Got pulled out of my house for a DUI blood test.

[davew128]

The license suspension for the refusal is a totally separate matter.

and one I would take issue with. The OP wasn't at or near a vehicle when the police arrived and enough time had elapsed between the witness seeing the car rub against the curb (I've done it rounding corners sober) and them arriving to throw anything short of any outright confession into doubt. Since the OP wasn't arrested, I think the police came to that conclusion to.

 

[Zigner]

...them arriving to throw anything short of any outright confession into doubt.

You mean, like the one the OP gave?

Since the OP wasn't arrested, I think the police came to that conclusion to.

Yes, I agree. They felt they didn't have enough evidence to arrest/convict on the DUI, but they DID have enough to require the test (which the OP refused.)

 

[TigerD]

You think you could get the administrative license suspension lifted?
Because he has NOT been charged.

I don't know enough of the facts to answer that question. I don't know his state. He needs a lawyer.

Based on the facts provided, there was no probable cause for the arrest. The officers failed to ask if he had been drinking prior to coming home.

TD

EDIT TO ADD:
When cops come into your home and put you in cuffs and take you to the hospital for a blood draw you don't want, you are under arrest.

 

[Zigner]

I don't know enough of the facts to answer that question. I don't know his state. He needs a lawyer.

Based on the facts provided, there was no probable cause for the arrest. The officers failed to ask if he had been drinking prior to coming home.

TD

I doubt they failed to ask it - the OP was vague and hesitant to volunteer information to us.

 

[quincy]

It is still possible for feelingDumb to be charged even though he was not in actual physical control of his vehicle at the time the officer's came to his house. He can be charged with general impairment based on (among other possibilities) the testimony of eye-witnesses, statements made by the driver when interviewed/interrogated, and an officer's opinion that he was substantially impaired at the time he was driving. The standard for a conviction that must be met by the prosecutor is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

For refusing a breathalyzer or blood test, as a note, a driver can face the same penalties as a driver with the highest BAC (.16+) and Penn DOT will suspend the driver's license.

The one statement made by feelingDumb in his original post that gives me pause is his saying that the officers' told his wife there was "an accident." I am curious whether the incident involved more than a simple curb-hit.

While I think he could have some defenses possible if he is charged and/or his license suspended, I do not envy any criminal defense attorney who has to handle a fellow who was unable to keep quiet when speaking with the police and whose story here keeps changing.

But there is no doubt he will benefit from having an attorney if he is charged. He can face up to 6 months in jail and a minimum 6 month probation and a $300 fine if charged with general impairment and convicted on the charge.


Here is a link to the law (75 Pa CSA §3802): http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/00.038.002.000..HTM

 

[davew128]

but they DID have enough to require the test (which the OP refused.)

I'm still not sure they had enough. If close to an hour went by since the OP last drove, at what point does someone who is NOT at the moment operating able to say no to a test? At some point after enough time has passed, any person could have been drinking after arriving home and never had a drop while driving. Is there more to this story? Almost assuredly, but in general terms there needs to be a limit to when a BAC is even allowed for under consent laws.

 

[quincy]

I'm still not sure they had enough. If close to an hour went by since the OP last drove, at what point does someone who is NOT at the moment operating able to say no to a test? At some point after enough time has passed, any person could have been drinking after arriving home and never had a drop while driving. Is there more to this story? Almost assuredly, but in general terms there needs to be a limit to when a BAC is even allowed for under consent laws.

The blood test apparently must be taken within 2 hours of driving, according to DrivingLaws.org (a Nolo publication).

Blood tests can show whether the blood alcohol level is rising or falling which can, in turn, indicate when the alcohol was consumed.

 

[Zigner]

I'm still not sure they had enough. If close to an hour went by since the OP last drove, at what point does someone who is NOT at the moment operating able to say no to a test? At some point after enough time has passed, any person could have been drinking after arriving home and never had a drop while driving. Is there more to this story? Almost assuredly, but in general terms there needs to be a limit to when a BAC is even allowed for under consent laws.

The OP states that the police showed up 20 mins after he got home.

 

[davew128]

The OP states that the police showed up 20 mins after he got home.

Since I had a few shots of whiskey in my house less than 50 mins ago I said no. They said if I don't take it I will lose my license. Still I refused. My friend who is a lawyer came to the hospital and the police let him take me home. I was not given a ticket or any information other than to be on the look out for a PENNDOT letter stating my DL is suspended.

I was very compliant. Did everything I was told. Yes sir no sir. I didn't take the test because I had been drinking while at my house for 20 mins until the cops showed up.

Perhaps the 50 is a typo?

 

[Zigner]

Perhaps the 50 is a typo?

No, the police showed up 20 minutes after the OP got home. The OP refused the blood test approx 50 mins after he drove (or, 30 mins after the police arrived.)

 

[RRevak]

So let me get this straight: I can call up the cops and say I think I saw Zigner driving drunk one night. Not a single other person sees Zigner and not a single LEO sees Zigner either. Just a single phone call from a "witness". You all are saying that gives LEO permission to enter Zigners home and perform a search upon his person sans warrant, despite there not being a single ground for probable cause on the basis of the officers observations, and somehow its legal? Nothing about that sits right with me.

The officers saw zero. Even the very act of OP scraping a curb (which I myself have done before but completely sober) isn't by itself an indicator of OP being intoxicated. The very fact that he was also at home and therefor no longer a danger to others should have removed the ability for officers to perform a search (sobriety test) because technically OP was not in the act of committing a crime that would have given the officers permission or even reasonable doubt to search him. Even refusing the blood test was well within his rights as again, when the officers showed up to OPs home he was not in the process of committing a crime and they had no other proof OP committed a crime other than the statement of a single "witness". Zigner if I called LEO and told them you were drunk (even if you hadn't even left your home for the night) would you let them in and give them your blood all based on some random person statement? I get that OP was out n about, but that wasn't something the officers observed. For all they knew, OP had been home for hours. Did the "witness" actually identify OP or did they simply give a license plate and officers traced that back to OPs home? Again, proof of OP committing a crime would be where? Even evidence on the vehicle might not mean much because without the ability to know whether OP was even the one driving it, the "evidence" just becomes scuff on a vehicle.


And running purely on OPs statement, there was no damage to property, nobody was hurt, OP said he scraped a curb. I'm still wondering how a curb scrape with no damage to person or property and OP already home is cause for LEO to seek him out and perform a search. Unless of course OP is making the whole thing up and the damage was actually far far worse than we're being told. If that isn't the case, then this whole thing is nonsense.

 

[quincy]

So let me get this straight: I can call up the cops and say I think I saw Zigner driving drunk one night. Not a single other person sees Zigner and not a single LEO sees Zigner either. Just a single phone call from a "witness". You all are saying that gives LEO permission to enter Zigners home and perform a search upon his person sans warrant, despite there not being a single ground for probable cause on the basis of the officers observations, and somehow its legal? Nothing about that sits right with me.

The officers saw zero. Even the very act of OP scraping a curb (which I myself have done before but completely sober) isn't by itself an indicator of OP being intoxicated. The very fact that he was also at home and therefor no longer a danger to others should have removed the ability for officers to perform a search (sobriety test) because technically OP was not in the act of committing a crime that would have given the officers permission or even reasonable doubt to search him. Even refusing the blood test was well within his rights as again, when the officers showed up to OPs home he was not in the process of committing a crime and they had no other proof OP committed a crime other than the statement of a single "witness". Zigner if I called LEO and told them you were drunk (even if you hadn't even left your home for the night) would you let them in and give them your blood all based on some random person statement? I get that OP was out n about, but that wasn't something the officers observed. For all they knew, OP had been home for hours. Did the "witness" actually identify OP or did they simply give a license plate and officers traced that back to OPs home? Again, proof of OP committing a crime would be where? Even evidence on the vehicle might not mean much because without the ability to know whether OP was even the one driving it, the "evidence" just becomes scuff on a vehicle.


And running purely on OPs statement, there was no damage to property, nobody was hurt, OP said he scraped a curb. I'm still wondering how a curb scrape with no damage to person or property and OP already home is cause for LEO to seek him out and perform a search. Unless of course OP is making the whole thing up and the damage was actually far far worse than we're being told. If that isn't the case, then this whole thing is nonsense.

If you replace "curb" with "another car" or "a pedestrian," or you replace "witness" with "wife," I can see the police tracking a driver down within twenty minutes of a phone call and taking the driver in for a blood test. A curb scrape does not seem to be the type of priority incident that would elicit the police response it did otherwise.

I agree that there appears to be far more to all of this than what has been stated.

 

[RRevak]

I doubt they failed to ask it - the OP was vague and hesitant to volunteer information to us.

OP didn't need to answer that question even if they did. The burden of proof was on them to prove whether OP had been drinking or not and when.

 

[Ohiogal]

So let me get this straight: I can call up the cops and say I think I saw Zigner driving drunk one night. Not a single other person sees Zigner and not a single LEO sees Zigner either. Just a single phone call from a "witness". You all are saying that gives LEO permission to enter Zigners home and perform a search upon his person sans warrant, despite there not being a single ground for probable cause on the basis of the officers observations, and somehow its legal? Nothing about that sits right with me.

The LEO got permission from the WIFE to enter the home. The wife had a right to give that permission. Therefore they didn't enter based upon a "single phone call" nor did they need a warrant.

The officers saw zero. Even the very act of OP scraping a curb (which I myself have done before but completely sober) isn't by itself an indicator of OP being intoxicated. The very fact that he was also at home and therefor no longer a danger to others should have removed the ability for officers to perform a search (sobriety test) because technically OP was not in the act of committing a crime that would have given the officers permission or even reasonable doubt to search him. Even refusing the blood test was well within his rights as again, when the officers showed up to OPs home he was not in the process of committing a crime and they had no other proof OP committed a crime other than the statement of a single "witness". Zigner if I called LEO and told them you were drunk (even if you hadn't even left your home for the night) would you let them in and give them your blood all based on some random person statement? I get that OP was out n about, but that wasn't something the officers observed. For all they knew, OP had been home for hours. Did the "witness" actually identify OP or did they simply give a license plate and officers traced that back to OPs home? Again, proof of OP committing a crime would be where? Even evidence on the vehicle might not mean much because without the ability to know whether OP was even the one driving it, the "evidence" just becomes scuff on a vehicle.

What did OP state to the police? We know he admitted drinking. He could have told them he had just gotten home. Or maybe his wife told them that.

And running purely on OPs statement, there was no damage to property, nobody was hurt, OP said he scraped a curb. I'm still wondering how a curb scrape with no damage to person or property and OP already home is cause for LEO to seek him out and perform a search. Unless of course OP is making the whole thing up and the damage was actually far far worse than we're being told. If that isn't the case, then this whole thing is nonsense.

No the whole thing isn't nonsense.

 

[Ohiogal]

OP didn't need to answer that question even if they did. The burden of proof was on them to prove whether OP had been drinking or not and when.

But if OP did answer that question, that becomes proof. OP's statements could be enough to hang him and cause all this.