DWI arrest with NO ALCOHOL or DRUGS just tired

[Logical Heretic]

Unfortunately, with the exception of one or two states, if the officer orders you out of the car during a detention, you are legally obligated to comply or face the consequences of non-compliance (i.e. arrest).
(the PBT).

What are valid reasons to order someone out of a vehicle for a driving infraction? I live in a place where anyone can conceal carry. It is much safer for the officer to leave people in their vehicles imo. Ive been pulled over 3 or 4 dozen times and was only asked to leave my vehicle once.

Nystagmus test can be defeated by someone that is intoxicated by staring at the large portion of the hand. Still a fst tho which is voluntary.

[CdwJava]

What are valid reasons to order someone out of a vehicle for a driving infraction?

Safety, further investigation, interview away from occupants, who knows?

In most states no specific reason is even required to order a person out of a vehicle.

I live in a place where anyone can conceal carry. It is much safer for the officer to leave people in their vehicles imo. Ive been pulled over 3 or 4 dozen times and was only asked to leave my vehicle once.

It's actually safer to get a potentially armed person OUT of the vehicle and thus,away from the weapon. If you have a weapon in the car, I cannot observe you and cannot see it as easily if you palm it and prepare to shoot me (lost two friends that way ...). It is safer to separate a person from the potential weapon or companions that might create a plan to assault the officer if they are so inclined.

Nystagmus test can be defeated by someone that is intoxicated by staring at the large portion of the hand. Still a fst tho which is voluntary.

Yes, they are voluntary, but I was asked what tests I might conduct if a person were somehow medically incapable - that's one.

As for beating the nystagmus by staring at the hand ... uh, no. The eyes will still be tracking the stimulus and the observations will still be there.

[Logical Heretic]

Good info. Ty.

Try the hand nystagmus with your friends. We messed around with it in college and decided it definitely altered the results.

[Zigner]

Good info. Ty.

Try the hand nystagmus with your friends. We messed around with it in college and decided it definitely altered the results.

True scientific testing.

[Zigner]

It is irrelevant if someone is tired! It is NOT against the law to be a tired driver! So why even mention it?

Not a tired driver, per se. However, one is required to drive in a careful and prudent manner. And, driving while tired (to the point that one loses control of their vehicle) seems to not be very careful or prudent.

§58. Careless operation

Any person operating a motor vehicle on the public roads of this state shall drive in a careful and prudent manner, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Failure to drive in such a manner shall constitute careless operation.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88474

[Willlyjo]

Not a tired driver, per se. However, one is required to drive in a careful and prudent manner. And, driving while tired (to the point that one loses control of their vehicle) seems to not be very careful or prudent.

§58. Careless operation

Any person operating a motor vehicle on the public roads of this state shall drive in a careful and prudent manner, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Failure to drive in such a manner shall constitute careless operation.

[url]http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88474[/url]

Good point, Zigner. I agree that if someone is tired enough that they are in danger of an accident by driving, shouldn't drive at all until they are well-rested. But at least a careless driving ticket is much less expensive than a DUI.

[Isis1]

honestly, i didn't understand the hysteria from the OP.

the relevance to the FBI investigation? huh?

he wasn't drinking, blew clean. he was taken in for drug testing. (*gasp* probable cause) he'll come out clean for that too (according to the OP).

okay. charges dropped. license returned and we move along with our day.

and kid stops driving a vehicle when he is too tired to drive. hey, we learned a lesson!

[CdwJava]

Good info. Ty.

Try the hand nystagmus with your friends. We messed around with it in college and decided it definitely altered the results.

Heard that rumor in DRE school ... didn't work.

The eyes still have to track the hand - it is still a stimulus for the eyes to move. You can still observe the presence of nystagmus and track smooth pursuit. Following a hand, finger, tip of a pen or even a small penlight doesn't change the fact that the eyes will have to move. If you and tour friends thought it worked, either you were not familiar with exactly what an officer is looking for in the HGN/VGN tests, or were too impaired to see it.

[Logical Heretic]

True scientific testing.

Touche. I have found that my own observations are generally much more reliable than your average arm chair keyboard jockey.

[Ohiogal]

How so? The courts still require that a person be proven innocent. The law always held that a person can be arrested upon establishment of probable cause, this has not been altered in many decades. In the past, one might not even need probable cause ... at least over the last 40 years or more, you do.

So, legally, a person still is presumed innocent. But, that does not mean he cannot be arrested with cause.

The bolded is incorrect. The courts require that the STATE prove the person is GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt -- in criminal trials.

[HighwayMan]

Touche. I have found that my own observations are generally much more reliable...

If you even know what to look for.

[tranquility]

It's not like it is some super-secret science. Being good at it takes some practice with feedback. It's like kicking a ball. Describing the physics takes a bunch of math and science, yet a child can do it after a couple of tries.

"Fooling the test" isn't the key, but, fooling the person giving the test.

[Zigner]

The bolded is incorrect. The courts require that the STATE prove the person is GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt -- in criminal trials.

I'm sure it was a misstatement

[Ohiogal]

I'm sure it was a misstatement

I am sure too but don't want the others believing that. Feeds into the conspiracy theories.

[CdwJava]

The bolded is incorrect. The courts require that the STATE prove the person is GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt -- in criminal trials.

A misprint ... I meant to say, "guilty" ... my bad.