.

I know it can be a catch 22 but a lot of times, especially in my dealings, it has benefited people to do the tests.
Click to expand...
I'm betting you didn't deal with those drivers at a DUI checkpoint.
 
Jalloway502 said:
I say this knowing we will probably disagree..... You are absolutely correct that before an arrest there is no legal requirement to do anything other than show your drivers license. However, I have on several occasions dealt with someone who had been drinking and was very tired who appeared impaired. It was only after they demonstrated their ability to complete the tests that I knew they were not impaired. Had they refused, I would have had no choice but to have gone on all the information I had at the time, which would have indicated they were impaired and they would have been arrested.

I know it can be a catch 22 but a lot of times, especially in my dealings, it has benefited people to do the tests.
Click to expand...

Tell me the number of times in your career that has occured vs the number of times an intoxicated person has convicted themselves based on their own actions and statement . . . .

Every single time you assumed that person was intoxicated. Its not my job to help you convict me. I understand there are circumstances where a tired person can appear impaired - in that case, arrest me, 'blow me' and send me home. Then we chat later about your probable cause.

You know that you use the FST to provide you evidence of intoxication - not to prove a person is not intoxicated.
 
comanchepilot said:
If you are pilot you need to report the arrest obviously. Interesting to send in a 0.00 breath test.

A prosecutor will not likely press the case.

Then the burden shifts to you to do something about it - Step #1 is filing a civil rights complaint with the civilian overwatch organization, if you have one, or with the department even - not likely that will get you anywhere.

You could see an attorney -but in my experience there is not likely going to be anyone paying money to press a Section 1981/1983 claim against the department - because you know how hard to prove it is that the arrest is a pretext - meaning they knew they had no probable cause but arrested you for exercising your rights . . . .

Only lawyers tend to play these games - its just another file in the office.
Click to expand...

All of that sounds like a lot of work and hassle, when I could have just rolled my window down and said "good evening, officer...nothing to drink for me tonight" and be on my way.
 
comanchepilot said:
Tell me the number of times in your career that has occured vs the number of times an intoxicated person has convicted themselves based on their own actions and statement . . . .

Every single time you assumed that person was intoxicated. Its not my job to help you convict me. I understand there are circumstances where a tired person can appear impaired - in that case, arrest me, 'blow me' and send me home. Then we chat later about your probable cause.

You know that you use the FST to provide you evidence of intoxication - not to prove a person is not intoxicated.
Click to expand...

I use it to prove whether that person should be arrested OR not arrested.

Not all of us are out to get people.
 
Adam, which is why that card sits in the console of every vehicle I own. And in my wallet. And I have used it. Several times. Never been pulled out of line at checkpoint.

When I am stopped for traffic in the middle of the day when an officer is not really thinking alcohol - if I get asked any questions I always say "I do not respond to questions officer." They get the card with my DL and reg.

I always get the ticket. I have never been convicted of a moving violation.
 
Jalloway502 said:
I say this knowing we will probably disagree..... You are absolutely correct that before an arrest there is no legal requirement to do anything other than show your drivers license. However, I have on several occasions dealt with someone who had been drinking and was very tired who appeared impaired. It was only after they demonstrated their ability to complete the tests that I knew they were not impaired. Had they refused, I would have had no choice but to have gone on all the information I had at the time, which would have indicated they were impaired and they would have been arrested.

I know it can be a catch 22 but a lot of times, especially in my dealings, it has benefited people to do the tests.
Click to expand...

It is interesting to note that driving fatigued can be as dangerous as driving drunk. I believe only Arkansas and New Jersey have any laws that relate at all to such driving - but they only apply if a death occurs as a result.

A heck of a lot of people drive fatigued or encounter it due to "road hypnosis".
 
Jalloway502 said:
I use it to prove whether that person should be arrested OR not arrested.

Not all of us are out to get people.
Click to expand...

Thats not the point . . . . I don't care one way or the other whether you are 'out to get people,' the fact remains that the FST was not developed or implemented to prove that people are not intoxicated.

The primary purpose of the FST for every single police department which uses it is to generate factual support as evidence of intoxication. And there is not a single PD that can mandate it. You can refuse the FST. I have done it. When sober. Before I had my cards.

You have a job to do - and that job involves not telling the truth to people - do you tell people they can refuse the FST? Do you tell people that they do not have to answer your questions? Of course not.

Regardless of whether you are 'out to get people' it is an adversary system and the job of the potential defendant is to deny you facts to use against them. Its just the way it is. . . .

You are probably a upstanding member of the community and a straight up guy, most LEO's I know are. Does not change the reality of the judicial system . . .

[Edit] as to your comment about using an FST to determine if someone should 'not' be arrested - how do you handle the lack of facts? No smell of alcohol, yet you observed swerving or a light out or whatever caused you to pull someone over on a Sat night, and they provide you their information - but nothing else - refuse to answer your questions, refuse your offer of an FST, yet you still believe they are intoxicated. Yet, you have no facts other than your suspicion. The lack of facts and the refusal to cooperate based on Constitutional rights is not grounds for further detention . . .
 
Last edited:
Jalloway502 said:
You'd bet wrong. I've worked plenty of them.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you have. But you're saying you have seen drivers at DUI checkpoints who you suspected were intoxicated, but turned out to be just plain tired? I'm surprised.
 
comanchepilot said:
Thats not the point . . . . I don't care one way or the other whether you are 'out to get people,' the fact remains that the FST was not developed or implemented to prove that people are not intoxicated.

The primary purpose of the FST for every single police department which uses it is to generate factual support as evidence of intoxication. And there is not a single PD that can mandate it. You can refuse the FST. I have done it. When sober. Before I had my cards.

You have a job to do - and that job involves not telling the truth to people - do you tell people they can refuse the FST? Do you tell people that they do not have to answer your questions? Of course not.

Regardless of whether you are 'out to get people' it is an adversary system and the job of the potential defendant is to deny you facts to use against them. Its just the way it is. . . .

You are probably a upstanding member of the community and a straight up guy, most LEO's I know are. Does not change the reality of the judicial system . . .

[Edit] as to your comment about using an FST to determine if someone should 'not' be arrested - how do you handle the lack of facts? No smell of alcohol, yet you observed swerving or a light out or whatever caused you to pull someone over on a Sat night, and they provide you their information - but nothing else - refuse to answer your questions, refuse your offer of an FST, yet you still believe they are intoxicated. Yet, you have no facts other than your suspicion. The lack of facts and the refusal to cooperate based on Constitutional rights is not grounds for further detention . . .
Click to expand...

If all I have is a swerve or light out and no smell of alcohol, slurred speech, fumbling around, they're not even going to be offered SFST's.... They get a ticket or a warning and they're on their way in 15 minutes tops.
 
Roadside sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional in Minnesota. So are red light cameras.

Because Freedom.
 
comanchepilot said:
Adam, which is why that card sits in the console of every vehicle I own. And in my wallet. And I have used it. Several times. Never been pulled out of line at checkpoint.

When I am stopped for traffic in the middle of the day when an officer is not really thinking alcohol - if I get asked any questions I always say "I do not respond to questions officer." They get the card with my DL and reg.

I always get the ticket. I have never been convicted of a moving violation.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand this attitude. You get stopped by a cop, and if you immediately go on the defensive, and become "obstructive" you are certainly going to at the very least guarentee yourself a ticket and a day in court, not to mention possibly worse. On the other hand, you answer the police officer questions(and I am sure you are probably smart enough to answer them without incriminating yourself) and are cooperative, there is a chance the cop will send you off with a warning. Certainly, if you have nothing to hide, why not cooperate. I understand all this stuff about individual right, and police state, etc, but sometimes it is easier and cheaper just to be nice. Remember, the job of the cop is not that easy, and sometimes being nice will get you a lot more than not.

My son who loves to speed, has been stopped more times than I know, and has always been friendly, and cooperative with the officer, and has never gotten a ticket, even when he was guilty.
 
douglas393 said:
.......
My son who loves to speed, has been stopped more times than I know, and has always been friendly, and cooperative with the officer, and has never gotten a ticket, even when he was guilty.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm.. Your son needs to be ticketed EVERY time he speeds and hopefully he will see the light before he kills some innocent driver, or pedestrian.

And you bragging about it is bizarre too.. :yes: IMHO..
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmm.. Your son needs to be ticketed EVERY time he speeds and hopefully he will see the light before he kills some innocent driver, or pedestrian.

And you bragging about it is bizarre too.. :yes: IMHO..
Click to expand...
Believe me, I am not bragging about it at all(nor do I see anything bragging about it so I find it bizarre you think I am bragging about my son's stupid tricks), and he has grown up quite a bit since then. And like you have never broken the speed limit. Except once(when he was doing 85 on the highway(speed limit was 70) he has always been stopped for doing 10 over.

Anyhow, you missed the point in you misguided attempt to find fault in my post. The point of the post is why not be cooperative with the police officer. By talking to him, and cooperating you are probably not going to incriminate yourself(and we are talking about a traffic stop, not a felony) and there is at least a chance the cop is not going to give you anything more than a warning. Be a jerk and he is going to find reasons to make your life difficult. Personally, I have better things to do with my time than fighting traffic tickets.
 
douglas393 said:
.....The point of the post is why not be cooperative with the police officer. By talking to him, and cooperating you are probably not going to incriminate yourself(and we are talking about a traffic stop, not a felony) and there is at least a chance the cop is not going to give you anything more than a warning. Be a jerk and he is going to find reasons to make your life difficult. Personally, I have better things to do with my time than fighting traffic tickets.
Click to expand...

I agree with that thought 100%..:yes:
 
douglas393 said:
The point of the post is why not be cooperative with the police officer. By talking to him, and cooperating you are probably not going to incriminate yourself(and we are talking about a traffic stop, not a felony) and there is at least a chance the cop is not going to give you anything more than a warning. Be a jerk and he is going to find reasons to make your life difficult. Personally, I have better things to do with my time than fighting traffic tickets.
Click to expand...
No kidding. This is a little like the ramp check threads.

I got stopped at a sobriety checkpoint about 10 years ago. They are legal in Colorado. I don't remember much about it at all except that I'm sure I cooperated and was on my way pretty shortly.
 
MSPAviator said:
Roadside sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional in Minnesota. So are red light cameras.

Because Freedom.
Click to expand...

You trade freedom for security. It's a two way street. Just depends on what you want.

I'll take freedom, thank you.
 
douglas393 said:
My son who loves to speed, has been stopped more times than I know, and has always been friendly, and cooperative with the officer, and has never gotten a ticket, even when he was guilty.
Click to expand...

Does your son drive a Mercedes or a Porsche? I'm getting the ticket regardless of how nice I am . . .

The problem, Doug, is that the job of being a cop is a really hard job, albeit self-selected by the person in it, who has a job to do and who knows full well that most people who they interact with are going to lie to them. They get cynical about the job . . . its human nature.

The problem with the job of being a lawyer who litigates is that I know that literally everyone is lying to me. This makes me cynical about human nature.

I am ALWAYS friendly to every LEO I meet - does not mean that I cooperate with their requests for information.

You know what led me to this conclusion? When I began reading a string of cases whereby police everywhere in big important cases argued to courts that they had the right to lie to people, just like the criminals they are trying to catch - in order to catch the criminals.

Once the police as a group argued that they can lie, cheat, and even behave like criminals while doing their job, they lost my respect as a organization because I can never count on a police officer telling me the truth. Neither can you. No matter what they may say.

This has significant implications for the interactions of police with the public - and for those who represent people who need or are forced to interaction with them . . .

yeah, its sad.
 
comanchepilot said:
Does your son drive a Mercedes or a Porsche? I'm getting the ticket regardless of how nice I am . . .

The problem, Doug, is that the job of being a cop is a really hard job, albeit self-selected by the person in it, who has a job to do and who knows full well that most people who they interact with are going to lie to them. They get cynical about the job . . . its human nature.

The problem with the job of being a lawyer who litigates is that I know that literally everyone is lying to me. This makes me cynical about human nature.

I am ALWAYS friendly to every LEO I meet - does not mean that I cooperate with their requests for information.

You know what led me to this conclusion? When I began reading a string of cases whereby police everywhere in big important cases argued to courts that they had the right to lie to people, just like the criminals they are trying to catch - in order to catch the criminals.

Once the police as a group argued that they can lie, cheat, and even behave like criminals while doing their job, they lost my respect as a organization because I can never count on a police officer telling me the truth. Neither can you. No matter what they may say.

This has significant implications for the interactions of police with the public - and for those who represent people who need or are forced to interaction with them . . .

yeah, its sad.
Click to expand...
No he drives a 2007 ford mustang, pretty much standard car. I am a cynic too, and would probably be a lot worse of a cynic(thought most who know me well would not believe that anyone could be more cynical than me) but I have just learned that sometimes doing things on principle or because of my naturally cynically and trusting(that is trusting that I am going to get screwed) often leads to a self determining final event, and it is sometimes easier, and more productive to go with the flow.
 
comanchepilot said:
PS, Al - if you are talking about the checkpoint at the freeway offramp - the Supreme Court has said that a motorist must be able to avoid the checkpoint if they so desire. If you place the checkpoint between the off ramp and the first stop light - and there are no streets between the two points - then the motorist cannot avoid the checkpoint and it is illegal.
Click to expand...

No kidding? You are a great source of info. Thanks!
 
DaytonaLynn said:
They still do,them and some holidays it is mandatory to give the blood, they have a warrant to make to take it there on spot.
Click to expand...

Mandatory for a cop to stick a needle in you and draw blood? That can't possibly be legal. I'd tell him to stick it himself.
 
nddons said:
Mandatory for a cop to stick a needle in you and draw blood? That can't possibly be legal. I'd tell him to stick it himself.
Click to expand...

Texas, Florida, Mississippi I think, a couple of others have judges on call at checkpoints to sign warrants. . . .
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmm.. Your son needs to be ticketed EVERY time he speeds and hopefully he will see the light before he kills some innocent driver, or pedestrian.

And you bragging about it is bizarre too.. :yes: IMHO..
Click to expand...

I think I broke the speed limit on your street on your snow machine.:D
 
This is the downside of standing up for your rights when the officer is engaging in "friendly conversation." There's nothing casual about the situation. The officer is trying to manufacture evidence against you to convict you of something. Otherwise, how can he convince himself and his superiors that the checkpoint is of any value?

That being said, I've had good results with the cooperate method. The dudes have guns and are on a fishing expedition, unless I have dead bodies in the trunk, why bother arguing my rights on the side of the road?

kurtsnyder said:
This happened not too long ago about an hour from me: http://youtu.be/w-WMn_zHCVo Scary stuff!!
Click to expand...
 
comanchepilot said:
Well, Johann, if you are not under arrest, you can tell them to stuff their request for a test with zero consequences from the DUI and even FAA perspective because there is no record of any 'motor vehicle action.'
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier, that depends on what state you are in. In some states you can be given the chemical test you implicitly agreed to without necessarily having to arrest you.
Personally, it is about consequences for me - not the legalities - choose the path of least overall consequences. For me - that always includes not cooperating until I am placed under arrest - if there are no grounds for suspecting drunk driving and I beat the criminal and DMV rap, the FAA issue will be minor to overcome with only a single event, no conviction, and a cooperative blow.
Click to expand...
Ask Randy Babbitt how that worked out for him.
 
kurtsnyder said:
This happened not too long ago about an hour from me: http://youtu.be/w-WMn_zHCVo Scary stuff!!
Click to expand...
Yeah scary stuff. He gave the police officer an attitude, and expected what the police officer to tell him to have a nice day. He got exactly what he wanted, and then has goes and complains about it. Personally, I feel he is the doofus, and did this just to set up the police. For all I know it was all an act anyhow, but in any case, what harm was there in dropping the window a couple of inches. Act suspiciously, the expect to be treated like a suspect. Life is too short to waste time over something like this.
 
douglas393 said:
Yeah scary stuff. He gave the police officer an attitude, and expected what the police officer to tell him to have a nice day. He got exactly what he wanted, and then has goes and complains about it. Personally, I feel he is the doofus, and did this just to set up the police. For all I know it was all an act anyhow, but in any case, what harm was there in dropping the window a couple of inches. Act suspiciously, the expect to be treated like a suspect. Life is too short to waste time over something like this.
Click to expand...

So, you will infer suspicion from someone refusing to answer questions?
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmm.. Your son needs to be ticketed EVERY time he speeds and hopefully he will see the light before he kills some innocent driver, or pedestrian.

And you bragging about it is bizarre too.. :yes: IMHO..
Click to expand...

Speeding is not speeding.

On a residential street, absolutely I go slow. Damn kids these aren't taught like I was in New York - don't run into the street or you'll get hit by a bus.

On the interstate (where I used to be an honorary participant in the Cannonball Baker Sea to Shining Sea Memorial Race) you're talking a different story, especially in much of the country where there ain't nothing, ain't nobody. Personally, I'm of the opinion that speed limits in those situations typically serve little than to provide local law enforcement with an extra revenue stream, and should be vehicle dependent. When I was in my Jaguar XJ-S V12 or now in my Mitsubishi 3000GT, I am in a vehicle with the power, suspension, and brakes to safely and reliably go fast.

These days I don't go that fast anymore, mostly because I don't do road trips. I just do 220 MPH in the 310. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top