Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Friendly reminder:

The State is not your friend.

Originally Posted By Subnet:
Here's how I've internalized stories like this over the years, and applied it to my daily life moving forward:

Context:
I do not drink and drive. I don't go to bars, I don't order drinks at restaurants if I'm going to be driving home, and I don't drink at a friend or family members house if I'm going to be driving home. I don't even keep alcohol in my own house anymore these days (unless I need a bottle of wine for a recipe or something), so if I get good and tanked - it's going to be on a camping trip or something along those lines. I'll have slept it off long before I got behind the wheel.

I don't smoke weed, and I'm not on any medications - prescribed or otherwise.

If I am ever suspected of DUI at some point in the future, the officer making that determination will be, 100%, unequivocally...wrong about it. I will be stone cold sober.

Actionable:
There is no way in which performing field sobriety tests, while stone cold sober and being observed by somebody who strongly suspects I'm not sober, will make me appear any less sober than I already am. There exists a possibility, however remote, that the officer performing the tests will observe some minor detail that confirms what he already suspected anyway. Again - he will be doing this, while investigating a completely sober person. So I'm not going to do them. In effect, he suspects that I'm impaired, and he's asking me to provide him additional evidence of that. I will politely decline, thank you.

At this point, I will probably be arrested for DUI anyway. I might not be (which would be great), but I'd expect to be. I won't be happy about it, but I can't make him not do that if he really wants to. I will be driven to the station, and I will be given an opportunity to blow after I get there. I will absolutely do that, and it will absolutely show 0.00%. There is no chance of me voluntarily agreeing to a blood draw, but if a warrant for one magically presents itself (I can't imagine how or why, but whatever) I will readily comply. And it will come back just fine.

General Thoughts:
If the above ever happens to me (it never has), it will be a massive inconvenience and it may even require me to spend money I really don't have on an attorney. It will be embarrassing. It may affect my job. I will not be happy about any of this, but I also cannot do anything to 100% guarantee that the above never happens. But I can control how I react to it, and how much I even think about it (which is virtually never). My anxiety level over this stuff is therefore...non-existent. I already know what I'm going to do, and not going to do, in the unlikely event it ever happens. It's a solved problem from my perspective, and it requires no additional thought or handwringing on my part.

For the rest of you - you do you, boo.

Originally Posted By dyezak:


I don't know if you're jumping around and skipping things, but there's a difference between an ARREST and a CONVICTION.  You can be arrested, and nothing happens without a conviction.  

The whole point of this is that fact.  Shit, when I was arrested in Fredrick MD back in 2003 I was holding a TS-SCI clearance.  ANY drug/alcohol shit would have had my clearance yanked and my career ended instantly.  But guess what, even something that sensitive understands the difference between arrested, mistake was made, no wrong doing was found versus bro was convicted of public intoxication.

Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:
@gitarmac the "purpose" is obviously maximum flexibility for subjective bullshit to build probable cause, combined with bureaucratic gov't responses of "policy" over: "the one guy that sued & won" or, "the one guy the officer let go, and he rammed a school bus, incinerating 20 kids..." And then, on top of THAT,  decades & generations of "how it's done" all designed to "rattle" ner-do-well types into giving away or betraying information or more PC that would not be admissible in court if they hadn't given it up "voluntarily." Regardless of if they're an "actual" ner-do-well, someone automatically deemed as "ner-do-well" due to the prevailing biases of the time & place. Or, just a harmless 100% law-abiding citizen that's nervous & frightened "just because."

And right there, you have three rather different needs, causes, or motives all informing how the "State's interest in Law Enforcement" is carried out, that are possibly contradictory or even mutually exclusive.

"Your eyes look glassy."

"Well, gee officer, it would be awfully uncomfortable if they had a dry matte or satin finish, don't you think? Do you have a department issued state-approved glassy eye chart, or meter? Like the little window-tint thingy?"

So... what happens next? Did you sarcastically convey Obi-Wan Kenobi-style: "This isn't the drunk or hoodrat you're looking for..." And that's the end of it?

Or, did you just commit: "Misdemeanor disrespect of Law Enforcement in the 3rd degree, with weeks of Process as Punishment. And no charges or fines. So the system works."

Tough call.

And, "Economic Incentives/Disincentives are followed always." Holds very true here too. And "Economic Incentives/Disincentives" doesn't always mean "money" but, performance reviews etc. and ones paycheck ultimately means a lot does too.

And whatever a LEA or government incentivizes or disincentivizes, they and the public will get more or less of "that." Or, any and all unintended consequences of "that" too.

Then, add on top of it how the states respond legislatively to 5th Amendment self-incrimination problems. And they create the Kafka-trap Catch-22 "refusal to breathalyze/field sobriety test" under the doctrine of "implied consent." Which you created by obtaining a driver's license, and if you refuse the "last chance" blood/breath testing at the station, or special mobile van.

And, while it's not a "criminal offense," you are then automatically slapped with all the administrative or civil-forfeiture penalties, as if you actually had blown or had a blood draw of .08%+ BAC.  Assuming there's no additional "Process as Punishment" factors, intentional or not, like some horrid lab backup. Meaning you might wait even longer than actual drunks to get your "work temps" and breathalyzer interlock on your car.

Which... might make someone wonder if the whole thing is really about "public safety," or just the mechanics of State, intentionally or just organically,  "circling the wagons" to jealously defend it's authority, whenever American first principles & the Constitution might threaten it.

And there's interesting stuff like this on the "unintended consequences" front as well. Certain demographics have learned that because of "Implied Consent" it's simply better to never have a state issued Driver's License, so... they just never consented. Isn't that cool?

And, if the State originally screwed the pooch on various reckless driving laws, and oversights like how, at least in Wisconsin, multiple counts of operation on public roads w/o a license don't increase... but operation on a suspended/revoked license does increase...

And you're a participant in the new subcultures of: "Speed limits & traffic signals are uncool, and are for suckas & whites..." Going 95mph+ down Milwaukee streets in whatever un-titled no-plate jalopy you bought on FB Marketplace for $500, or a stolen 202X KIA with inexplicable 1970s anti-theft technology... is pretty easy.

And legally, and just pragmatically, you're at least partially, if not nearly untouchable. The odds Sir Isaac Newton gives you the ol' F=MxA death penalty, are wayyy higher than you'll do even 72 hours in the MKE County lockup.

Originally Posted By dyezak:


That's the thing, this is rectified in hours.  This isn't people sitting there waiting for months for a damn court date.  Results come back from blood or breath and you're either let go or pending charges because proof is in hand.

ETA - I guess worst case scenerio is a rural location, Friday night, and not getting blood results back until Monday?  Otherwise these are hours, at worst a couple days, then you move on with your life.

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:



which test couldnt you pass and why?

Originally Posted By Wineraner:


For Overtime purposes, good cases that the arresting officer will be able to go to court on, are what counts.  Having them blow zero, ringing up someone that the ADA will look at the case laugh, and dismiss/NP/however your jurisdiction calls it, is not the way forward.  And in all of that time interviewing, arresting, driving to the station, processing, report writing...DUI Investigator Friendly could have found on that shift, an actual drunk (or three) that would make it to court.

Look at your county's highest paid employees.  Often, they're DUI guys.  Because they're in court:  All. The. Time.  Testifying and related trial prep/conference time is not on their normal shift, and consequently overtime is over the moon.

>99.5% accuracy doesn't sound that bad, tbh.  Though obviously it sucks for Jane Doe who didn't do anything wrong.  

Do we want drunks off the road or not?  Candy Lightner's subsequent disavowal of MADD notwithstanding.

Originally Posted By CouchCommando22:


Are the drug dogs still wrong more than half the time?

The tests are designed for people to fail. My proof, the 600 people arresting for DUIs while sober in one state alone. This is not an isolated occurrence to TN.

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I represented a legal alien who was arrested for driving under the influence of drugs after a "drug recognition expert" claimed he "showed signs of being under the influence of drugs." He had to renew his student visa and was given a hard time over his DWI arrest. The test results came back negative eventually. He also had his car towed and he had to pay for that. I tried to talk him into suing but he refused.

Originally Posted By Glocked:
Knee jerk laws lobbied for by groups full of middle aged women causing innocent people to lose their freedom and livelihood.

I’m shocked, absolutely shocked I tell you

Originally Posted By CenterMass762:



@NCPatrolAR

I watched an episode of Cops or something like it a couple weeks ago where the cop was making this girl do a bunch of bullshit with her hands to see if she was BUI. Like, clap 4 times, then move your hands around each other (think the old "pattycake" think for babies) with your right hand starting first, then slap your knees twice, do the pattycake thing again, cross your arms with the left one on top, etc.

His instructions were the most complicated bullshit I've ever heard. I was trying to do it along with her, with nothing on the line, and I couldn't do it. It was nuts.

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:



which test couldnt you pass and why?

Originally Posted By Hostile1:



No, that isn't the issue. We want drunks off the road, but we don't need people with room temperature iq who are accountable to no one enforcing the issue.

Originally Posted By Hostile1:



I couldn't pass any of them. Suffered a neurological injury years ago and I have eye tracking issues along with ataxic gait.

Originally Posted By MHowski:


Good thing you are in Oklahoma.  Check out some of the Florida boating field sobriety tests designed to be used while seated.  That is some pants on head retarded shit there.

Originally Posted By CenterMass762:



@NCPatrolAR

I watched an episode of Cops or something like it a couple weeks ago where the cop was making this girl do a bunch of bullshit with her hands to see if she was BUI. Like, clap 4 times, then move your hands around each other (think the old "pattycake" think for babies) with your right hand starting first, then slap your knees twice, do the pattycake thing again, cross your arms with the left one on top, etc.

His instructions were the most complicated bullshit I've ever heard. I was trying to do it along with her, with nothing on the line, and I couldn't do it. It was nuts.

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Who cares?  They are based on the observer's observations and bad cops will say that you failed regardless of your performance.

Originally Posted By dyezak:


I don't know if you're jumping around and skipping things, but there's a difference between an ARREST and a CONVICTION.  You can be arrested, and nothing happens without a conviction.  

The whole point of this is that fact.  Shit, when I was arrested in Fredrick MD back in 2003 I was holding a TS-SCI clearance.  ANY drug/alcohol shit would have had my clearance yanked and my career ended instantly.  But guess what, even something that sensitive understands the difference between arrested, mistake was made, no wrong doing was found versus bro was convicted of public intoxication.

Originally Posted By txinvestigator:

That's not a thing

Originally Posted By high_order1:
Just following orders = a lack of discretion? I guess you could see it that way. Just like in misdemeanor domestic violence, used to we could go and mediate and figure it out. Now... someone is going to jail.

The public didn't want the police to be able to decide, so they removed it. (shrugs) Seems like you guys would be happier if the police had no discretion at all, and just followed the orders. Because when officers can decide, sometimes they decide in a way that y'all don't like. (Long shrug)
...

Originally Posted By high_order1:
The public didn't want the police to be able to decide, so they removed it. (shrugs) Seems like you guys would be happier if the police had no discretion at all, and just followed the orders. Because when officers can decide, sometimes they decide in a way that y'all don't like. (Long shrug)

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:


Tell them you want to work Lake Norman.

Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott:


This is why police should be salaried.

Originally Posted By Jeff_1:



My employer does not wait for conviction. I am obligated to report all citations, arrests, charges, and they even want to know interactions. If I get a 3 point ticket I’m not allowed in company vehicle. If I get it dropped then I can come back to work but not before taking some sort of defensive driving. Arrested for DUI is basically fucked. Might be able to get job back if charges dropped. From a company standpoint it’s all because of liability.

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:


Is there a law that says you have to arrest questionable drivers or is this just a misdirection?

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

I'm not talking in circles any more than following your chain.

Negative statement to "people who are saying that one misarrested person is too many" > "if there is any doubt, there is no doubt, and let the legal machine decide" > insurance companies and ADAs "They want to be able to decide, not the officer on the side of the road." > "Police officers follow laws, regulations, policy and procedure." > referencing an unrelated domestic violence  law "The public didn't want the police to be able to decide, so they removed it.

Originally Posted By Shoresy:
DUI is big business. It's about $ and nice annual evals for flatfeet.