Unreasonable arrest??

[Skoon12]

What is the name of your state? Wyoming

I am a student at the University of Wyoming where a friend and I were walking through a parking lot when a cop walked up to us and began questioning. He then gave us a field sobriety test and later ticketed us with minor in possesion of alcohol by consumption. My friend and I were doing nothing suspicious or illegal. Would this be grounds to dismiss the case in court?

 

[racer72]

The simple answer is no. The officer could have 1001 reasons for making contact with you. Once contact was made he determined there was probable cause for testing for the alcohol and you were busted.

 

[CdwJava]

The police have the same right to start a conversation with you as anyone else might. Once he makes that contact, his observations (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, the odor of alcohol, etc.) can change the contact from consensual to a detention.

Sorry, but you aren't going to get out of this based solely on that issue.

- carl

 

[signat]

The police have the same right to start a conversation with you as anyone else might. Once he makes that contact, his observations (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, the odor of alcohol, etc.) can change the contact from consensual to a detention.

Sorry, but you aren't going to get out of this based solely on that issue.

- carl

Carl,

I have a hypothetical for you:

How reliable are field tests by themselves? I thought they were mainly used to establish PC for an arrest. And then later the BAC test would be administered to determine intoxication. I'm sure the results of a field test would be evidence, but on their own, do they hold up well in court without a corroborating BAC test?

 

[CdwJava]

Carl,

I have a hypothetical for you:

How reliable are field tests by themselves?

It depends upon the training and experience of the officer, and the nature of the tests. Asking someone to close their eyes and hop up and down on one leg would not be a good test - as would an alphabet test. When conducted by an officer trained in the use of the standardized field sobriety test (as proscribed by NHTSA and trained in DAR and DRE training throughout the nation) the tests are a very good indicator of impairment and are higly reliable.

I thought they were mainly used to establish PC for an arrest. And then later the BAC test would be administered to determine intoxication.

Generally correct. However, in some places the FST and the opinion o fthe officer can be sufficient to determine the impairment. When I was working in San Diego County, the courts would generally accept the opinion of a DRE (Drug recognition Expert) trained officer as sufficient proof of impairment for drugs or alcohol.

I'm sure the results of a field test would be evidence, but on their own, do they hold up well in court without a corroborating BAC test?

They can. Some courts might not accept that, however. But given the expense of the tests, courts often accept the opinion of an officer for some types of charges. In the case of a minor in possession (via consumption) I would think the FST would be sufficient given the nature of the violation. The alternative is that students would be arrested and the agency would be forcing blood draws or requesting consent for blood or urine tests and this process would be very expensive for all parties involved ... and, ultimately, that expense would be passed on to the suspect if convicted.

- Carl

 

[Kane]

Prosecutors obtain convictions on FST's all the time. Any time a defendant refuses a breath test, the FST's will be the main evidence at the trial.

As for how reliable they are, I'm not convinced they're all that reliable. There are plenty of people who can't do those tests stone-cold sober, and some who can do them drunk. Things like traffic, lights, wind, uneven or sloping pavement, nervousness, and a thousand other things can affect a person's performance - assuming they were ever able to do it in the first place. The HGN (I think) is the most reliable part of the test, but even that (I'm told) tells you THAT you've been drinking - it doesn't tell you how much.

I was a "victim" at a training session once. I took the tests, they got me drunk, and then I took the tests again. I performed them miserably when I was sober sober. The second time around only about half the class thought I was intoxicated, and that mainly because of the HGN. I was at .08.

 

[signat]

Thanks to Carl and Kane for the input. I see in the OP's case and according to what you both stated, the officer would only need to establish that alcohol was consumed, not how much, giving they offenders were under the legal drinking age. Therefore, a FST would probably be sufficient.

 

[CdwJava]

As for how reliable they are, I'm not convinced they're all that reliable. There are plenty of people who can't do those tests stone-cold sober, and some who can do them drunk.

Hence the reason that ONLY the standardized FSTs should be used. There is a mountain of scientific support behind them, and when taken as a battery (i.e. taken together) they have an astronomically high degree of accuracy.

Things like traffic, lights, wind, uneven or sloping pavement, nervousness, and a thousand other things can affect a person's performance - assuming they were ever able to do it in the first place.

And all this information should be included on the supplemental report ... and you are right, they do have an effect. And a trained officer will take those in to account. however, the FST is generally used simply for P.C., the BAC test will be used for the precise evidence of impairment (as it relates to the per se limit, anyway).

The HGN (I think) is the most reliable part of the test, but even that (I'm told) tells you THAT you've been drinking - it doesn't tell you how much.

It's my favorite test, but one that scares most officers for some reason. I love it. And, when trained properly it is a pretty accurate tool to evaluate the BAC of a subject. However, recent court decisions have determined that we cannot state the BAC estimate from HGN only that it was present.

I was a "victim" at a training session once. I took the tests, they got me drunk, and then I took the tests again. I performed them miserably when I was sober sober. The second time around only about half the class thought I was intoxicated, and that mainly because of the HGN. I was at .08.

Not good. Either the training was not that good, or, the officers were a tad on the green side. Unless it is DRE training or the officer has a great deal of experience, the FST should only be used for probable cause.

- Carl