I was watching a real reality police tv show and a police officer stopped a vehicle and a women got out and the police officer told her to walk in a straight line to see if she's not under the influence of alcohol. She couldn't walk in a straight line but to me she just lost her balance rather than being under the influence of alcohol.
Anyway, the police officer arrested her for DUI without even getting her to blow into that machine to see if she was over the limit.
Can police arrest a person in this situation without doing the Blood Alcohol Concentration test?
Arrested for DUI Without Test
Printable View
-
05-08-2010, 10:52 PMtim987Arrested for DUI Without Test
-
05-08-2010, 11:04 PMjkRe: Arrested for DUI Without Testabsolutely. In many states, the breath test in the field is not legally acceptable in court. It is merely a preliminary test so the officer doesn't have to use other methods to determine if there is probable cause to arrest. They have certified breathalyzers at the station to document the BAC. Also, in some states, the BAC makes no difference. If the operator is obviously impaired, that in itself is adequate to make the charges.Quote:
Quoting tim987
-
05-08-2010, 11:33 PMcdwjavaRe: Arrested for DUI Without TestWhat you do NOT see in one of these shows can fill volumes.Quote:
Quoting tim987
Understand that the 7 minute snippet you see on Cops originally consisted of probably 20-40+ minutes of footage boiled down to the 7 least boring minutes. There is a lot that you do NOT see on an episode, and there are a lot of the officer's observations that are not articulated (said out loud) to the camera. -
05-09-2010, 06:30 AMcyjeffRe: Arrested for DUI Without TestSo when we gonna see you go after "Bad Boys, Bad Boys"?Quote:
Quoting cdwjava
-
05-09-2010, 11:15 AMcdwjavaRe: Arrested for DUI Without TestWhen they decide to follow cops in smaller, rural communities.Quote:
Quoting cyjeff
Besides, I WAS on it a couple of times back in 1993. A pair of crews rode with my shift in Sacramento County back in late 1992 or early 1993 and the episodes were aired later that year. They did not ride in MY car, but I was there on some calls they were filming. -
05-12-2010, 05:39 PMtim987Re: Arrested for DUI Without TestBut just because someone can't walk in a straight line it doesn't mean they were impaired. It could mean they were nervous, wearing high heels and lost their balance.Quote:
Quoting jk
Couldn't losing your balance because you were nervous be a defence in court? How can the prosecution prove a person was impaired rather than just losing their balance with NO alcohol BAC reading or no blood test?
Do you have at least 1 link to a DUI law of a state that arrests people just for not being able to walk in a straight line? -
05-12-2010, 05:55 PMcdwjavaRe: Arrested for DUI Without TestAll of which should be noted on the DUI supplemental report or in the narrative of a decent DUI evaluation. Not to mention that the heel-to-toe test is but ONE of the battery of tests and is not designed to be utilized as the sole deciding factor in the FST.Quote:
Quoting tim987
The trier of fact will be permitted to come to their own conclusion. Certainly the defendant can claim he or she was nervous and stumbled, but the prosecution might ask if an unimpaired person in the same situation (flat, level roadway or sidewalk) would have so stumbled? Chances are, no. Similarly, when you combine it with the other observations the officer might have, then it can be quite damning.Quote:
Couldn't losing your balance because you were nervous be a defence in court? How can the prosecution prove a person was impaired rather than just losing their balance with NO alcohol BAC reading or no blood test?
Now, if there are NO other observations, and no odor of alcohol, then it would not - by itself - give rise to impairment.
Also note that stumbling is ONE of the clues in the heel-to-toe test and it takes TWO clues to indicate impairment on the test.
Impairment is based on a total evaluation of all the circumstances. If a BAC of .08 or higher exists, then that's all that really needs to be shown to prove impairment. If no BAC or under .08 then impairment must be demonstrated by observation. And, as a further note, the observations begin PRIOR to the stop and include the contact and all actions leading up to the FSTs and then the arrest or release. -
05-12-2010, 06:00 PMjkRe: Arrested for DUI Without Test
there is a lot more to the tests than being able to walk in a straight line. If you get a chance to watch Cops of some other show where they show a FST, listen to what the officer tells the person. The will often say something like: start with your left foot, take 9 steps, pivot on your right foot and take 9 steps back towards me.
Not only are they checking for balance, they are checking to see if the person has enough brain cells working to be able to remember simple directions and be able to follow them.
when they have the person follow their finger or a pencil, they are looking for certain types of eye movement, not just the ability to follow the pencil.
there are a lot of underlying actions the police watch for during a fst. Much more than the average person is aware of and some of them a quite accurate in indicating some level of intoxication rather than nervousness or some other reason for failing part of the test.
so, anyway, in many states, failing an FST is not enough to prove DUI in court but it is enough for probable cause to arrest the person and transport them to a facility with the ability to accurately obtain a BAC. In some states, the FST's along with the officers observation is adequate to convict for impaired driving which is generally a step lower than DUI. -
05-13-2010, 08:53 PMtim987Re: Arrested for DUI Without TestBut what does walking in a straight line have to do with impaired driving? Cars have seats that you sit in, you don't need to walk in a straight line to drive a car.Quote:
Quoting jk
It's like telling a driver to juggle balls like a clown and if they drop any balls that means they can't drive a car, it's stupid.
Hey found this on wikipedia:
If the officer has sufficient probable cause that the suspect has been driving under the influence of alcohol, they will make the arrest, handcuff the suspect and transport them to the police station. En route, the officer may advise them of their Miranda rights and their legal implied consent obligation to submit to an evidentiary chemical test of blood, breath or possibly urine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_d..._United_States
So are you sure some states can charge a person for DUI or DWI WITHOUT a blood,urine,or breath test? -
05-13-2010, 09:29 PMjkRe: Arrested for DUI Without Testyes I am.Quote:
Quoting tim987
In fact, in at least 1 state, the failure to take a BAC test is admissable as proof of DUI if the other evidence supports the charge.
if you also notice, the section includes impairment from other drugs than alchohol as well. As such, a BAC can come back 0 and the DUI is still applicable.
Montana statutes
Quote:
61-8-401. Driving under influence of alcohol or drugs -- definitions. (1) It is unlawful and punishable, as provided in 61-8-442, 61-8-714, and 61-8-731 through 61-8-734, for a person who is under the influence of:
(a) alcohol to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public;
(b) a dangerous drug to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state;
(c) any other drug to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state; or
(d) alcohol and any dangerous or other drug to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state.
(2) The fact that any person charged with a violation of subsection (1) is or has been entitled to use alcohol or a drug under the laws of this state does not constitute a defense against any charge of violating subsection (1).
(3) (a) "Under the influence" means that as a result of taking into the body alcohol, drugs, or any combination of alcohol and drugs, a person's ability to safely operate a vehicle has been diminished.
many states have also written 2 level statutes where the BAC would allow a DUI charge but the display of being impaired will qualify for an operating while impaired. No tests other than the officers determination required to charge and convict on such.Quote:
(2) If the person under arrest refused to submit to one or more tests as provided in this section, proof of refusal is admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public, while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. The trier of fact may infer from the refusal that the person was under the influence. The inference is rebuttable.
I am confident there are other states that allow a charge of DWI without a BAC but I'm not running through 50 states laws to find them.
because, unless you have a medical infirmity, you should be able to walk a straight line unless you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.Quote:
But what does walking in a straight line have to do with impaired driving?