12 ms·
One should have right to demand a blood test.To many people can't pass field with out having a drink or smoke.To many have disabilities,old,whatever.
by dubious2 4mo ago
One should have right to demand a blood test.To many people can't pass field with out having a drink or smoke.To many have disabilities,old,whatever.
- AngryData 4mo agoThat's because field sobriety tests aren't designed to find out if people are actually impaired, they are designed to give cops a reason to arrest people purely on their own discretion even when they otherwise lack any evidence of wrongdoing. And in doing so it boosts both the local cops and court's funding through mandatory court fines and fees and programs when they hammer down on people too poor to afford a lawyer.
- 1234letshaveatw 4mo agosource?
- close04 4mo agoTheir obvious ineffectiveness for the stated purpose, combined with the effectiveness for the unstated, hidden purpose.
- infecto 4mo agoI don’t think this it’s worth being reported for asking for a source on this kind of claim. I would argue of a middle ground though. I think field tests origins came from a good intent of trying to distinguish intoxicated drivers but has morphed over the years and used to give reason to search your belongings. I think the original post is wrong, the intent is not to arrest people but they are commonly used as a means to get cause to search your vehicle. And I don’t have a source, so it’s anecdotal but one of those things where you read enough of these cases and even see how cops are trained that the intent for most stops unrelated to genuine traffic violations is to get cause to search the vehicle. I think back to some of those corridors within the United States where law enforcement abuse cash forfeiture laws to take peoples money.
- rationalist 4mo agoI recall that a lawyer who talked about how they were developed and explained how they work, came to that conclusion. The tests are completely subjective, and the way they are graded means that unless you are an Olympic-level athlete, you will fail it. Can you balance on one foot without swaying or puting the other foot down (even when you first start and find your balance), with your eyes closed, for one minute? Might I suggest that you research it and post what you find.
- array_key_first 4mo agoI don't know, like, common sense and your eyes? Think of a field sobriety test. Now think of if that actually tests for sobriety. There, there's your source.
- dimitrios1 4mo agoSo whats the solution? 37 people die every day in a crash involving an alcohol impaired driver. Do we think if we inhibit the police's ability to arrest drunk drivers, the world will be a better place? People are clearly not going to stop drinking and driving. I am neither left nor right, but I feel like I need to say this much more in spaces that heavily lean left -- I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
- tym0 4mo agoWhat other countries do? A chemical test on the field and a more accurate one when they get to the police station.
- dimitrios1 4mo agoNo other country relies on road travel to the extent of America, so I am not sure there is a good comparison to make.
- antiframe 4mo agoWe have a bigger road network. We have a larger road travel infrastructure. So, we should have enough chemical test units to cover our infrastructure.
- kube-system 4mo agoThat's a reason the US needs better enforcement tools, not worse ones.
- cestith 4mo agoIf we can pay for the roads and the patrols, we can pay to equip the patrols. Bigger needn’t equal worse.
- cwillu 4mo agoThe police aren't stopping the crime, therefore the police need to be reformed. And note that “involving” is very much not the same thing as “caused by”. Yes, “caused by” will be a big chunk of it, but there's a reason the latter term is not used.
- the_doctah 4mo agoSame with polygraph tests. It's not admissible in court. It's an interrogation tactic designed to give some perceived authority to the police's claims that a suspect is lying and give the suspect a reason to talk more. Should be illegal.
- superkuh 4mo agoHe refused a blood test as was his right, and probably the correct decision given that this "top cop" (ie, the one they say had by far the most DUI arrests) was a criminal and shown to break the evidence chain of custody.
- swiftcoder 4mo ago> He refused a blood test as was his right Per the article, he refused the old walk-along-a-straight-line-without-swaying, not a blood test (nor even a breathalyser). Blood tests are not administered in the field, they would be administered at a nearby medical facility, later in this process.
- superkuh 4mo agoCorrect, the request for the blood draw and test was done under coercion at a lab in a hospital, https://youtu.be/DWCEssxYVC0?t=434 https://youtu.be/DWCEssxYVC0?t=434 He refused the blood draw as was his right.
- redsocksfan45 4mo ago[dead]
- LgWoodenBadger 4mo agoOne should never take a field sobriety test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGHFpc6uiWA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGHFpc6uiWA
- darreninthenet 4mo agoIn the UK it's done by breathalyser and refusing is itself an offence.
- abtinf 4mo agoA field sobriety test is distinct from a chemical analysis (breathalyzer or otherwise). In California, you are required to submit to chemical testing (breath, urine, or blood — I don’t recall the rules for which applies in which situations). However, you are not required to otherwise talk to or perform the absurd procedure of the field sobriety test (“you have the right to remain silent”).
- pbhjpbhj 4mo agoI was under the mistaken impression you could refuse and then would get a blood test, seems that was wrong/out-dated (also wrong!). The backup test at the station is also usually a breath test apparently. And it seems we have field sobriety tests but it looks like they're for drug-driving. For example, https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights/breath-tests https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-righ.... I took OpenAI's references as correct without checking legislation as I'm on my phone.
- matwood 4mo agoIt's also an offense in most (all?) of the US. Even then, if someone is pulled over for DUI, at that point the officers are just collecting evidence. If someone has had anything to drink, it's in their best interest to say they want a lawyer and refuse all tests. Then there will be less evidence to argue against in court.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4mo ago
- k4rli 4mo agoI don't understand how simple DWI testing is like that in your country. 3 seconds of a certified calibrated breathalyzer is sufficient, this walking in a straight line and saying the alphabet backwards sounds like a joke.
- mothballed 4mo agoThe portable breathalyzer is inadmissable in court in my and most states. The Simon Says game is though (but it can be refused without penalty, hypothetically).
- GJim 4mo agoThe portable one is used as an indicator. A positive result will get you arrested and taken to the station, where they have the (non-portable) court admissible calibrated kit.
- crote 4mo agoWhy would a certified calibrated breathalizer test be inadmissible in court? How is it any different from catching speeders with a laser gun, or doing a DNA test? And if giving every cop a calibrated breathalizer is too expensive: give them a reasonably-accurate one for in the field, then take everyone who fails it to the station for a retest on an expensive calibrated one.
- Atotalnoob 4mo agoThat’s what they do. The field one is inadmissible, but justifies arresting and transporting to the admissible one at the station
- gnopgnip 4mo agoThis is changing. Most states have “permanent” properly calibrated breathalyzer at every dui checkpoint now. And in an increasing number of regular vehicles
- loloquwowndueo 4mo ago
- rokob 4mo agoYou can. Refusing the field test allows them to arrest you. But it isn't sufficient to charge you. They also have to offer you a breathalyzer at the station and you can refuse that but demand a blood test. But your car still gets towed even if you pass the tests at the station and don't ultimately get charged because you refused the field test.
- beart 4mo agoIn Michigan, refusing the roadside breathalyzer is $150 automatic fine. Refusing the chemical test once at the station is an automatic 1 year suspended license and 6 points, even if you are subsequently let go without charge.
- rationalist 4mo agoWhat if you don't refuse, but just barely blow into the device or otherwise have a medical condition such as asthma that prevents the machine from getting a good sample?
- beart 4mo agoNot sure what the law is exactly, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't end up working out in your favor.