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

[TigerD]

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.

I'm sorry, I disagree - sort of.

"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 impaired or not and when."

The question is whether or not a person had been drinking - but whether or not the person was impaired. And the burden of proof would be on the prosecution - the police officers only need probable cause, which I don't see from the facts as presented by the OP. However, of course, if you change the facts, you change the answer.

TD

 

[RRevak]

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.


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.


No the whole thing isn't nonsense.

But did the officers have a right to be there in the first place? Or did they just get lucky because the wife apparently didn't know their rights? We don't know truthfully what he said to police and what he didn't say. Even if he did admit to drinking, OP says he admitting to drinking "at home" so the burden of proof for the police to determine if he was drinking behind the wheel would have been needed to continue with their little fishing expedition. And if the whole thing isn't nonsense, where exactly was the probable cause the officers needed to perform the search of OP? Fine, i'll give you that they didn't need a warrant to enter because the wife made a serious mistake by letting them in, but they did need something other than the statement of a random person to perform the search of OP (especially inside his own home). Unless OP is lying and omitting details, I don't see anything or anywhere that would give officers reasonable ability to do anything other than enter (and that's only because of the uneducated wife letting them in). And how exactly did they even know it was OP in the vehicle? If he wasn't identified by name specifically, were they just psychic?

 

[Zigner]

But did the officers have a right to be there in the first place? Or did they just get lucky because the wife apparently didn't know their rights? We don't know truthfully what he said to police and what he didn't say. And if the whole thing isn't nonsense, where exactly was the probable cause the officers needed to perform the search of OP? Fine, i'll give you that they didn't need a warrant to enter because the wife made a serious mistake by letting them in, but they did need something other than the statement of a random person to perform the search of OP (especially inside his own home). Unless OP is lying and omitting details, I don't see anything or anywhere that would give officers reasonable ability to do anything other than enter (and that's only because of the uneducated wife letting them in). And how exactly did they even know it was OP in the vehicle? If he wasn't identified by name specifically, were they just psychic?

How about "Were you drinking tonight? Were you driving tonight?" The OP hammered his own nails in to his own coffin.

 

[Ohiogal]

People who are drinking don't necessarily think before opening their mouth. Nor do they necessarily remember what they say or do.

 

[CdwJava]

They perform a few field sobriety tests on me and then decide to put hand cuffs on me. They never said I was arrested, nor was I read my rights.

When they slapped the cuffs on and transported you, you were under arrest. And 9 out of 10 arrests will never require Miranda rights to be read as it is generally only require when both custody and interrogation occurs.

I get to a hospital and they proceed to tell me they are going to do a blood test. 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.

And the state would be well within their rights to suspend your license for the refusal. So, you will almost certainly be a pedestrian for a while.

 

[RRevak]

People who are drinking don't necessarily think before opening their mouth. Nor do they necessarily remember what they say or do.

OG I get that you detest drunk drivers, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but the facts as they've been presented here just don't add up to the events that unfolded. You're an attorney so you understand that officers would have needed a sufficient reason to search OP "in his own home" that went beyond the basic statement of a person who said he simply hit a curb and he "might" be drunk. I honestly don't see where they could have found that. Based on his statements alone OP damaged no property, injured no persons, and was not fleeing officers. They did not observe OP in his vehicle either while moving or sitting in it in his driveway. They did not see him even standing next to the vehicle with the keys in hand. He was inside his home. So where was the cause needed to perform the search?

 

[RRevak]

When they slapped the cuffs on and transported you, you were under arrest. And 9 out of 10 arrests will never require Miranda rights to be read as it is generally only require when both custody and interrogation occurs.


And the state would be well within their rights to suspend your license for the refusal. So, you will almost certainly be a pedestrian for a while.

Did the officers have a warrant to perform said blood test seeing as the supreme court ruled a warrant was needed to obtain blood from suspects even in situations involving drunk driving? So as an officer yourself, did they even have the right to perform the sobriety test in the first place?

 

[Zigner]

OG I get that you detest drunk drivers, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but the facts as they've been presented here just don't add up to the events that unfolded. You're an attorney so you understand that officers would have needed a sufficient reason to search OP "in his own home" that went beyond the basic statement of a person who said he simply hit a curb and he "might" be drunk. I honestly don't see where they could have found that. Based on his statements alone OP damaged no property, injured no persons, and was not fleeing officers. They did not observe OP in his vehicle either while moving or sitting in it in his driveway. They did not see him even standing next to the vehicle with the keys in hand. He was inside his home. So where was the cause needed to perform the search?

The OP DID cause damage to property. The OP DID admit to driving after drinking. I'm just not sure what you're missing here...

 

[Zigner]

Did the officers have a warrant to perform said blood test seeing as the supreme court ruled a warrant was needed to obtain blood from suspects even in situations involving drunk driving?

Good point. I guess the OP can move to have the evidence obtained during the blood test suppressed...oh wait, there was no blood test - the OP refused.

 

[RRevak]

Good point. I guess the OP can move to have the evidence obtained during the blood test suppressed...oh wait, there was no blood test - the OP refused.

If they were trying to obtain it without warrant then OP was well within his rights to refuse.

 

[CdwJava]

Did the officers have a warrant to perform said blood test seeing as the supreme court ruled a warrant was needed to obtain blood from suspects even in situations involving drunk driving? So as an officer yourself, did they even have the right to perform the sobriety test in the first place?

The USSC ruling only required a warrant for blood if they were going to force blood. They didn't, so no warrant was necessary.

And, of course they had a right to evaluate the OP for DUI. Why wouldn't they? The case is made weaker by the fact he was home and at least later claimed to have been drinking, but that doesn't mean there was no probable cause for an arrest. P.C. doesn't mean that he didn't have a case for reasonable doubt later. The law requires that you must submit to a chemical test when arrested ... he was arrested and he refused.

 

[CdwJava]

If they were trying to obtain it without warrant then OP was well within his rights to refuse.

Uh, no! You are completely misinterpreting the McNeely decision!

After an arrest, a suspect must still submit to a chemical test. He CAN refuse, but refusing can result in an automatic suspension regardless of the results of any criminal filing. The only time a warrant MAY be required would be if the police sought to compel blood, AND, there would be sufficient time to obtain the warrant before the evidence (alcohol or drugs) in the blood dissipated.

 

[TigerD]

Did the officers have a warrant to perform said blood test seeing as the supreme court ruled a warrant was needed to obtain blood from suspects even in situations involving drunk driving? So as an officer yourself, did they even have the right to perform the sobriety test in the first place?

You misstate McNeely.
Absent exigent circumstances, the officers need a warrant to compel a blood draw. Time it takes to get a warrant is not an exigency.

Any person at any time has the right to ask you to do trained monkey tricks. You do not have an obligation to do them.

DC