what to do if pulled over and i am drunk

[dldavidlong]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? kentucky

if i am driving and i know that i am over the limit and i am pulled over. what steps should i do to help my lawyer be able to beat it. is it better to refuse a breathalizer if i know i am drunk?

[Shay-Pari'e]

dldavidlong
Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2

got a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt

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

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? kentucky

i was pulled over yesterday for not wearing my seatbelt. i did not violate any other traffic laws. i understand they are allowed to do that. my question is can i request a jury trial for a traffic citation. i want to cause more trouble for them than its worth in hope of dismissing it.

You posted these within less than a hour of each other. Do you think you could do your own home work?

[wredlich]

Originally Posted by dldavidlong

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? kentucky

if i am driving and i know that i am over the limit and i am pulled over. what steps should i do to help my lawyer be able to beat it. is it better to refuse a breathalizer if i know i am drunk?

If you're drunk, you have already disregarded the advice anyone would give you -- don't drink and drive. So what are the odds that you'll follow advice at this point, when you're drunk?

You should generally cooperate with the police. I can't speak for your state, but in NY if you don't blow your license gets revoked for a year. We often win cases where our client blows a high number because of something the police did wrong before they got you there. Some lawyers say that you shouldn't blow if there's a dead body or very serious injury.

[FlyingRon]

You should note you'll lose your license just about everywhere if you refuse (including Kentucky). You can't technically withdraw your consent in Kentucky. If you don't cooperate, they can haul you off to jail anyway. Note if you are incapacitated, they can take a blood test anyway. Further a refusal is an "AGGRAVATING FACTOR" in Kentucky. This will double your mandatory jail time and make you ineligible for a hardship license. Further, the fact that you refused is admissible in court as evidence during your DUI trial.

One t hing you can do is try for 10-15 minutes to consult a lawyer as to your options.
I suggest you retain good counsel and have him on speed dial on your cell if you're going to try to push this nonsense.

[itsmewhoelse]

Never take the roadside test
Always remain silent no matter what the cops tell you. Don tell them anything.
You do have to take the test at the police station
There is no such thing as passing field test

[41tellthetruth]

No such thing as passing a roadside test???? I've had plenty of people pass field sobriety tests, after which they we sent on there way. (yes I'm a cop)

[Yertle8]

I, personally, would always refuse a FST.

If intoxicated, there's no reason to give them evidence obtained by an FST. Less to fight later.

If sober, there's no reason to give them evidence as they see it. I'd take the breathalyzer, pass, and be on my way without ANY evidence against me.

I'd rather be cuffed and spend an hour being breathalyzed at the station than provide perceived evidence against myself.

[cyjeff]

As long as we are now "WWW.HOMEWORK.COM", my daughter has this one...

A train leaves Boston at 1am with a drunken engineer. If a plane leaves Paris 3 hours later piloted by a lawn gnome with a speaking disorder, when will my luggage arrive from Atlanta?

[BigMistakeFl]

FST's are great if you want to entertain the cops, and if you want to give them something to enter in their testimony should your case go to trial. Agree that rarely does any driver who admits to having consumed any alcohol, "pass" the FST's.

To answer the original question, you should strip naked and run into the woods while shouting: "O God, that men should put an enemy into their mouths to steal away their brains!"

[tranquility]

Bs
No such thing as passing a roadside test???? I've had plenty of people pass field sobriety tests, after which they we sent on there way. (yes I'm a cop)

Then, you are the most stupid cop on God's green earth. What are you doing asking people to do an FST if you don't have evidence that they are drunk? Let's face it, your mind is pretty much made up the moment you contact the person. If not, you are in the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, (ad infinintum) minority.

While what you claim is the way it should be, I don't believe you. Period. I don't know whether you are not a cop or you are lying, but it is probably one of the two. Or, the third, which I said, you are stupid.

Sorry about the bluntness, but that's the way of the world. I bet you never exceeded your rights under the forth amendment either, right? Never, ever, have you testified or written in your report incriminating evidence without also giving all relevant evidence which tends to make the person not guilty. Right?

Liar.

[41tellthetruth]

Wow pretty jaded Tranq.

To clarify

1. I'm not lying.
2. I'm not stupid.
3. Yes I'm a cop. Actually I'm a detective so pardon me but I haven't done FST's in a couple of years.
4. Yes I do put information in reports and testimony that would FAVOR the defendant.
5. Juries decide guilt or innocence.
6. I'm also and FTO so I hope I'm not the minority I train my recruits the same way.

as for your bluntness I've dealt with worse....

[itsmewhoelse]

Originally Posted by 41tellthetruth

No such thing as passing a roadside test???? I've had plenty of people pass field sobriety tests, after which they we sent on there way. (yes I'm a cop)

not if they have been drinking**************

Test is designed to gather more evidence against the driver if they have been "drinking"
AND
if they have not been drinking, of course they will pass

[tranquility]

Wow pretty jaded Tranq.

Absolutely, especially regarding FSTs and drunk driving. I used to be a cop as well. I was one of the first groups trained on the FST of one-legged stand, heel to toe walking and horizontal nystagmus put on by the Southern California Research Institute. (The guys who invented the series.) True, in my day the limit was .10 and not .08, but I gave lots of them. I had the highest DUI arrests for the department (got a plaque and everything) and I rarely if ever paid for dinner/breakfast on graveyard. (Policy was to have two officers on an arrest and I was near always the one who "guessed" BAC the closest. HGN was an awesome predictor.) Everyone I gave one to went to jail. There was one person who passed. But, since he pulled to the left and stopped rather than to the right and had run a red light and had no divided attention ability on first contact (and the strong smell of an alcoholic beverage about his breath and person) I arrested him. I might have guessed less than .10 but he blew .28.

No one arrested blew less than the per se limit. No one.

Either I was way, way better at using my senses and techniques than you (Which I find hard to believe as I didn't do it for long.), or you are giving FSTs to more people than you should as your "reasonable" investigation should use other clues to determining if an FST should be part of it.

To expand on my claim, you could be incompetent, violating the constitutional rights of drivers by overstepping the seizure and including an investigation which is not reasonable for the facts, or are telling an untruth.

Since you have eliminated two of the possibilities with your post, please explain your thinking process into how often you feel an FST has been passed by people you gave them to and the signs and symptoms and outward manifestations which made you believe such an FST would be a constitutional part of the reasonable investigation after seizure.

[CdwJava]

You DO realize that the FST can be given with less than probable cause to make the arrest for DUI, correct? There are two broad theories under which the FSTs can be given: Consent, or, when detained pursuant to reasonable suspicion. One can then "pass" the FST by not exhibiting the requisite clues for each of the tests and thus not allowing the officer to form the opinion - based upon these observations - that the suspect was impaired. If not able to support an opinion that the driver is impaired, probable cause would not exist and no lawful arrest could occur.

Yes, I prefer the HGN myself, and I still am a whiz at guessing a BAC based solely on this ... but, the courts took this away from us so we have not been allowed to make such an official estimate for many years.

In any event, I have also let people go after conducting FSTs. The odor of alcohol or some observed and objective symptoms consistent with impairment by drugs and/or alcohol is perfectly sufficient to justify further investigation, but not sufficient - by itself - to support an arrest.

- Carl

[tranquility]

You DO realize that the FST can be given with less than probable cause to make the arrest for DUI, correct?

Carl, I've written on the board enough, realistically, in a "legal" sense, you probably shouldn't have formed the opinion you had probable cause to make an arrest before the FSTs. That's why I used the term "reasonable investigation" which, as we all know only requires "reasonable suspicion". I'm busy and tired, but do we want to play law games here? How do you think that's going to come out?

There are two broad theories under which the FSTs can be given: Consent, or, when detained pursuant to reasonable suspicion.

True consent is rare as consent requires....voluntary relinquishment of known rights. I believe the current words of art are. (Although I could be wrong and that's just for waiver.) But, the reason for the extension of the seizure is to conduct a reasonable investigation pursuant to reasonable suspicion. Just out of curiosity, how many people have you let go who refused to do the FSTs?

One can then "pass" the FST by not exhibiting the requisite clues for each of the tests and thus not allowing the officer to form the opinion - based upon these observations - that the suspect was impaired. If not able to support an opinion that the driver is impaired, probable cause would not exist and no lawful arrest could occur.

Agreed. However the cynic in me says the vast majority who take the test fail and/or all who don't take the test are going to jail that night. I'm old and my direct knowledge was old and before everyone trying to arrest anyone who has been drinking (which may make for a lot of false positives.), but I still bet "plenty" of people who take the FST don't pass. And, those that don't take it, somehow the officer will still form the opinion. Other wise refusal of the FST is a get out of jail free technique. That's not the way it works, right?

In any event, I have also let people go after conducting FSTs. The odor of alcohol or some observed and objective symptoms consistent with impairment by drugs and/or alcohol is perfectly sufficient to justify further investigation, but not sufficient - by itself - to support an arrest.

Agreed. Plenty? What have you done to those who have refused the test? Was it a coincidence you already had formed the opinion in the vast majority of those.

Based on the honest recitation of the law, I suggest a driver who does not want to be arrest for drinking have his driver's license and registration in his hand to slip out the crack the window is open when asked. (Focus on doing things in order.), and then refuse the FST. Also, wear your sunglasses, we don't want bloodshot and watery eyes, not do we? With no smell and not observable signs, what's the next step?