poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I still think the OP handled it just fine.
How to handle a stop for suspected DUI?
- Thread starter steam wright
- Start date
You have no expectation of privacy if you have been arrested for drunk driving. In fact, in many states not only will you get a BAC test on arrests but also submit DNA.
N747JB
Final Approach
A poor choice of words on my part, you will get basically the same punishment as a first time DUI for refusing a breath or blood test. 
The fly in the ointment is.............
If a LEO has a hard on against you, and pulls you over for "weaving" and then arrests you for drunk driving, then what happens when you are forced to do a BAC, and they draw blood and now according to you the guvmint can do a DNA test.....
Now........ Fast forward 6 months and 10,000 dollars later in legal bills and the court finds out you were stone cold sober, blew a .0000 and the blood test was flat out negative for alcohol....
You still have an arrest on your record, you are still out 10 grand for legal fees, your DNA is now entered in multiple databases and all your friends consider you a drunk driver.... The FAA views you as drunk driver and your FAA medical has been jepordized.........
Now what is your recourse...
......
Mostly this although I doubt the faa would consider you a drunk driver if your blood tested as 0.00. You could sue the cop for false arrest but that's pretty much it. This is pretty much why I try to record my conversations with LEOs when I'm involuntarily involved with them.The fly in the ointment is.............
If a LEO has a hard on against you, and pulls you over for "weaving" and then arrests you for drunk driving, then what happens when you are forced to do a BAC, and they draw blood and now according to you the guvmint can do a DNA test.....
Now........ Fast forward 6 months and 10,000 dollars later in legal bills and the court finds out you were stone cold sober, blew a .0000 and the blood test was flat out negative for alcohol....
You still have an arrest on your record, you are still out 10 grand for legal fees, your DNA is now entered in multiple databases and all your friends consider you a drunk driver.... The FAA views you as drunk driver and your FAA medical has been jepordized.........
Now what is your recourse...
If you're stone cold sober you should consent to a breathalyzer though so a warrant for blood is not necessary and so it's not a "refusal".
Last edited:
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
A LEO can say whatever the hell he wants to say resulting in you being required to take a test here. How exactly do you think you're going to fair in court if they say they smelled alcohol and you were tested and over the legal limit? Argue all you want that the LEO couldn't have possibly smelled alcohol. You're screwed.
I've never met someone around here that has been charged with a DUI with a chemical test result below the legal limit. I've known several people that have failed field sobriety and then passed the chemical test and were released.
Theory is great, but it's going to take deep pockets and a lot of damn time to win on it.
It's pretty simple. If a police officer wants to stop you here he will. If he wants to say he smelled alcohol or you appeared intoxicated he will. You have no way to disprove that. At that point you will be required to take a chemical test per our law and that will determine for fate.
Nothing to lose here with the field sobriety test, just the possibility that you will pass and not have to take the chemical that you might not have passed. If you fail the sobriety and pass the chemical all is well.
Play the "game" however you'd like. There's no perfect answer, other than to not put yourself in that situation to begin with.
I've never met someone around here that has been charged with a DUI with a chemical test result below the legal limit. I've known several people that have failed field sobriety and then passed the chemical test and were released.
Theory is great, but it's going to take deep pockets and a lot of damn time to win on it.
It's pretty simple. If a police officer wants to stop you here he will. If he wants to say he smelled alcohol or you appeared intoxicated he will. You have no way to disprove that. At that point you will be required to take a chemical test per our law and that will determine for fate.
Nothing to lose here with the field sobriety test, just the possibility that you will pass and not have to take the chemical that you might not have passed. If you fail the sobriety and pass the chemical all is well.
Play the "game" however you'd like. There's no perfect answer, other than to not put yourself in that situation to begin with.
The point is there is almost nothing to be gained with an FST and more often than not it will simply be used against you. I think there was a study where cops say videos of a number of FSTs where all the drivers were actually today sober, and on average the cops said 46% of them were drunk according to the FST
That's rarely the case either. In a few states refusal is a criminal charge, but in many cases it only results in an administrative suspension.A poor choice of words on my part, you will get basically the same punishment as a first time DUI for refusing a breath or blood test.
As I have already pointed out, a refusal can have very bad implications when it comes to the FAA.
The fly in the ointment is.............
If a LEO has a hard on against you, and pulls you over for "weaving" and then arrests you for drunk driving, then what happens when you are forced to do a BAC, and they draw blood and now according to you the guvmint can do a DNA test.....
Now........ Fast forward 6 months and 10,000 dollars later in legal bills and the court finds out you were stone cold sober, blew a .0000 and the blood test was flat out negative for alcohol....
You still have an arrest on your record, you are still out 10 grand for legal fees, your DNA is now entered in multiple databases and all your friends consider you a drunk driver.... The FAA views you as drunk driver and your FAA medical has been jepordized.........
Now what is your recourse...
But all that crap has SQUAT to do with whether they got the warrant for the blood draw.
Understand that you have a right to not testify against you, and a right to a warrant before search, you have no RIGHT to not allow them to collect evidence against you.
When warrants are handed out like candy at Halloween, then the issue becomes debatable....
...Follow the money.....
What is a judge before he is a judge ?
..... He/she is an attorney.. And with just one bogus warrant per week and the average legal bill for a DUI is 12,000 dollars.. Then his/her lawyer friends can ride the gravy train of over 1/2 million dollars a year in defending a bogus charge......Ps... It happens everywhere too...
Doggtyred
En-Route
You can be cited if the officer believes he has enough information and proof of your impairment. The FST is but a tool. If you don't need it, your don't need it. I've seen cops arrest folks (rightfully) for DWI who they basically took one look at them, determined their probable cause and threw the cuffs on..
Just because you refuse to voluntarily incriminate yourself doesn't mean there isn't objective incriminating evidence already present..
Doggtyred
En-Route
Yup, which is why in several counties in Texas they have it down pat and do it by the numbers....
Harris County conducts no-refusal weekends routinely as do surrounding counties. They have a judge awake and on call, a DA awake for intake, a nurse on the clock in a mobile van... The officer collects the data, contacts the DA, swears the warrant out, the DA gets the judge... the judge ensures everything is in order and then the suspect is presented to the nurse for a compulsory draw.
Due process with an express lane. I don't think any personal defense attorneys have been able to poke a hole in the process. Of note, Harris County reported about 30% of their compulsory draws showed blood ethanol levels UNDER the limit..
N747JB
Final Approach
One of our local "DUI lawyers" recommends never doing FST, he says you can only help the police by attempting to perform the tests. I can see his point, I haven't had a drink in 4 years and I'm not sure I could pass these tests.
I'm sure not saying the alphabet backwards while standing on one leg and positing at my nose with my eyes closed!
I'm sure not saying the alphabet backwards while standing on one leg and positing at my nose with my eyes closed!
One of our local "DUI lawyers" recommends never doing FST, he says you can only help the police by attempting to perform the tests. I can see his point, I haven't had a drink in 4 years and I'm not sure I could pass these tests.
I'm sure not saying the alphabet backwards while standing on one leg and positing at my nose with my eyes closed!
On my best day, I could probably not either....
....There was a 20 -20 / 60 minutes kinda show a few years back and they had the officers who demanded those FST's try to do the exact same thing... Most of the LEO's, who were completely sober,.... cound NOT......
.......
The course of action is clear:
If you are stopped and you know you're not drunk, just cooperate. You're more likely to be on your way more quickly and if something goes wrong and you end up getting a chemical test SO WHAT it will be negative. Chances are though that you will have the same experience as the OP.
If, however, you are stopped and you're drunk off your ass and you know it and you have enough brain cells functioning to remember all this fine lawyerly advice, then yes make it as hard as possible for the cop to convict you. Don't answer questions, refuse to do the FST, etc. Chances are very high though that you're going to jail and you're going to have a DUI conviction.
And if you are driving drunk, please do us a favor and crash into a tree or something and remove yourself from the population.
If you are stopped and you know you're not drunk, just cooperate. You're more likely to be on your way more quickly and if something goes wrong and you end up getting a chemical test SO WHAT it will be negative. Chances are though that you will have the same experience as the OP.
If, however, you are stopped and you're drunk off your ass and you know it and you have enough brain cells functioning to remember all this fine lawyerly advice, then yes make it as hard as possible for the cop to convict you. Don't answer questions, refuse to do the FST, etc. Chances are very high though that you're going to jail and you're going to have a DUI conviction.
And if you are driving drunk, please do us a favor and crash into a tree or something and remove yourself from the population.
The course of action is clear:
Don't drink any quantity of alcohol before getting behind the wheel as a pilot just as you wouldn't drink any quantity of alcohol before getting behind the stick in the plane.
You can be convicted of DUI no matter what "strategy" you use during the traffic stop.
Even if not convicted of DUI it can adverse effect on your medical.
Doctor Bruce is quite frank about it (moreso than me): Drinking is incompatible with an aviation career.
Don't drink any quantity of alcohol before getting behind the wheel as a pilot just as you wouldn't drink any quantity of alcohol before getting behind the stick in the plane.
You can be convicted of DUI no matter what "strategy" you use during the traffic stop.
Even if not convicted of DUI it can adverse effect on your medical.
Doctor Bruce is quite frank about it (moreso than me): Drinking is incompatible with an aviation career.
sourdough44
En-Route
I was drinking some 'Bud Lite' at a relative's near Detroit last weekend, no driving. I think I could of had a 12 pack with little effect.
Then we sampled some of his craft beers from the garage fridge.
Then we sampled some of his craft beers from the garage fridge.
comanchepilot
En-Route
Its amazing the amount incorrect assumptions, misinformation and ignorance of the law that abounds even in the pilot community where we have something protect that has a no tolerance for arrest standard - much less guilt.
In order to be required to take a blood, breath or urine alcohol test [meaning there is a consequence for refusal] you must have been placed under arrest for DUI in all 50 states and commonwealths, including Georgia, Texas, California, Ohio or where ever else you claim to be. Period.
Now, if you REFUSE that test different states have dealt with it in many ways, with the penalty for refusing the same as the appropriate DUI penalty, warrants, hold you down and force you, etc etc etc.
The steps are as follows:
1. A stop for suspected DUI or development of information during an otherwise legal stop;
2. Development of probable cause to place you under arrest for DUI.
3. Arrest.
4. Demand for a blood, breath or urine sample.
Thats it.
The field sobriety test comes under #2. There is no state that I am aware of that REQUIRES you to consent to an FST if demanded by a police officer. Many are talking about a whole battery of tests if DUI is suspected.
#2 also has those stupid little 'initial breath testers' that double as flash lights they stick in your face while you have your window down. That is sufficient to further develop probable cause or reasonable suspicion to continue a stop and further the inquiry.
Going back to #1 - the stop must be a legal one. This means the officer must believe that the law has been broken or is about to be broken. Accelerating fast down an on-ramp is not illegal unless is becomes an 'exhibition of speed' which is illegal in many states. The police officer needs to have a proper reason to stop and question you in the first place. This can be an equipment violation, failing to have a front license plate in states that require them, a light out, window tint being too dark - there are a million and one reasons why a police officer can stop you. But there are situations where, like the OP, there was nothing actually illegal about what he did -- I would bet the farm that the officer would have testified that his tires broke loose or his rear end skidded a little bit - even if it did not happen - because unfortunately those types of little white lies go with law enforcement like babies and bottles . . .
In order to be required to take a blood, breath or urine alcohol test [meaning there is a consequence for refusal] you must have been placed under arrest for DUI in all 50 states and commonwealths, including Georgia, Texas, California, Ohio or where ever else you claim to be. Period.
Now, if you REFUSE that test different states have dealt with it in many ways, with the penalty for refusing the same as the appropriate DUI penalty, warrants, hold you down and force you, etc etc etc.
The steps are as follows:
1. A stop for suspected DUI or development of information during an otherwise legal stop;
2. Development of probable cause to place you under arrest for DUI.
3. Arrest.
4. Demand for a blood, breath or urine sample.
Thats it.
The field sobriety test comes under #2. There is no state that I am aware of that REQUIRES you to consent to an FST if demanded by a police officer. Many are talking about a whole battery of tests if DUI is suspected.
#2 also has those stupid little 'initial breath testers' that double as flash lights they stick in your face while you have your window down. That is sufficient to further develop probable cause or reasonable suspicion to continue a stop and further the inquiry.
Going back to #1 - the stop must be a legal one. This means the officer must believe that the law has been broken or is about to be broken. Accelerating fast down an on-ramp is not illegal unless is becomes an 'exhibition of speed' which is illegal in many states. The police officer needs to have a proper reason to stop and question you in the first place. This can be an equipment violation, failing to have a front license plate in states that require them, a light out, window tint being too dark - there are a million and one reasons why a police officer can stop you. But there are situations where, like the OP, there was nothing actually illegal about what he did -- I would bet the farm that the officer would have testified that his tires broke loose or his rear end skidded a little bit - even if it did not happen - because unfortunately those types of little white lies go with law enforcement like babies and bottles . . .
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper
En-Route
Wrong. A blood test for DUI Dwi has been in force since the 70's. It's for smart asses who refuse the breathalyzer. Drunk driving is real serious business although there are super dumb ones who refuse to follow the rules, pouting and whining when caught, and more dumb ones who try to turn it into a political argument.
Eagle I
Pre-takeoff checklist
It's amazing the amount of denial on this thread. Especially the ones who complain about being harassed when they only had "one or two." Well, was it one, or two? How many desserts did you have at dinner? If you don't remember how many drinks you had, it was probably more like three or four, or more ...
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Let me see if I can elaborate. His theme was based on a previous poster(which he quoted) that taking blood in this era of DNA sampling is a very large invasion of personal privacy. In the 1970s DNA matching was in its infancy, and even print matching was a laborious and difficult job which was hard to automate. Since the expansion of computers, and the advancement of DNA coding, once your DNA is in the system somewhere, you can be 'searched' via database for thousands of crimes across all states in a matter of a few hours.
This is the type of invasion of privacy that troubles people who know about it. It is also the type of invasion which the courts and the law have not kept up with. A muni judge forcing a blood test on the basis of a deputy's idea that someone who doesn't cooperate during a traffic stop is the essence of the slippery slope were all people will be monitored all of the time when they step off their private property, even to the point of being in a private car, but on a public(or private with public access) road.
I'm one trip to the Piggly Wiggly, stone cold sober and having my left brake bulb out from getting my DNA in the NCIC DB along with my name, address, DOB, etc. If this doesn't frighten you, think of what could and will happen when your enemies have access to that data. And at some point in time - no matter your political persuasion, they will.
Eagle I
Pre-takeoff checklist
Sorry, but the only way you're going to end up in a DNA database during a stone-cold sober trip to Piggly Wiggly is if you're a complete a-hole to the cops. Nice try, though.
This type of **** ****es me off to no end though. Being an ******* is not a crime and not probable cause. Calling the cop an ******* is not a crime either. It's probably a bad idea, though. But if a cop arrests someone stone cold sober for DUI then sue him into the next era. Cops are supposed to serve and protect. Not bully and falsely arrest.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Exactly. You gotta kowtow. Which means that if I assert my right to not contribute to my own conviction, well then I deserve to be face down on the pavement with a boot in my back and bracelets on.
Being an a-hole is not against the law, but the law will make it hard on you just the same.
Ever see the movie Brazil?
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
While agree with your sentiment, you are wrong on the serve and protect. That's already been all the way to SCOTUS. They have zero duty to serve or protect. Which is why it's called "Law Enforcement" and not "Community Service".
Eagle I
Pre-takeoff checklist
Uh, but's it's not your own conviction if you're innocent. And nope, haven't seen the movie, but I'll check it out. And hey, I'm not saying people aren't innocently arrested. Of course they are, and often for things far worse than drunk driving.
paflyer
Final Approach
Right, like "contempt of cop."
Eagle I
Pre-takeoff checklist
What? Man, I'm starting to think I live in a different world. Do you all have something to hide? I've been pulled over only a few times in my life, but in general I've found that politeness went a long way. Well, except for that jerk cop in Ellsworth, Maine, who was intent on nailing a tourist who he was sure wasn't going to drive 7 hours back to fight a traffic citation. That one cost me $133, but at least I'm not in any DNA database.
So if we look at these four steps, the person being stopped really cannot stop the process going all the way through to number 3 if the cop wants it to go that way. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO OR DON'T DO.
Like you said the cop can lie and say he observed you weaving, or whatever he wants to make the legal stop. That takes care of number 1. Then he can say he smells alcohol on your breath. That takes care of number 2. At that point the advice to not talk and to refuse to do the FST is not going to stop number 3 and number 4 from happening. In fact it is probably going to make that MORE LIKELY because you're going to upset the cop with your smartass replies and comments.
I would cooperate myself like the OP did.
And I'm also going to say something that is probably going to make a lot of the conspiracy/anarchist types really angry: I believe that the majority of cops are NOT bad people and are NOT out to unjustly arrest innocent people. Yes there are some bad cops out there and they get all the press unfortunately. Sounds like the OP's cop who stopped him was just someone doing his job to stop drunk drivers before they kill someone and he let the OP go once he established he was fine.
Eagle I
Pre-takeoff checklist
Hope you're wearing flame-retardant clothes!:wink2: But I agree. Like people in any other job, some are good, some are bad. You know, like pilots, too!
If you know you're drunk, don't stop, out run the cop.
On a bike maybe that would work. Of course you're probably going to die if you try to escape at 120 mph weaving in traffic while drunk. In a car? You're not going to get away.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Many places have no pursuit policies and you'd stand a reasonable chance. Such places would need a pretty solid reason to pursue you. That said, if you do get caught, or if someone gets killed by the result of your actions the penalty will ruin your life. Not worth it.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,095
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
I dunno about Nebraska but the 5th amendment allows you to not give evidence against yourself. And you cannot be punished for standing behind the 5th.
Sure they can punish you by suspending your license, for refusal to submit to giving evidence against yourself. But you can go to the court and get that overturned as being unconstitutional.
I don't care if you're stone cold sober, or just drank a barrel of Jack Daniels. Don't take the test, because it "Can, and Will, be used as evidence against you". And the 5th states that you cannot be required to give evidence against yourself, or penalised for refusal to do so.
bluerooster
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,095
- Display Name
Display name:
shorty
Back in highschool I had a buddy with a car that would out run the radio.Cops are easy to lose. Motorola, not so easy.
But at that speed, things get real dark and blurry. And when you slow down, you find that you're a week late picking up your girlfriend, when your watch shows that only a few hours have passed.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you don't take the chemical test in Nebraska you won't be driving or flying anytime soon. Could you appeal and appeal and appeal and maybe beat the state? Possibly but that will take more money than I have. Even if you do win that won't help you with the FAA.
I don't like the system.
The fifth amendment says nothing of the sort. It says you can not be forced to testify against yourself. It doesn't say anything, nor have the courts up held it to mean, that evidence can not be obtained from your body. It just takes a warrant.
