[Sebastian]

I just got tested for DUI last night.

My one headlight was out for some reason. (I check lights sometimes so thought it was ok)

The cop asked me if I had drinks so I told him I had couple beers. (I had 3 coronas, 3.2% alcohol)

I did field test fine and he pulled out the breathalyzer anyways.

It was lower than legal limit so he told me 'get out of here'

So if they are going to do the breathalyzer anyways, can you just refuse field test and blow it?

Some people might not do well in field test even with under limit, is that why they do those to increase the chance of arresting you?

(Other countries, they just do the breathalyzer.
When I came to this country, I thought cops were very reasonable.
I thought they more care about whether you can actually drive or not than just the alcohol in the system. I was wrong. you have to do both anyways. If you did lots of squats earlier or used all your leg power to a girl, will they take those excuses? lol)

[Walderschmidt]

It is better not to refuse or they may immediately arrest you. Some people suggest getting tested at the station so you have extra time for the alcohol to get processed through your system.

[kenny_powers]

You got lucky. DUI is huge business $$$

You should be a happy man today.

[InternationPlayboy]

I always wondered too. I've passed field sobriety tests and still been breathalyzed as well. I came to the conclusion cops do it to laugh at/ humiliate you.

[Walderschmidt]

If they make you walk in a straight line and you have ever marched in formation, march in a line instead of walk it. That's what ROTC cadets at my university do. They can march in a straight line even when drunk.

[guerrilla]

(03-24-2013 03:54 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  

The cop asked me if I had drinks so I told him I had couple beers. (I had 3 coronas, 3.2% alcohol)

whatd you do that for? you might as well told him you were high on molly too.

[Vitriol]

(03-24-2013 03:54 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  

When I came to this country, I thought cops were very reasonable.

Big mistake. There's volumes of information about the corruption that goes on in American police forces.

The field sobriety exercises are basically a way for the state to collect evidence. They give the police officer observations that help add to their case that you appeared drunk and should not be operating a vehicle. You're very lucky if they eventually let you go. Most of the time when a cop asks you to get out of the car and they begin a DUI investigation you're fucked and anything you do from that point on is only for the purposes of giving them more evidence.

The exercises themselves are basically bullshit though. The only one that has any scietific backing behind it is the HGN (the one where you stare at a pen they move across your line of sight). Most people can't even do them sober. I've seen cocky prosecutors almost fall on their asses in court trying to demonstrate them.

[Sebastian]

I know. but he would've known I lied and might try to charge something like equipment violation etc.....

I only drink 2 beers when I go out. last night, some schmuck forced me to accept free beer so...

(03-24-2013 04:14 PM)guerrilla Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 03:54 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  

The cop asked me if I had drinks so I told him I had couple beers. (I had 3 coronas, 3.2% alcohol)

whatd you do that for? you might as well told him you were high on molly too.

[NYJ]

(03-24-2013 04:14 PM)guerrilla Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 03:54 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  

The cop asked me if I had drinks so I told him I had couple beers. (I had 3 coronas, 3.2% alcohol)

whatd you do that for? you might as well told him you were high on molly too.

Yes, not a smart thing to do. Anything you tell an officer can and will be used against you. Withhold as much info as you can and never admit guilt to anything. Field sobriety tests are joke. Most people can barely do them while being sober. Especially if you're coming from a night without having anything to drink and it's in the wee hours in the morning.

(Notice: I'm not anti law enforcement btw, but people should know their rights when they get pulled over)

[Merenguero]

A thread on DUI's was recently started by Elabayarde. I posted quite a bit of information in that thread and you should probably take a look at it.

Field sobriety tests generally consist of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn test, and the one leg stand test. Some officers have the driver say the alphabet as an additional test. That is rare in the jurisdiction in which I practice. The nystagmus (HGN) test is only effective to show that the driver has consumed alcohol. It is not effective to show the level of alcohol comsumption. This test is administered by the officer positioning a stimulus (often a pen or the officer's finger) a few inches from the driver's eyes. The stimulus is then moved from side to side. The purpose of this test is to see if a nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes) is present. I recently asked an officer on cross examination if he knew what the word "nystagmus" meant and I was somewhat surprised that he knew the definition. There are a total of six clues which signify that the person who performed the HGN has consumed alcohol. These clues are lack of smooth pursuit, direct nystagmus prior at maximum deviation, and nystagmus onset prior to 45 degrees. Each eye is analyzed separately and there are therefore a total of six clues.

The walk and turn test tests coordination and is pretty self-explanatory. The driver must take a series of steps, do a turn, then take another series of steps. This test should be conducted on a flat, dry surface which is free of debris. Clues of impairment on this test are starting too soon, not being able to keep balance, stopping while taking the steps, missing heel to toe, stepping off-line raising your arms, taking the improper number of steps, or doing an improper turn. There is a total of eight possible clues of impairment for this test.

The one leg stand test requires you to lift on of your legs and count out loud. There are a total of four clues which are swaying while balancing, using your arms for balance, hopping, or putting your foot down. Often, the police do not take note of how long a person is performing the test before one or more of these clues are present, which can work in the driver's favor in court.

These tests often do not apply to people who are elderly and/or grossly overweight. One of the general problems with the tests is that many people have poor coordination to begin with and may very well fail these tests sober.

The "breathalyzer" which the OP states that he took was most likely a preliminary breath test, which is not admissible in court in the jurisdiction in which I practice. Those tests are inherently unreliable as opposed to the intoximeter test which is generally administered at the police station following an arrest for an alcohol related traffic offense.

Some of the purposes of the field sobriety tests are to make sure that the person is not impaired by alcohol or intoxicated so as to not endager other motorists, to establish probable cause in the event of an arrest, and to possibly be able to prosecute a case in the event that the motorist refuses the intoximeter test after being arrested.

[placer]

(03-24-2013 04:14 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

>>When I came to this country, I thought cops were very reasonable<<

Big mistake. There's volumes of information about the corruption that goes on in American police forces.

I completely agree. While the corruption is different is the US (it's very rare that you can bribe a cop to get out of trouble), the fact of the matter is that the US has the highest percent of people in jail or prison.

If our society's goal was to reduce the number of people who drove after drinking, why don't we have programs in place to have buses or shuttles that can take people from bars home?

[InternationPlayboy]

(03-24-2013 04:23 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  

I know. but he would've known I lied and might try to charge something like equipment violation etc.....

I only drink 2 beers when I go out. last night, some schmuck forced me to accept free beer so...

(03-24-2013 04:14 PM)guerrilla Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 03:54 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  

The cop asked me if I had drinks so I told him I had couple beers. (I had 3 coronas, 3.2% alcohol)

whatd you do that for? you might as well told him you were high on molly too.

I think it's circumstantial. In Vegas I would never tell a cop that. Where I lived in CO it has gotten me out of a DUI. I got pulled over one night and I had been drinking a lot all day. I stopped drinking a little before I was driving, but I should have blown high. I told the cop I had a couple beers. In CO, the legal limit laws had just changed from .08 to .05. I did a good job on the field sobriety test and I was cool with the cop. When he breathylized me, I blew a .075. I have no idea how I blew so low, but since I was honest with the cop, he let me go with a warning. I should have technically been arrested. I'm pretty sure had I lied and been a dick he would have arrested me. The cops out here are cool. If you are cool with them they are cool with you.

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

I just got tested for DUI last night.

My one headlight was out for some reason. (I check lights sometimes so thought it was ok)

The cop asked me if I had drinks so I told him I had couple beers. (I had 3 coronas, 3.2% alcohol)

Why did you tell him if he didn't pull you over for erratic driving? If it's nighttime and you're pulled over for anything, that's a standard question to ask in most places.

The headlight is a "fix it" ticket and at least he didn't make you do this:

[InternationPlayboy]

[painter]

I can't stress this enough but if a cop asks you if you've been drinking don't EVER say "a couple beers." Might as well say "I'm hammered!" Every drunk driver says "a couple beers," it's the absolute worst thing to say!

Have your wits about you. Look at the time, subtract five hours and tell the cop you've had three beers plus dinner over that block of time. Be smart, feed them the right story, be confident and respectful and if you're not falling down drunk and don't look like a criminal they will let you go without all the dumb shit.

[Sebastian]

Ok just give me short answer.

Let's say you had 2~3 beers. you are totally fine for walking. your face might be little bit red. it's not totally obvious that you are drunk.
You get pulled over for something. You might blow under legal limit but you are not sure.

When a cop asks if you had a drink, What should you say? No?

(03-24-2013 06:14 PM)painter Wrote:  

I can't stress this enough but if a cop asks you if you've been drinking don't EVER say "a couple beers." Might as well say "I'm hammered!" Every drunk driver says "a couple beers," it's the absolute worst thing to say!

Have your wits about you. Look at the time, subtract five hours and tell the cop you've had three beers plus dinner over that block of time. Be smart, feed them the right story, be confident and respectful and if you're not falling down drunk and don't look like a criminal they will let you go without all the dumb shit.

[Sebastian]

(04-12-2013 11:09 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  

Ok just give me short answer.

When a cop asks if you had a drink, What should you say? No?

(03-24-2013 06:14 PM)painter Wrote:  

I can't stress this enough but if a cop asks you if you've been drinking don't EVER say "a couple beers." Might as well say "I'm hammered!" Every drunk driver says "a couple beers," it's the absolute worst thing to say!

Have your wits about you. Look at the time, subtract five hours and tell the cop you've had three beers plus dinner over that block of time. Be smart, feed them the right story, be confident and respectful and if you're not falling down drunk and don't look like a criminal they will let you go without all the dumb shit.

[porscheguy]

(03-24-2013 04:29 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

Field sobriety tests generally consist of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn test, and the one leg stand test. Some officers have the driver say the alphabet as an additional test. That is rare in the jurisdiction in which I practice. The nystagmus (HGN) test is only effective to show that the driver has consumed alcohol. It is not effective to show the level of alcohol comsumption. This test is administered by the officer positioning a stimulus (often a pen or the officer's finger) a few inches from the driver's eyes. The stimulus is then moved from side to side. The purpose of this test is to see if a nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes) is present. I recently asked an officer on cross examination if he knew what the word "nystagmus" meant and I was somewhat surprised that he knew the definition. There are a total of six clues which signify that the person who performed the HGN has consumed alcohol. These clues are lack of smooth pursuit, direct nystagmus prior at maximum deviation, and nystagmus onset prior to 45 degrees. Each eye is analyzed separately and there are therefore a total of six clues.

The question I have is do the cops know how to properly administer the test? The one time I had to do the field sobriety shit, when they did that test the dickhead kept moving the pen well beyond my field of view.

(03-24-2013 04:29 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

These tests often do not apply to people who are elderly and/or grossly overweight. One of the general problems with the tests is that many people have poor coordination to begin with and may very well fail these tests sober.

They also don't factor in other things like stress. Most people are going to be stressed when the cop tells them to get out of the car, because at that point, the cop is looking for a reason to arrest you.

[Galnuc69]

(03-24-2013 04:04 PM)kenny_powers Wrote:  

You got lucky. DUI is huge business $$$

You should be a happy man today.

I should know, I got into a small fender bender after a night of partying. I to this day claim the guy stopped prematurely on a yellow light, and could have easily made it through. The guy, who couldn't have been much older than me, an Asian in a shitty rice burner pick-up truck, saw my two drunk friends and assumed I was drunk and called the cops. The funny thing is, my car had more damage than his, but they were both drivable, we could have settled it by exchanging information there at the scene. At this point, my friends had to run, because both were here on student visa, under age, and definitely over the legal limit.

I still feel to this day I was railroaded because the officer who responded was Asian as well, and clearly favored the guy I bumped into. The asshole I got into the accident with also claimed I was threatening him so when the police came they were responding to a collision and a "threat" or some such bullshit. I just told the guy that he didn't have to be a fag about the situation. He claimed I didn't sufficiently pass the field sobriety test and gave me a breathalyzer, which I accepted, being an idiot thinking I would beat it. I had a .085. I got arrested and booked. If I refused to consent I could have gotten a blood test a hour or so later and probably past.

I am just lucky that I can afford a good DUI attorney, most can't, and I am still fighting it. There is a good chance it might get reduced to obstruction of road way but I had to pay around 10 grand at the end of the day to maybe knock this down to a lesser charge. I also don't have a particularly common name so my mugshot was right at the top of google, that was a bitch to get off as well.

If you are ever in trouble with the cops, never consent to anything, and never talk, they are only trying to convict you on the heaviest charge they can get.

[Merenguero]

(04-13-2013 02:18 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 04:29 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

Field sobriety tests generally consist of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk and turn test, and the one leg stand test. Some officers have the driver say the alphabet as an additional test. That is rare in the jurisdiction in which I practice. The nystagmus (HGN) test is only effective to show that the driver has consumed alcohol. It is not effective to show the level of alcohol comsumption. This test is administered by the officer positioning a stimulus (often a pen or the officer's finger) a few inches from the driver's eyes. The stimulus is then moved from side to side. The purpose of this test is to see if a nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eyes) is present. I recently asked an officer on cross examination if he knew what the word "nystagmus" meant and I was somewhat surprised that he knew the definition. There are a total of six clues which signify that the person who performed the HGN has consumed alcohol. These clues are lack of smooth pursuit, direct nystagmus prior at maximum deviation, and nystagmus onset prior to 45 degrees. Each eye is analyzed separately and there are therefore a total of six clues.

The question I have is do the cops know how to properly administer the test? The one time I had to do the field sobriety shit, when they did that test the dickhead kept moving the pen well beyond my field of view.

The police are supposed to receive periodic training and are supposed to have current certification to administer the tests. One fairly important point which I have not yet mentioned in the forum is that the officer who administers the tests is supposed to bring his certification to court so that the Defendant/defense attorney can make sure that he was properly certified to administer the tests and that his certification was current. You may ask, does his certification have to be current at the time he is testifying or merely at the time that the tests were administered? My answer to that question, at least with regard to the nystagmus, is yes. Here's why: courts in some jurisdiction have decided that the nystagmus is a scientific test and therefore requires expert testimony. If the officer does not have current certification to even adminster the tests, he should be disqualified as an expert and any testimony about the nystagmus should therefore be suppressed. I don't believe the walk and turn or one leg stand test are considered to be scientific tests and the state could therefore make the argument that no expert testimony is required for those two tests. The way some, or even many courts, view irregularities with the way these tests are administered is that if the nystagmus is not properly administered, any testimony regarding that test should be suppressed. If the walk and turn and one leg stand are not properly administered, they are not automatically suppressed, but irregularities in the administration of those tests will go to the amount of weight which the court will give the testimony regarding those tests.

I am not certified to adminster field sobriety tests, but I would much like to take the proper courses and obtain the certification. I have heard you learn a great deal from taking one of those courses. I would also like to become a court certified Spanish interpreter. A bad translation can really screw you in a trial and since I am not court certified, many judges simply ignore my objections to bad translations. Sometimes, upon me making my objections, the interpreters realize their mistakes and correct themselves.

One angle which many people do not know about if the officer does not bring his certification to court, the Defendant should make a Motion to Suppress any and all sobriety tests. I had that situation a few years ago where the officer claimed he was certified to administer the tests, but for some inexplicable reason, did not bring his certification to court. I made a Motion to Suppress the tests. The judge denied that Motion, but found my client not guilty on some technicality. It may have been akin to a make-up call by a baseball umpire.

[Suits]

(04-13-2013 07:11 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

If you are ever in trouble with the cops, never consent to anything, and never talk, they are only trying to convict you on the heaviest charge they can get.

Or don't drink and drive.