Always wondered why they let me off for an easy DUI/DWI..... any thoughts?

[SamuelRS]

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

I was pulled over once about ten years ago, I was 20. I had been drinking. The cop followed me for like 10 miles, through many turns obviously looking to pull me over. Finally, since I had driven perfectly, I think he lost interest and when we came up to a stop light he was turning and saw I didn't have my setabelt on when he got beside me and pulled me over.

I admitted how much I had to drink. He saw my friend and I pull out of a bar. I'm sure if you did the basic math for the time/drinks, I was over the limit, and I was honest about it. I wouldn't doubt if he also smelled it in the car, at least from the passenger who was extremely drunk.

I did the field sobreity tests. I think I did very well. Ended up doing the breath test which I failed but never found out the # for it. Throughout all of this, and especially for the breath test, they told me before hand that it would not be admissible in court in any way and was only for their fact finding purposes and would not go in any report or anything. I asked them probably about a dozen different times, in different ways, about this and their answer was clear that it would have no effect and would not be admissible in court.

From what I know now, I think it was legal for the cops to be liars in this manner (in that in order to obtain a charge, it's legal for officers to lie to civilians about laws or who they are or what they're doing), but I ended up not being charged. As I was young and stupid and had forgot to pay a speeding ticket, I had a warrant and was taken in for about an hour for that and released then afterwards. While in the city jail with them doing all my paperwork, all the cop said in regards to the potential DUI/DWI was that it was my "lucky night". They did not even do the follow breathe test in the station with the more elaborate machine, as I saw 3 others do while I was there, even though I was obviously over the limit. Could it have something to do with all the questions I asked during it? There was also, by the time I ended up doing the test, an audience of at least 5-7 cop cars and around a dozen police officers. Of which probably half were in viewing distance of it and the rest standing on the sidelines just kind of watching from afar. Maybe a superior officer didn't like how things were done? Or didn't like their potential in court for some legal battle?

I don't say this to be c o c k y either, but it also makes me wonder, because I had just gotten a very nice car from my parents for my high school graduation 3 years earlier, and was pulled over as I was headed back to the dorms of a very good university, so I imagine, if it crossed their mind at all, that they probably assumed I'd have very good legal representation.

I got released later that night, had to ask my dad to pick me up because I didn't know where I was and did not have a phone on me and only one call from the jail they would give me. My dad told me when he'd got there that if I'd been drinking/driving he'd have let me sit there for a few days, so while he was angry he was probably relived for what he ended up picking me up for at 4AM on what was by then a Sunday morning. I obviously lied and always felt extremely bad about it. My parents have done so much for me, and the times I've lied to them always weighs on my conscience when I think about them. Never drank and drove again, it taught me a good lesson and I don't mean to sound c o c k y about any of this. I'm extremely thankful for what happened, but I have always been curious about what happened.

Anyway I am sure that you guys don't know and obviously I don't really need any legal advice about this, but I have always been *extremely* curious about what the deal was that night. I'm sure you guys can't know for sure, but any thoughts? No matter what, the cop was obviously correct in saying it was my lucky night. It was probably lucky I'd been dumb enough not to pay that speeding ticket as well.

 

[FlyingRon]

Everybody thinks they passed the field sobriety tests. There's more to it than just being able to do the straight line or follow the officer's finger. He's looking at your body's responses.

Portable breath tests are not admissible for DUI but they can give them probable cause. It may however be legal to use for underage consumption.

You were indeed lucky. There seemed to have been plenty of evidence to charge you with DUI (or at least underage consumption).

Absent knowing what was in the head of the arresting officer, we can't say why charges weren't pursued. Perhaps he had another bigger case or a personal emergency. Perhaps they ran out of supplies for the intoxillizer. We won't know. I would count on my demeanor and magnetic personality getting you out of future incidents. Don't drink and drive.

 

[LdiJ]

Everybody thinks they passed the field sobriety tests. There's more to it than just being able to do the straight line or follow the officer's finger. He's looking at your body's responses.

Portable breath tests are not admissible for DUI but they can give them probable cause. It may however be legal to use for underage consumption.

You were indeed lucky. There seemed to have been plenty of evidence to charge you with DUI (or at least underage consumption).

Absent knowing what was in the head of the arresting officer, we can't say why charges weren't pursued. Perhaps he had another bigger case or a personal emergency. Perhaps they ran out of supplies for the intoxillizer. We won't know. I would count on my demeanor and magnetic personality getting you out of future incidents. Don't drink and drive.

I suspect that there was something iffy about the traffic stop, and since the officer could arrest him on the warrant the officer was satisfied with that.

 

[Zigner]

I suspect that the OP did well enough on the field sobriety tests and was under the per se limit (or right at it) on the breath test. As such, the officer didn't feel he had a strong enough case for the DUI.

 

[HighwayMan]

You said it - NOBODY KNOWS.

 

[FlyingRon]

In 2005 or so, Illinois already had the per se limit for those under 21 down at ZERO. He was extremely lucky. Why, we will never know.

 

[Zigner]

In 2005 or so, Illinois already had the per se limit for those under 21 down at ZERO. He was extremely lucky. Why, we will never know.

Good point.

 

[SamuelRS]

Everybody thinks they passed the field sobriety tests. There's more to it than just being able to do the straight line or follow the officer's finger. He's looking at your body's responses.

Portable breath tests are not admissible for DUI but they can give them probable cause. It may however be legal to use for underage consumption.

You were indeed lucky. There seemed to have been plenty of evidence to charge you with DUI (or at least underage consumption).

Absent knowing what was in the head of the arresting officer, we can't say why charges weren't pursued. Perhaps he had another bigger case or a personal emergency. Perhaps they ran out of supplies for the intoxillizer. We won't know. I would count on my demeanor and magnetic personality getting you out of future incidents. Don't drink and drive.

I certainly realize it was a horrible mistake, I wasn't trying to sound ****y or anything here, sorry if I did. It was about a decade ago, I've certainly matured and in fact from that day, never drank/drove again (where I had any possibility of being legally intoxicated).

I do not think it was some emergency or something. There was literally a crowd of officers there. I was pulled over by one car, but during the time I was performing the tests there was like 6 cop cars and around 10 cops there, possibly more but at least that many. And also the cop ended up taking me in anyway as I had a warrant for an unpaid speeding ticket.

I do agree they had plenty of probable cause, I mean I gave it to them really. Just the simple mathematics of what I told him (truthfully) about how much I had drank in what period of time would have been enough evidence I would think unless I weighed like 400+ lbs.

I actually saw someone in the station taking the "intoxillizer" (I assume by that you mean like the big breath test machine at the police station?) test while I was being "booked".

Even before I left the scene they told me I wasn't being taken in for DUI. There were tons of people watching, the only thing I could think is that me asking so many questions about the tests and breath test and if they were admissable to court at all, he said they weren't (and I asked) like at least five different times, this is really the only thing I can think of as to why I wasn't charged for literally anything (even the seatbelt I was pulled over for) but did the warrant work for the speeding ticket that I didn't pay.

I do think I passed the tests. I know I did for the alphabet one, and I think I did for the walking/memory test, the only one I cannot know about is the eye test where I think they look for like twiching. But that is really irrelevant because as you say, and as I readily admit, they had waaaaaaaay more then enough probable cause for a conviction, let alone an arrest.

 

[SamuelRS]

I suspect that the OP did well enough on the field sobriety tests and was under the per se limit (or right at it) on the breath test. As such, the officer didn't feel he had a strong enough case for the DUI.

I was drunk enough, I wasn't sloppy or anything but I know I had enough. I also know I was told I was over the limit, although I was never told my number I blew. I mean they also told me it was my "lucky night" in regards to not getting a DUI/DWI or whatever it would have been.

 

[SamuelRS]

You said it - NOBODY KNOWS.

Well, somebody knows, but I guess only those 10 or so officers do. I really wanted to ask why but as I'm sure you can imagine, I didn't want to press the issue in the slightest.

 

[SamuelRS]

In 2005 or so, Illinois already had the per se limit for those under 21 down at ZERO. He was extremely lucky. Why, we will never know.

Ah yeah, that is true. Is that not the case anymore I guess?

Not that I'm demanding anyone answer, but I never had a response to what was really my key question here;

Does anyone think my questioning about the admissibility of the field testing and breathalyzer (I asked like at least 5 times very politely and very explicitly, and there was a huge group of police all listening/watching at that point) had *anything* to do with it? Obviously I was no genius and I'm not saying I had some smooth skills in being one of those constitution-nuts who tries to preach law to an officer when pulled over..... I just very politely asking about it and they very politely explained it.... numerous times, and the only reason I asked at all is because they said that to me (that it wasn't admissible in court, so I looked for clarification on that) when asking about the field testing and then the breath testing.

I just cannot deduce anything else from the situation. Wasn't a cop just being nice, there were way too many there to do something like that, and I imagine probably a superior officer. Wasn't a situation where something more important came up for them, I had like I imagine at least 1/3 of the on-the-job force there watching and was taken to jail anyway for the traffic ticket warrent. I think they did all the testing by the book. They didn't just drag me out of the car or anything either, and I gave them more then enough probable cause to initiate field testing. So that's why I keep coming back to this.

 

[Silverplum]

Ah yeah, that is true. Is that not the case anymore I guess?

Not that I'm demanding anyone answer, but I never had a response to what was really my key question here;

Does anyone think my questioning about the admissibility of the field testing and breathalyzer (I asked like at least 5 times very politely and very explicitly, and there was a huge group of police all listening/watching at that point) had *anything* to do with it? Obviously I was no genius and I'm not saying I had some smooth skills in being one of those constitution-nuts who tries to preach law to an officer when pulled over..... I just very politely asking about it and they very politely explained it.... numerous times, and the only reason I asked at all is because they said that to me (that it wasn't admissible in court, so I looked for clarification on that) when asking about the field testing and then the breath testing.

I just cannot deduce anything else from the situation. Wasn't a cop just being nice, there were way too many there to do something like that, and I imagine probably a superior officer. Wasn't a situation where something more important came up for them, I had like I imagine at least 1/3 of the on-the-job force there watching and was taken to jail anyway for the traffic ticket warrent. I think they did all the testing by the book. They didn't just drag me out of the car or anything either, and I gave them more then enough probable cause to initiate field testing. So that's why I keep coming back to this.

Have fun speculating. Volunteers here already gave you answers.

 

[HighwayMan]

I know I did for the alphabet one...

That is not one of the standardized tests.

...and I think I did for the walking/memory test...

Walking and memory? That is also not a standardized test.

the only one I cannot know about is the eye test where I think they look for like twiching.

No, there is no "twiching" involved.


Time to give up and forget about it.