Field Sobriety Tests and Chemical Tests Consent

[cdwjava]

Just goes to show that the details, penalties, and options vary a great deal by state. And, of course, commercial licensees can be a different animal and can even suffer harsh penalties when not driving a commercial vehicle.

[aaron]

If you want this thread to remain open, stop arguing with other users. Thanks.

[cdwjava]

And, of course, the best way to avoid any problems with a DUI is to never drink and drive! (And never use prescription meds or illicit drugs before you drive, either).

Avoiding potential impairment is far easier than figuring out how to best address the best action to take when the cops stop you.

[vassock]

I don't use any type of substances and have never been asked to do a field test ever. So I would think that a cop is reasonably certain that you are somewhat impaired if he is asking you to do the tests. To the legal definition of DUI/DWI ~ that's what he is trying to determine.

Yes, that's exactly it. I want to know what is legal and what is not. From what I gather, in NY/NJ:

1. Refuse the Field Sobriety Test. There is no legal punishment for refusing the FST.

2. Refuse the Portable Breath Test and ask for the test at the station instead. There is no legal punishment for refusing the PBT.

3. Accept the chemical test at the station, whether it's the station breathalyzer, the blood test or the urine test. There is a legal punishment for refusing and it can be worse than accepting the chemical test even if found to be intoxicated as a result.



This gives the policeman fewer chances to fabricate evidence against the suspect.

I found information confirming this on some attorney websites but wanted an independent forum to confirm.

FST: http://www.nj-dmv-dwi.com/parts/fst.html

All 3:

Be stubborn. When an officer requests that you take a field sobriety test, politely decline. He will likely threaten to arrest you if you refuse, but the test is mandatory and officers have usually decided to arrest you for drunk driving by the time they even ask you to take a field sobriety test.

Stay stubborn. If an officer asks you to take a portable breathalyzer test, decline. This is another optional test disguised to look like a requirement. These devices are inaccurate and you are not required to use them.

Accept your duties. When you are brought to the station and asked to take a real chemical sobriety test, do so. These results can be later disputed by your New Jersey DUI lawyer, but refusing to take them will be counted against you much worse than a breathalyzer failure. Most people who refuse to take the test receive ten months of license suspension, while people who fail the test generally receive only three months of license suspension.

http://www.newjersey-dui-attorney.co...ver-for-a-dwi/

And, of course, the best way to avoid any problems with a DUI is to never drink and drive! (And never use prescription meds or illicit drugs before you drive, either).

Avoiding potential impairment is far easier than figuring out how to best address the best action to take when the cops stop you.

Of course, but it still makes no sense to agree to an FST if it's just evidence collection against you and not illegal to refuse. How can it possibly help? What sort of policeman would, at a trial trying to convict his suspect, say on the stand "no your honor, the suspect demonstrated during the field sobriety test that he was completely sober"? Cops are experts at collecting or creating evidence for the purposes of convicting suspects. It's their job. You'd have to be a genius to outwit the average cop while playing his game (FSTs and incriminating questions). I take it that this is why lawyers tell their clients to say and do as little as legally possible.

[cdwjava]

I don't use any type of substances and have never been asked to do a field test ever. So I would think that a cop is reasonably certain that you are somewhat impaired if he is asking you to do the tests. To the legal definition of DUI/DWI ~ that's what he is trying to determine.

Well, out here officers and agencies have been sued for letting people go that later crashed. So, if an officer has some suspicion that a person might be impaired, they are going to look into the matter. It may be as simple as asking them to step out fo the car and asking a couple of questions, or as involved as the full SFSTs. It all depends on what the officer observes.

What sort of policeman would, at a trial trying to convict his suspect, say on the stand "no your honor, the suspect demonstrated during the field sobriety test that he was completely sober"?

Uh ... if the SFSTs indicated no impairment there would no arrest and no trial.

Cops are experts at collecting or creating evidence for the purposes of convicting suspects. It's their job.

It is NOT our job to "create" evidence. Sorry.

If you are not impaired, I don't see any reason not to cooperate. And the best way to avoid the problem at all is not to drink or do drugs./meds and drive!

[aaron]

In my own experience, officers have no need to manufacture evidence of intoxication and, if they pull somebody over and have no cause to believe he's intoxicated, aren't interested in wasting their time with FST's, PBT's or arrests. If your driving conduct or demeanor after a traffic stop leaves the officer believing that you're intoxicated, you're not at all likely to change his mind by refusing to cooperate with the investigation. I would personally rather spend a few minutes doing FST's, or waiving them and simply taking a PBT, than chance spending a few hours in custody or, if I also refused the test at the station, getting a license suspension and perhaps being prosecuted despite my sobriety.

[vassock]

Uh ... if the SFSTs indicated no impairment there would no arrest and no trial.

The policeman observes and judges the FST so the results of the FST would depend on the policemen and not all policemen are alike.

It is NOT our job to "create" evidence. Sorry.

If you are not impaired, I don't see any reason not to cooperate. And the best way to avoid the problem at all is not to drink or do drugs./meds and drive!

I view taking an FST just like I view talking to the police (except as required by law): self-incriminatory and unnecessary. Just like the professor in the "don't talk to police" video said, and just like the policeman in the same video said, it can't help to talk to police when you're a suspect. Many of the questions asked during a police stop are designed to get the suspect to incriminate himself. The FST is no different. Unless the policeman stopping you is infallible and omniscient, a mistake made by the suspect during an FST could easily be used against the suspect from what I understand.

In my own experience, officers have no need to manufacture evidence of intoxication and, if they pull somebody over and have no cause to believe he's intoxicated, aren't interested in wasting their time with FST's, PBT's or arrests. If your driving conduct or demeanor after a traffic stop leaves the officer believing that you're intoxicated, you're not at all likely to change his mind by refusing to cooperate with the investigation. I would personally rather spend a few minutes doing FST's, or waiving them and simply taking a PBT, than chance spending a few hours in custody or, if I also refused the test at the station, getting a license suspension and perhaps being prosecuted despite my sobriety.

The goal of refusing the FST is not to change the policeman's mind, but to avoid spending months fighting legal charges and paying legal fees. The traffic stop is not the place to defend yourself. The courtroom is. I'd rather lose a few hours of my time at the traffic stop than lose months of my life paying off legal fees. Innocent people have been convicted after all.

My concern is whether or not I would have to pay for the towing fee if arrested and found not guilty (or dismissed).

Well, out here officers and agencies have been sued for letting people go that later crashed.

Have they ever been convicted?

[cdwjava]

The policeman observes and judges the FST so the results of the FST would depend on the policemen and not all policemen are alike.

The tests are designed to be objective. Either a clue is present, or it is not. He does not - or is not trained to - make a subjective determination as to whether or not the person did "well enough," or "okay" or "not good enough." The presents of two or more clues in a test is sufficient to indicate impairment. When taken as a battery, the tests can be quite accurate. When used independently, the tests can be only 75% accurate (depending on the test).

The FST is no different. Unless the policeman stopping you is infallible and omniscient, a mistake made by the suspect during an FST could easily be used against the suspect from what I understand.

Well, if the officer has any reason to detain you, and then any reason to articulate probable cause to make the arrest for DUI, you may spend the night in jail and have to pay a few hundred dollars for the release of your car when simply taking the FSTs or just talking to the officer might have kept you out of trouble all together. But, if you prefer to handle it that way, that is certainly your right. As for me, I'd rather take a few minutes to show I am fine and dandy than have to be out money and even more time before that becomes evident. ... of course, I do not drink or take medications or drugs so a DUI for me is not gonna happen.

My concern is whether or not I would have to pay for the towing fee if arrested and found not guilty (or dismissed).

Your state might be different, but out here, yes. You would pay the impound and storage fees.

Have they ever been convicted?

If you mean whether or not the agency or officer was found liable, the answer is that none of the ones I know of resulted in a jury verdict. The cases I know the resolutions of were all settled out of court, I believe ... as most civil cases are. But, the fact that the agency and the officer were able to be held accountable is sufficient reason to act on a suspected DUI if for no other reason than CYA.

In my county the DA's office used to never prosecute DUIs under .08. This resulted in a lcoal culture where officers would not arrest anyone under .08 unless it was clear they were under the influence of drugs ... and that was tough because when I got here none of the officers were trained in DUI-drug detection. I had to intervene and tell the officers that if a person is impaired we WILL make the arrest, what the DA does is his issue - not ours.

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you're so paranoid that you believe that a few moments of cooperation that will prevent your being misidentified as intoxicated puts you at greater risk than refusing to cooperate, getting a driver's license suspension, potentially being prosecuted despite your sobriety, spending thousands on a lawyer and going to trial where a jury may convict you on the basis of your conduct and the officer's description of your driving, demeanor and behavior... nobody here is going to convince you of a better approach.

[vassock]

Well, if the officer has any reason to detain you, and then any reason to articulate probable cause to make the arrest for DUI, you may spend the night in jail and have to pay a few hundred dollars for the release of your car when simply taking the FSTs or just talking to the officer might have kept you out of trouble all together. But, if you prefer to handle it that way, that is certainly your right. As for me, I'd rather take a few minutes to show I am fine and dandy than have to be out money and even more time before that becomes evident. ... of course, I do not drink or take medications or drugs so a DUI for me is not gonna happen.

Do you think that's really the case? The policeman in the video and the law professor both agreed that suspects were not able to talk their way out of being arrested. Furthermore, some attorneys recommend refusing the FST.

Your state might be different, but out here, yes. You would pay the impound and storage fees.

So a person can literally be fined legally despite not breaking any laws?