Arrested after passing all tests ... Any recourse?

[pittman24]

What is the name of your state? Alabama
I was arrested after going through a roadblock at 3:40am ... I was questioned at the roadblock if I had been drinking and give an honest answer that I had about 4 drinks at around 8 or so that night but had not drank since then. I was imeadiately pulled to the side of the road and given numerous field sobriety tests. I passed 4 FST's then the officer asked me to take a breath test. I blew in the alcosensor and results where 0.07 well under the legal limit. The officer stated that he was placing me under arrest for "Driving under the influence of alcohol" ... This officer had a terrible attitude from the beginning and I feel that he had his mind made up well before any tests where given at all that I was drunk and I was going to jail. I had made a comment that I didnt "have to" blow in anything for him when he made that remark that I had no choice but to blow or I'd be arrested that my first cousin was a district judge in the next county and he told his partner that I knew the law and my cousin was some "big shot judge". After going to the station and blowing in the BAC Datamaster and again blowing a 0.07 the officer stated in a ****y demeanor that "You may beat this in court later but tonight you will spend the night in jail and next time a police offers you a breath test you'll take it and wont argue". I know this is just a case of a cop and a power trip so after the trial is there any way I can sue this cop and department for false arrest first off and second for malice and get my money back for lost pay, attorney fees, and pain and suffering?

[Curt581]

I got called to testify at a bench trial for one of my DWI arrests a few weeks ago. Half a dozen adjournments, motions, conferences thoughout the course of this case.The trial itself took all day, with two highly paid expert witnesses testifying for the defense.

The verdict?

Guilty

The defendant's BAC at the time of arrest?

.06

[CdwJava]

Someone can be charged with driving under the influence without being at the legal limit for that state.

And almost everyone claims that they "passed" the FSTs. Unfortunately, they rarely have any real idea what we are looking for in the FSTs so they assume that because they did not feel themselves teetering over or tripping that they passed.

Hire an attorney well-versed in DUI defense.

- Carl

first win this case then get another lawer and sued pd for false arrest/ illegal detention and make your self millions. good luck.

[fagettaboutit]

I passed 4 FST's then the officer asked me to take a breath test

Carl says, "And almost everyone claims that they "passed" the FSTs. Unfortunately, they rarely have any real idea what we are looking for in the FSTs so they assume that because they did not feel themselves teetering over or tripping that they passed

Biggest misconception = FSTs can be passed. They are tests that are used as evidence AGAINST against you. No cop will pass you on those test. They look to book you on those test. As Carl claims, "they rarely have any real idea what we are looking for...". It's a mystery...even to the cops! He has his left eye close....right eye open ( ya dig). Oops, you failed.

Hire an attorney that understands DUI laws. Most don't. How do you know if they don't understand DUI laws? they'll try to go for a plea.

Originally Posted by fagettaboutit

Biggest misconception = FSTs can be passed. They are tests that are used as evidence AGAINST against you. No cop will pass you on those test. They look to book you on those test. As Carl claims, "they rarely have any real idea what we are looking for...". It's a mystery...even to the cops! He has his left eye close....right eye open ( ya dig). Oops, you failed.

Hire an attorney that understands DUI laws. Most don't. How do you know if they don't understand DUI laws? they'll try to go for a plea.

What an idiot you are. I'm afraid you are on my list for Tuesday.

[BigMistakeFl]

Sorry Trash, but he is right. When we are arrested and take the roadsides, we think we are being tested on the action, such as looking from side to side using only our eyes. Just because we do that, or think we do, they are not looking for whether we follow those directions. They are watching for something else and that alone can determine impairment. It's not about walking a straight line without staggering.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by fagettaboutit

No cop will pass you on those test.

Wrong.

They look to book you on those test. As Carl claims, "they rarely have any real idea what we are looking for...". It's a mystery...even to the cops!

They = the person TAKING the test ... not the cop.

Most people think we are looking for them to fall down ... the vast majority of DUI drivers do NOT fall down. When they do, the FSTs are generally discontinued because it is unsafe to continue.

He has his left eye close....right eye open ( ya dig). Oops, you failed.

And ... uh ... which test would this be?

Hire an attorney that understands DUI laws. Most don't. How do you know if they don't understand DUI laws? they'll try to go for a plea.

Many that DO understand the DUI laws also go for a plea. They can often arrange a better plea because they can point out the weaknesses in the prosecution's case. Even DUI attorneys rarely take their cases to trial. It's more likely to go to trial if the BAC is under the presumptive limit, but depending on the performance in the BAC, the .07 is going to be pretty damning. If he did just fine - or borderline - on the FSTs, then it might be harder to get a conviction (depending on the laws in his state), but it would certainly not be impossible, and the odds of a conviction might be pretty good.

Only time - and money - will tell.

- Carl

[thomaslb95]

Don't you just hate what happens and stuff like that. you would think if 0.07 is under the legal limit you would be legal. Man I hate bueracracy. Why even have a limit if you can be arrested under the limit. Why is common sense against the law? seems like it would make sense you pass the breath test how many times and still go to jail. are you people serious about this we don't look to see if they can walk we look somewhere else. well that seems wierd in and of itself, man can't we have common sense in these deallings, you tell me a judge is going to find you guilty when you are under the limit? can we say corruption. you know a jury would laugh at this.

[BigMistakeFl]

I guess the reasoning is for something like this: My mother has never had a drink in her life. She likes to pray away her blues, or something like that. Anyway, if she had two drinks, weighing in at under a hundred pounds and never metabolized booze before, I think she would be way too drunk to drive, but would be under the .08 limit. So I guess that "threshold" is a chemical limit once exceeded, you are guilty no matter. Proving whether or not someone was impaired is another matter aside from the BAC.

It's pretty tough out there now to drink and drive. I find it easiest to make my own personal "legal limit" .000. It's so damn easy to get a ride; so hard to fight DUI and suffer through the penalties. Harder still on the victims of the drunk driver. It's really just not worth it.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by thomaslb95

Don't you just hate what happens and stuff like that. you would think if 0.07 is under the legal limit you would be legal.

If that were the case, the BAC would probably be set to .04 or less. It is a medical fact that there is observable impairment in judgement and reflexes beginning at as low as .02.

I don't want someone tanked driving on the road no matter WHAT their BAC!

My wife has two glasses of wine and she's real tipsy - three or four and she's tanked! She is pretty far gone at .06.

Man I hate bueracracy. Why even have a limit if you can be arrested under the limit.

The "limit" is the 'per se' limit. In other words, at .08 (as it is in most states) the presumption is that you are impaired. Below .08 the argument tends to become one of establishing impairment - but at .05 or higher the argument tends to still lean to the prosecution.

Why is common sense against the law?

It seems to be pretty common sense to me that a person should not drive impaired. No matter what the law establishes as a 'per se' limit, a person should not drive impaired.

With drugs, there is no easy measure. Driving impaired on drugs requires almost all observation ... and, of course, a chemical test to establish at least the presence of the drugs.

are you people serious about this we don't look to see if they can walk we look somewhere else.

It is not just about walking ... reactions are impaired as well as balance. Impaired processing and reaction times can mean the difference between life and death! A quarter second off of reaction time can mean traveling a very long distance before braking or swerving (depending on speed)!

you tell me a judge is going to find you guilty when you are under the limit? can we say corruption. you know a jury would laugh at this.

Doubtful. I have yet to see a jury laugh at it, and I have won DUI cases as low as .044.

- Carl

[grasmicc]

As a few people have already mentioned, the limit of .08 is just something that goes to the issue of whether you are intoxicated.

As these people have also mentioned, you probably don't know whether the sobriety tests gave evidence of impairment, because you probably don't know what they were looking for.

However, IF you can prove that the sobriety test gave no evidence of impairment, and IF you can prove that the officers didn't have a good faith belief that you were impaired, and they arrested you anyway, then you could sue under the civil rights act. However, I don't see how you are going to prove any of that since the officer is going to claim that he had evidence of impairment from the sobriety tests, and you don't really have any contradictory evidence. The .07 BAL along with your admission that you'd had 4 drinks tends to suggest that you probably did have some observable signs of impairment. Thus, this is a non-starter.

For now, I'd get a DUI lawyer and focus on not getting convicted.

[pittman24]

NHTSA admits that under optimal conditions (i.e., in an air-conditioned, well lighted room) 35% of sober, drug-free subjects get inaccurate results on the one leg stand test, 32% of sober subjects get flawed results on the walk and turn, and 23% of sober subjects are inaccurately said to be “over the legal limit” on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. By comparison, polygraph (lie detector) tests are more than 90% accurate when conducted by a qualified operator), and (absent a stipulation by both parties) are still not permitted into evidence by most courts.

HOW IS IT THAT AN OFFICER CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY DRUNK AT A 0.07 BAC IS TO INTOXICATED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WHEN THE FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS OF THE UNITED STATES STATES THAT A BOARD OF DOCTORS WHO CONDUCTED A TEST SAYS THAT A HUMAN BEING DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL THE PERSON IS AT A 0.15 BAC OVER TWICE THE LEVEL I WAS SUPPOSEDLY AT THIS NIGHT?

MY FIRST COUSIN IS THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE BORDERING COUNTY AND HE STATED THAT THIS IS SOME FACTUAL EVIDENCE AND HE SAID THAT CHANCES ARE THE COP WHO HAS ONLY BEEN A DEPUTY FOR 3 MONTHS WAS CHASING A DUI AND WILL MOST LIKELY BUCKLE UNDER PRESSURE OF A HIGH POWERED DUI ATTORNEY. ALSO THE OFFICER STATED CLEARLY THE NIGHT OF THE ARREST THAT "YOU MAY BEAT THIS IN COURT LATER BUT TONITE YOU ARE UNDER ARREST AND NEXT TIME A COP OFFERS YOU A CHANCE TO TAKE A BREATH TEST INITIALLY YOU WILL TAKE IT"

[CdwJava]

Also from NHTSA:

"When the component tests of the SFST battery are combined, officers are accurate in 91 percent of cases, overall, and in 94 percent of cases if explanations for some of the false positives are accepted (Stuster and Burns, 1998).

The original NHTSA research found different accuracies for the SFST Battery than reported in the more recent study. Tharp, Burns, and Moskowitz (1981) reported accuracies of 77 percent for the HGN, 68 percent for the Walk and Turn, and 65 percent for the One Leg Stand components; 81 percent of officers' arrest decisions at 0.10 BAC were correct when all three measures were combined. In contrast, Stuster and Burns (1998) found greater accuracies in making arrest decisions on the basis of SFST results in their study at 0.08 percent BAC, as described previously and summarized in the following table."

These numbers go higher for officers trained in the DRE method of drug and alcohol recognition.

The FSTs establish probable cause and provide some measure of evidence against the defendant. It is certainly valid to argue that the practitioner did not conduct the test properly or had insufficient training to properly evaluate the results. When done properly, the Standardized FSTs are an outstanding and generally accurate battery of tools to determine impairment.

- Carl

[BigMistakeFl]

THE FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS OF THE UNITED STATES STATES THAT A BOARD OF DOCTORS WHO CONDUCTED A TEST SAYS THAT A HUMAN BEING DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL THE PERSON IS AT A 0.15 BAC OVER TWICE THE LEVEL

Link please.....