Refused Field Sobriety and was let go after station test

[SkyChaser]

The pilot in command is still responsible if the autopilot flies you into a mountain.

I completely agree, and if I actually drove a car with that function and turned it on, I would accept and expect a ticket for either/both reckless driving or failure to maintain lane, as I was still the driver that turned such a dumb feature on!

 

[Tools]

Well, risk aversion is basically a personality trait. Can’t be helped…

I am of the school of thought that believes if one is THAT risk adverse, being either a cop or a pilot ain’t a great idea.

People who are not very risk adverse get screwed unfairly sometimes, to a measurable degree more often than those who are. Is what it is…

 

[Tarheelpilot]

And now it's time for THE REST OF THE STORY (or at least, the other side of the coin) Names, locations, actions, have all been changed for various reasons.

Picture this, you're on patrol, you see a car driving poorly. You initiate the traffic stop, the driver does not dispute the bad driving, but tells you it is the car's fault. It is possible, but it is also possible the guy is intoxicated. After all, nobody every lies to the police, right? (Only non-cops and cops w/ less than 6hrs of experience could possibly believe that)

So let's see if we can let the guy go upon his merry way. How to do this? Well, experience has proven that intoxicated people are horrible at determining if they're intoxicated, so we can't just ask. DUI is mostly a result of impaired motor skills and memory functions. So, if we can check those real quick, they can be on their way. Hmm, the individual refuses and demands to be released on their own say so as to their abilities, as, after all, it is the car's fault. Not theirs.

So, here's the dilemma:
- We have a car not being controlled properly upon the roadway (raising suspicion of DUI)
- We have the human, who is responsible for the behavior of the car upon the roadway, saying it was not his driving but the car's
- We have the human refusing to provide proof of motor skills and memory

Options:
1) Arrest the guy for DUI take him for a breath test
- If he fails the breath test:
---You can rest easy knowing you took a DUI off the street
- If he passes the breath test:
---Well, you can either cut him loose, or you can write him for failure to maintain lane or whatever else occurred to catch your eye and then cut him loose.

2) Call the guy a ride to come get him. You're taking a suspected DUI off the road but still not having to process the time and paperwork for a DUI. Writing tickets for failure to maintain lane, etc is up to the officer.

3) Cut the guy loose.
- If he was not intoxicated, he's going to be unhappy anyway, no nothing gained. No one ever writes a thank you note in those situations.
- If he WAS intoxicated:
--- If he makes it home without damaging anything / anybody, he will bask in the glory of putting one over on the cops
--- If he has a wreck on the way home from your traffic stop and hurts someone, your life just took a severe turn for the worse.
----- The guy's attorney will be saying "The cop said he was ok to drive, surely the cop can determine this, right? The 0.21 blood alcohol must not have been to blame."
----- The victim's attorney will be demanding to know why you allowed an intoxicated individual to drive after interacting with them.
----- The victim's attorney will be demanding to know how many other incompetent officers your agency has.
----- The victim's attorney will be demanding to know how many other incompetent officers your state has certified.
----- The state attorney general will be investigating to see how you determined he was ok to continue driving, and whether you may have crossed the line into criminal neglect while on duty, misconduct in office, etc.

----------------------

So, yeah, there's reasons beyond "I feel like being a jerk today" for cops being a bit less lenient about how they deal w/ DUIs.


We now return you to the normal scheduled complaining about cops not allowing motorists to self report their intoxication status.

And this is exactly why legislators in NC provided a path for drivers to provide proof of sobriety without dancing like a grinder monkey on the shoulder. It’s called a pre-arrest test. If requested by the driver the cop takes you to the local state maintained intoxilizer and administers the test. If you’re not under the influence you were never arrested.

No subjective evaluation by a kid with a GED and a recent Basic Law Enforcement Training certificate required.

 

[Half Fast]

The pilot in command is still responsible if the autopilot flies you into a mountain.

True, but beside the point. If the autodrive feature breaks the law, sure, ticket the driver for the infraction. That doesn’t mean the driver is drunk, or that a cop is justified for treating him as though he were.

There can be many reasons for swerving besides intoxication. For instance,....

“I pulled you over because you swerved back there.”

“Of course I swerved. There was a cat in the road.”

“Sir I’d like you to step out of the car so I can administer a sobriety test.”

“WHAT?! Why?”

“Because no sober person would try to miss a cat.”

 

[Palmpilot]

The pilot in command is still responsible if the autopilot flies you into a mountain.

What, no such thing as an "autopilot-in-command"?

 

[Lindberg]

I know better than to rely on what someone says happened. I know how many laypersons lack enough understanding of the process to even know what happened.

QFT.

 

[Larry in TN]

I completely agree, and if I actually drove a car with that function and turned it on, I would accept and expect a ticket for either/both reckless driving or failure to maintain lane, as I was still the driver that turned such a dumb feature on!

I have a car with self-driving functions and have never had a problem with it swerving outside of its lane. There are situations that can confuse it but you learn what those are pretty quickly and can mitigate them with manual control. The car's actually very good at maintaining its lane as long as it can see the lane markings. With the expensive FSD option, the autopilot can operate without lane markings but, if you don't have lane markings, I don't see how you can be outside of them.

None of the systems, so far, are able to work without human supervision and that human driver must be ready to intervene when needed.

 

[jbarrass]

The basic problem is competence. Any competent officer should be able to asses probable cause for impairment without assuming every line crosser is guilty. No need to clog the system with trash arrests. While he's wasting everybody's time with a 0.0, there is a .25 out there driving.

 

[geezer]

I took a test drive last month in a brand new, top of the line car with lane assist, and auto stop.

Lane assist worked fine for white lines, and dashed lines, but drifted right on across solid yellow lines! Two lane curving roadway, and crossed both yellow lines (No oncoming traffic). On that basis, I drove back to the dealer, and turned down an offer to drive a different one. That kind of failure is not one that I would chance occurring later, and spending big money to correct, let alone getting stopped state trooper.

The sales man keeps calling, lets drive again, it is working now. Nope.

 

[PastZTL]

I'm not sure whether insisting on the certified test still counts as refusing a roadside breathalyzer/sobriety test, which is an automatic DUI arrest in a lot of places, including my state.

Just asking to make sure I'm clear. If you refuse field sobriety tests in your state you are automatically arrested for DUI. Is that correct?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just asking to make sure I'm clear. If you refuse field sobriety tests in your state you are automatically arrested for DUI. Is that correct?

Something I never heard of. Plenty of states (maybe all) have implied consent laws which make refusing an independent offense, but not an automatic DUI.

 

[Daleandee]

Something I never heard of. Plenty of states (maybe all) have implied consent laws which make refusing an independent offense, but not an automatic DUI.

Yep. Here in SC you are allowed to refuse a FST but refusing a breathalyzer test is an immediate six month suspension of your license. As a Sport Pilot using a driver's license as a medical, you are then grounded as your DL is not valid ...

 

[Matthew]

Yep. Here in SC you are allowed to refuse a FST but refusing a breathalyzer test is an immediate six month suspension of your license. As a Sport Pilot using a driver's license as a medical, you are then grounded as your DL is not valid ...

KS law is similar. I just looked at the first lawyer website that popped up:

>>>
When you are stopped by law enforcement on suspicion of a DUI, it is NOT mandatory to submit to a field sobriety test.

You can legally refuse to blow into a breathalyzer by the roadside. However, if the police officer has good reason to believe that you are intoxicated or your driving was impaired in any way, you will be arrested and taken to the police station.

Here, you will be asked to submit to a chemical test – breath, blood or urine test. This is compulsory.
<<<

 

[PastZTL]

One study i read several years ago was that 40% of sober people couldn't pass the field sobriety tests. I have never been pulled over for suspected DUI (drinking ANY alcohol before driving is a hard NO) but I decided years ago to politely refuse all field sobriety tests. That's what surprised me about the post stating that would result in an arrest for DUI.

I am curious about what EVIDENCE the officer had, other than the swerving car, to justify an arrest. As others have stated, an arrest isn't a big deal for the officer, but is IS a big deal for all the rest of us.

 

[midlifeflyer]

One study i read several years ago was that 40% of sober people couldn't pass the field sobriety tests. I have never been pulled over for suspected DUI (drinking ANY alcohol before driving is a hard NO) but I decided years ago to politely refuse all field sobriety tests. That's what surprised me about the post stating that would result in an arrest for DUI.

I am curious about what EVIDENCE the officer had, other than the swerving car, to justify an arrest. As others have stated, an arrest isn't a big deal for the officer, but is IS a big deal for all the rest of us.

Easy. "Glassy eyes, unsteady on his feet, odor of alcohol on his breath." I've been out of that biz for more than 25 years but I'd be surprised LEOs aren't still saying the same big three they have for ages.

 

[TravisRNT]

Those tests are not designed to prove your innocence, just produce more evidence to be used to bury you

As I read the medexpress you consent for your national drivers records to be run, my guess would be that’s how they catch people who get these driving infractions, if nothing went on your driving record, unless they run the creepy FBI database, I don’t think they’d ever known unless you make the news and give them a reason to do a deep dive

 

[kell490]

The OP said they are on basic medical if they are arrested but not charged how does that affect someone using basicl medical?

 

[Wagondriver]

It was rodeo night. I hadn’t been to the rodeo, but was driving down the highway. Cop pulls out behind me, follows for a few miles, shuts all his lights off for several seconds and then back on. I was driving in my lane, under speed limit. His wig wags come on and I pull over. Cop stated that my license plate “wasn’t illuminated” as well as he’d like. I asked right then and a few times in the conversation “ but the license plate light IS working!” Every time I asked, he replied that “yes” it was. I asked him how the DUI fishing was going that night. He replied “ not very well”.

Totally illegal stop under the pretense of doing me a favor by letting me know my license plate lamp wasn’t up to HIS bs subjective standard. I was going to file a complaint, but I know that just makes me a target. I know that because I had a friend that was a cop for 19 years, he recommended against filing complaints for that reason.

 

[kell490]

It was rodeo night. I hadn’t been to the rodeo, but was driving down the highway. Cop pulls out behind me, follows for a few miles, shuts all his lights off for several seconds and then back on. I was driving in my lane, under speed limit. His wig wags come on and I pull over. Cop stated that my license plate “wasn’t illuminated” as well as he’d like. I asked right then and a few times in the conversation “ but the license plate light IS working!” Every time I asked, he replied that “yes” it was. I asked him how the DUI fishing was going that night. He replied “ not very well”.

Totally illegal stop under the pretense of doing me a favor by letting me know my license plate lamp wasn’t up to HIS bs subjective standard. I was going to file a complaint, but I know that just makes me a target. I know that because I had a friend that was a cop for 19 years, he recommended against filing complaints for that reason.

Likely he said that because he knows his fellow officer may not get a promotion because of that complaint. Install a 360 view dash camera hire an attorney won't be long before city, or county is settling a lawsuit if they retaliate. My dash camera uploads to cloud even if they take the camera they won't get the footage.

Cameras have changed everything for Police officers why lot of them retired which is fine by me. Abuse of power under color of law won't be gotten away with anymore.

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I have a car with self-driving functions and have never had a problem with it swerving outside of its lane. There are situations that can confuse it but you learn what those are pretty quickly and can mitigate them with manual control. The car's actually very good at maintaining its lane as long as it can see the lane markings. With the expensive FSD option, the autopilot can operate without lane markings but, if you don't have lane markings, I don't see how you can be outside of them.

None of the systems, so far, are able to work without human supervision and that human driver must be ready to intervene when needed.

I'm glad your single data point shows the effectiveness of your vehicle's self-driving function.

Having to travel and rent frequently on business, my multiple data points say that the quality of lane assist varies significantly between "pretty good" to the OPs personal sub-par experience.

And yes, I have allowed them to find their way on own in similar controlled and low traffic situations just for experimental giggles.

 

[Wagondriver]

Likely he said that because he knows his fellow officer may not get a promotion because of that complaint. Install a 360 view dash camera hire an attorney won't be long before city, or county is settling a lawsuit if they retaliate. My dash camera uploads to cloud even if they take the camera they won't get the footage.

Cameras have changed everything for Police officers why lot of them retired which is fine by me. Abuse of power under color of law won't be gotten away with anymore.

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

My friend discouraged filing a complaint. He said that I would be put in their “list”. I was aware for quite some time, that I in fact was on their list. I got pulled over because I had a moose head in my truck, by the same guy that had pulled me over a few weeks earlier. Division of wildlife guy showed up, a guy whom I had testified for in a poaching case.
Corruption is rampant, and at all levels.

 

[kell490]

My friend discouraged filing a complaint. He said that I would be put in their “list”. I was aware for quite some time, that I in fact was on their list. I got pulled over because I had a moose head in my truck, by the same guy that had pulled me over a few weeks earlier. Division of wildlife guy showed up, a guy whom I had testified for in a poaching case.
Corruption is rampant, and at all levels.

Hire an attorney if they keep pulling you over excessively get a dash camera to document it even if you think it's over I would at least have the camera.

 

[Stevea621j]

One study i read several years ago was that 40% of sober people couldn't pass the field sobriety tests. I have never been pulled over for suspected DUI (drinking ANY alcohol before driving is a hard NO) but I decided years ago to politely refuse all field sobriety tests. .

I got pulled over once and the officer suspected I was DUI. I hadn't been drinking at all so i agreed to take the roadside tests. They can be difficult on a nice sunny day, imagine trying to do it in the middle of the night on a dark highway with the only light the flashing lights of the police car. I "passed", but I never should have tried. The problem is that once you refuse you have a good chance of being arrested. Then, even if you go to the station and test completely negative, you now have an arrest for DUI you will have to deal with the rest of your life. Not to mention your mugshot showing up online and in the little "jail report" flyers they sell at gas stations. People will see it, and it can have an extremely negative effect on your personal and professional life. I get we don't want drunks out on the roads, but laws should be changed so that you don't have to get arrested to get a legitimate definitive test for blood alcohol level.