A kid was arrested for DUI because he forgot to stop his steps at nine. He blew 0.00, and the blood test came back negative. At the time of the arrest, he said "You are going to regret doing this because you KNOW I am sober." He then won a settlement in a lawsuit and forced the cop to apologize.
At what point are cops going to stop trying to nail someone for something they didn’t do? People have to continue to sue and fight back legally to make changes happen. The old MADD org likely lobbied and pushed a lot of these tests and laws thru. At least that’s my theory. 🤷🏻♀️It’s time to reassess how they handle traffic stops for potential drugs and alcohol use. Body cams show plenty of evidence imho-why are they not shown in court? Even kindergarteners can tell when a person is on the sauce😂
I was on a DWI jury once and the defense attorney suggested we do our own walk and turn test in the jury room. Each and every one of us failed it. That plus the fact that the officers both testified that the nystagmus test only meant that the defendant had been drinking and not that he was impaired. The jury instructions very specifically said and both lawyers agreed that the standard was impairment. So if nystagmus isn't evidence of impairment and 6 perfectly sober jurors all failed the walk and turn, we acquitted for reasonable doubt.
People have a very powerful fundamental right in this country that could change things overnight … if the people would just exercise the right. The problem is that the vast majority of the people have never even heard about this right. And that is not an accident. I am talking about jury nullification. I suspect few things strike more fear into the hearts of a statists than the idea of the people learning about this fundamental right. I am not going to address the entire subject. It has too many moving parts. But you really just need some basics. Today I will explain what jury nullification is, show you how powerful it is, and then show you how the Courts have screwed us all once again on this topic. So, as the non-native English speaker might say, “let’s please first to begin.” Let’s get a working definition. What people mean when they say “jury nullification” is generally, that the jury has a right to acquit a person who technically violated the letter of the law. Thus the law is “nullified”. It is undeniable that juries have the RIGHT, in any criminal trial, to render a verdict that IGNORES the “law” as it was “given to them” by the judge. Here is what John Jay, as chief justice of the Supreme court told a jury in 1794 on exactly this issue. It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. It cannot be any clearer. Juries have the right. Here is another example that is in the text of the Alien and Sedition act that was WRITTEN IN 1798 by our holy founding fathers themselves, They put the language in the statute itself! source: www.thetruthaboutthelaw.Com/jury-nullification-is-a-game-changer/
the field sobriety tests are not pass/fail. They are simply an evidence gathering tool. Do not answer questions, do not do tests. Do not consent to searches, Record everything, get a dash cam.
@@TalkingGIJoe Jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts U.S. Supreme Court Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 1 1 (1794) Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 "But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court: for, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the court is the best judge of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.” --John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1794 "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." --Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice, 1804 U.S. Supreme Court Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920) Horning v. District of Columbia No. 77 Argued November 8, 13, 1920 Decided November 22, 1920 254 U.S. 135 " The judge cannot direct a verdict, it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice, 1920 “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1941 UNITED STATES v. DOUGHERTY (1972) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 473 F.2d 1113 (1972) "The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury, to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and precedent upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were different soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected sources -- John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges -- that jurors had a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case, and not bound by the opinion of the court." --JUDGES: Bazelon, Chief Judge, Leventhal, Circuit Judge, and Adams, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Bazelon, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I just served on a jury about 2 weeks ago and this was exactly what happened. Fortunately for the driver, we believed that the officer made a bad stop and tripped this guy up. Found not guilty. Didn't even ask him if he had been drinking? All those dirty little tricks, they did. This is a great video and a lesson to be learned. Don't drink and drive people.
@@chipm2544 A DUI arrest is not a reason to think the person was intoxicated. They drive around looking for reasons to pull people over, like no seat belt or no signal, or a light out, and then they turn that into a DUI arrest. If a person is too intoxicated to drive it's not a subtle thing! The tests let the officer pretend it is a subtle thing so he can fail everybody and have probable cause to arrest (as the video says). In my small town you will get pulled over if there's any excuse to, and i have never once seen anyone pulled over where a tow truck didn't show up a few minutes later. It happened to me, and i was stone cold sober, i acted stone cold sober, and my blood test came back nothing found. The police report sounded like I could barely stand up and was about to overdose on every drug there is. The reason for that was so if my blood test came back with anything at all they'd have a case. I got pulled over for no seat belt.
@@usakicksass "Just public safety they're not Nazis." Maybe where you live. I've seen some terrible stuff happen to people at the hands of police. Even worse if you actually get arrested and are behind closed doors. I saw cops punch some drunk guy in the mouth because he was drooling from some stitches he had on his lip from a bar fight. They hit him while he was cuffed behind his back. Same guy turned and hit me in the side of the head when I asked him to stop beating the handcuffed dude. That's not about safety.
You certainly can talk yourself out of ending up in jail while waiting for bond to be set, sadly, the police have discretion. Say you are riding a stolen bike and have drugs on you, cop has plenty to take you to jail, if you remain silent you will go to jail. However if you agree to make a statement, a possibly incriminating statement, against whoever you got the bike from, or where you got drugs from, you may avoid jail but not charges. Which is silly but it is how it works, and you shouldnt make a statement and shouldnt incriminate yourself or others, however, its not quite true to say cooperation cant keep you from being attested. It sucks.
Several years ago I got pulled over, for driving an ugly car in a fancy neighborhood. I hadn't been drinking and I don't do drugs. I had negative breathalyzer. They pulled me out for field test. I failed it. Went to jail they forced to to take a blood draw. I sat in jail a few hours . They released me. I took a cab back to my car. When court time came suprise suprise. The blood results didn't make it to court. This went on several times before the jidge dismissed the case. Crooked crooked police.. Temecula California
With my knees and my body I'd fail without a drink in my system. I don't smoke Mariana. I could never pass a field sobriety test. Just had two separate cat scans on both knees. Both more require MRI's. It's seriously an unfair system. I feel for ppl getting pulled over for this crap. As I sit here with a heating pad on my knee. Neck surgery, shoulder surgery, and many more, I couldn't follow that open if I tried. How ridiculous. Not many older ppl could pass. You must be very agile to stand on one foot. ABC's fine. Counting fine. Other than that, no deal for me.
When attending the California Highway Patrol Academy in 1982-83 (Bryte, California) we were taught not to use the term "failed" the test but rather to use the wording "did not perform the test as demonstrated". I resigned from the South Los Angeles CHP Office within a year when it became apparent I was the most honest officer on the job, which caused personality conflicts with some other officers not so forthright as myself (LOL).
@@StephenB2005 Correct, graduated valedictorian in CHP class of 140 cadets in 1983 and did not ""pass" probation. Then was hired by United States Border Patrol and graduated valedictorian in class of 50 cadets in 1985. I was then promoted three years in a row, the fourth year to Senior Border Patrol Agent. The Border Patrol was advertising in their recruitment efforts at the time as having a common "esprit de cours".
No such thing as an honest cop. They're either corrupt, or complicit in the corruption of other cops, which makes them just as guilty. They are trained to use power and intimidation to make people give up their rights. Cops are well within their rights to lie to citizens in order to get them into handcuffs and behind bars, and every arrest they make helps them to get promoted and make more money, so why would anyone EVER trust a cop? I know I wouldn't.
I was pulled over in Anaheim CA while on vacation some years back. I was pulled over on an empty highway and told it was because I was drifting in my lane. The lanes all have rumble strips to alert you if you do. Never drifted far enough to hit them. They asked a bunch of questions. I complied. Admitted to drinking and told them how many drinks I had and over how much time. I was asked to do a field sobriety test. I never asked them to repeat instructions and performed all of the tasks well. I passed. I was specific and brief whenever I answered questions. They then asked me to take a breathalyzer. I asked what would happen if I refused. They said they would just arrest me right now. I said, "Well then, I will submit to taking the breathalyzer." I blew below the legal limit. Almost half. Nothing more to say, right?. They still gave me a hard time and said they were hesitant to let me go. Umm... what? Why are we still talking?
@@srsmithcoyou don’t necessarily have to drink alcohol. DWI can be for “driving while intoxicated” on anything (legal or illegal substances or medications).
Your still talking because the police in this country are a corporation out for revenue now and all and any arrests lead to revenue for your local and state government and because our parents parents allowed them to gain to much power over us that they now think it’s ok and they get no repercussions for harassing and charging law abiding citizens with violations and rules that you then turn around and give them your hard earned income for we have become so complacent that we are viewed as chalf cattle to be extorted and manipulated to no end
DWI is driving while intoxicated and DUI is driving under the influence (of anything). Usually DUI is between .04-.07. Bottom line, don’t say ANYTHING after handing license and insurance if you have been drinking.
Being a former officer I can tell you with great confidence, this guy has it nailed. Every test's failure/pass is up to the officer's judgement and they're told when they're trained ... any deviation during the test even to the slightest gesture or millimeter gets counted as a fail. If they ask you to step out of the vehicle, they're motivation is to take you to jail. Nothing else. Provide your license and proof of insurance, then invoke your 5th Amendment Right. Consent to NOTHING. Worst case scenario you have to go to jail, get processed and bail out. While that is traumatic enough within itself and usually only amounts to a few hours, it's better than having the false facts stacked against you almost ensuring a conviction later on. Any good attorney will tell you precisely what this guy is saying. So listen up good.
but this all goes about all cops are corrupt, show me just one honest cop, it goes about "money" the more arrests he or she has up her sleeve the bigger the chance of being hailed as a good cop, and getting promoted, there are maybe a few good cops, but those who are keep quite when seeing bad cops act out so as not to be hailed as a copout, and some "good" cops act with the corrupt cops,
You could just not drink at all and then not have anything to worry about. If you do get a DUI, then you have grounds for a lawsuit, and then you can get paid for your troubles.
Because it isn't pass/fail to begin with, EVER, first, always refuse to do roadsides, period full stop, it's about following directions and listening not the 9 steps, leg lift, blah blah.....
That's exactly what I tell prospect clients. The field sobriety test isn't a test, it is the officer asking you to give them more evidence to incriminate you and help the prosecutor's case. I have done over a thousand consults with DWI prospects, and I can count on one hand the cases where the officer let the person go and told them they passed.
Good information in this video. I've been a retired cop for 24 years. Field sobriety testing came along in the latter years of my career. I never had any training on using them and didn't try to. On any traffic stop, be polite to the cop it goes a long way. And if a young cop asks you to recite the alphabet backward as part of a sobriety test. I would say go ahead, your lawyer will love you for it. Because when he gets to court, he is going to ask the cop to do it in front of the judge. And my best piece of advice is if you are going to have a drink and drive. Stop at one drink. Or better still, don't drink at all.
Yes, remember that LEO's are human, despite their claims of being super-human. But, perhaps instead of being worried about politeness, we should get rid of most of our laws, especially the ones which provide LEO's wide latitude to 'punish' us for perceived impoliteness. The fact that LEO's are allowed to lie in essentially every aspect of any interaction with their fellow citizens means we should never allow for any politeness to matter. The rub to that is that many LEO's will interpret non-engagement as impolite, and punish for it.
the problem with all that is, the test is designed to fail you no matter what and YOU are stuck with lawyers fees. YOUR own tax dollars are being used to prosecute you while when you WIN to get it thrown out the pig who caused the whole problem is protected by qualified immunity and will NEVER have anything happen to them, EVER. I just hand over my stuff and dont say a single word while making it obvious they are being recorded with multiple cameras.
@@johngalt97respect is earned not given just because you have a badge. Cops only want to do you harm by either physical or ruining your life. They are rarely there to actually help you. Pulling you over is only to take from you.
Eh, I tell the officer that I'm dyslesic and if he forces the issue I'll attempt it and then file an ADA lawsuit. Using someone's handicap against them as evidence has a well established case history of not working out for the prosecution. I also have a speech impairment, so sluring and other verbal evidence is not going to work out well for them either. I've been arrested for DUI twice, I don't drink alcohol, ever.
I chuckle out loud and say "I haven't had a drink of alcohol in over 25 years, pretty sure I could not be intoxicated from a drink I had 25 years ago". That takes the wind out of their sails every time.
You know drunks aren't the only impaired drivers on the road,right? A ridiculous number of people, especially seniors, drive around after taking one or more prescription medications that come with warnings against driving while using them
I had a cop use pull me over and it was taking a long time to run my plates so I looked in the rear view mirror a few times to see if he was done and coming back because it was winter and I had my engine shut off. He came back and asked to search my car for drugs, I asked why and he said I was acting suspicious because I kept looking in my rear view mirror. They will use anything as an excuse so don't make it easy for them.
Practically every officer will attest, off the record, that the field sobriety test cannot be passed by anyone at any time. I failed one, was arrested, taken to lock up, had mug shots taken, my car was impounded, and I tested stone cold sober.
I passed one. The cop gave me a different one and I passed it. Then another test. and another. I finally got tired of it and asked "Are we going to keep doing this until I make a mistake and you arrest me?" The cop told me "That's right."
A friend of mine in California got pulled over a few months ago, 68 yrs old, they did roadside sobriety test despite his age and disabilties, and he passed, then they used a breathalizer, passed that, and they arrested him anyhow, locked him up overnight, no phone call, turned him loose next day and dropped all charges. I told him he should sue but he's scared of them and what they'll do if he does.
My FIL got pulled over a few times as people had reported a possible drunk driver. He was much older than your friend and was just becoming a bad driver due to poor eyesight and declining health. Another time when he was going to go hunting early AM and it was foggy, he was straddling the line on the edge of the road because he couldn't see in the fog and the cop thought he might be drunk for doing so. They always released him when they figured out he was just old and not drunk, but he lived in a small town and the cops probably all knew him and knew he wasn't a big drinker. I wonder if they took your friend in for weaving or something similar more so to avoid risking an accident versus actually thinking he was drunk. If they release someone who passed and they crash, then they are under scrutiny. Not sure it was the right thing to do, locking an innocent person up, but it could be an explanation if they had concerns over his ability to drive safely for any reason. Might have been nicer to just drive him home instead considering he passed the test and was not violating the law.
@@mikelemoine4267 you're not sure if locking an innocent person up was the right thing to do??? I can assure you, it's definitely not the right thing to do.
For no reason? I call shenanigans on that. He probably had a warrant, and/or resisted , and/or unlicensed/felon registered gun and/or some other thing. The charges may have been dropped, but for no reason at the time? Pull the other one, it's got leprechaun bells on.
This was an excellent video. I was a public defender in Missouri for 5 years and had a lot of those cases, and every police report for DWI had those catchphrases. "I smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage on or about his person...slurred speech... bloodshot, watery eyes." The only way to challenge a report like this is to not drink/be drunk and then drive, and even then you may be taken in. On the other hand, if you really are drunk, you're screwed. The funniest police report I ever saw was one where the officer asked the person to say the alphabet and he replied "A, B, C, D, oh shit I'm drunk."
Always follow the 11 rules of le interaction * Never call 911 or allow le near you * Always record an interaction * Never answer questions * Use a dash cam * Keep lic, reg, & ins in an envelop above the visor * Never perform a fst * Never consent to a search * Never keep cash or valuables in the car * Never pay a fine w/out a court date * Always consult an attorney * Never donate to any le entity
I was working for a subcontractor on a remodel of an airport terminal. That job required us to work from 9pm-5am. It just so happened that one shift, Friday night/Saturday morning, we were ahead of schedule. I left the airport at around 2:30 and headed home. I was waiting for a left turn arrow at a large intersection, the light turned green, I took off. The next thing I see are lights in my mirrors. I pull over. Two officers approach my work van, one on each side. The officer at my window asks for my documents, which I hand him. I ask why I'm being pulled over. He says "You took off from the light aggressively." Which I didn't, I have tools in the van that I don't feel like having fly all over the place. I said "Define 'aggressive', I didn't break traction, I didn't exceed the speed limit." He asked "So you think those are the only ways you can drive aggressively?" I said "Making a left turn at an intersection from a dead stop, and you turning on your lights the moment I was out of the turn, I'd have to say that I didn't have time to do anything 'aggressive'." To which he replied "Well, you drifted over the line during the turn." I said "THAT'S your definition of aggressive? Why don't you just be truthful and say you're on a fishing expedition for DUIs?" He went to his car to run my info and the other officer asked me "Do you always treat law enforcement this way? " I said "Only if they're being misleading, I mean, which was it? I was driving aggressively or I merely drifted over the line?" He only responded with "Sit tight." and walked away. A few minutes later the other officer walked back to my window, handed me my documents and said "Your good, have a good morning." I'm always respectful to everyone until they mess with me, then, all bets are off.
And then you had sex with that cop's wife, right in front of him. And his wife was Brooke Shields, but a young Brooke Shields, and she moaned and said that you do it better than her cop husband ever did. But you didn't want to have to do any of that because you are a humble, tool-belt wearing, blue-collar millionaire who knows about traction and car things kind of guy who backs the blue until they get out of line! Yeah, boy! You the bomb!
I bet they were a senior trainer/rookie pair. The senior one stayed to continue monitoring you while rookie went to look for red flags. But being logical in your response convinced senior that a) they had no hat tricks to slip in to make it a plausible dwi, seeing that you could see past whatever they could come up with, b) one could not be incapacitated if you made such observation on how they couldn't logically call your driving suspicious, and c) they would be tasked to do paperwork that is on every cop's required drudge list. So, that traffic stop roused them from a dull night shift and the rookie got some more hands-on experience. You contribution to your local enforcement.😅
Another thing to consider, at night they will likely have their headlights to their back, in your eyes. Their flashing strobe lights making you dizzy, throwing you off balance and distracting you. Field sobriety tests are risky.
If you don't risk addiction, cancer and ruin by using alcohol, you won't have to do a field sobriety test. I knew an old lady who had one leg thanks to a drunk driver. I bet she'd have a hard time performing a field sobriety test. Same for a former drunk driver I knew, who spent the rest of his life driving a wheelchair.
Why can't everybody be required to blow? Isn't that test accurate? We can skip all these games and get right to it. Is the BAC too high or not? If not, have a good night!
@@BeefT-Sqbro you need to delete this comment. I could find 3 videos of totally sober people being arrested for DUI. I even have a personal experience of being completely sober and being given a roadside test, being hassled for 30 minutes at 1:30 am in the middle of the mountains, and then finally released when I proposed to take a breathalyzer and blood test to prove I am sober. There are dirty, evil, corrupt people out there and a LOT of them are in positions of authority. I later realized by the way they handled the whole interaction, they knew I was sober, at worst they were trying to trip me up, and at best they were simply bored on the night shift and wanted to harass someone.
@@ryanhobbs79 I have read where the roadside test is of questionable reliability. In addition, I have seen several news stories where police departments have officers who have gone through training to be "Drug Recognition Experts" and the department basically says that if their DRE thinks you are impaired, and the blood test comes back clean, the blood test is wrong.
Recent story in the news of a college kid who was arrested even though he blew zeros. Cop originally stated that the kid smelled of alcohol but had to change his suspicion to weed. Kid is suing for false arrest. Cop is countersuing for defamation.
I saw that video! I hope he beats the cop in court and wins a fortune! The cop was trying to make the kid guilty of something, even though he hadn't done anything.
@@MegaMagicdog IKR? As long as cops are incentivized to amass DUI arrests, this will continue to happen, especially since they can do so with impunity.
I just watched a DUI arrest in which a young lady was being arrested and she asked the cop "Why, did I fail the tests?" His reply was exactly "There is no pass or fail". It's all just evidence.
I took the field sobriety test and when the cop decided to place me under arrest I asked him if I failed it, he said I barely passed 😂. I said isn’t it pass/fail? Then he offered to drive me home, pass or fail, if I took the breathalyzer. I couldn’t get off the fact that he said I “barely passed”. How tf am I going to trust him to take me home if I took the breathalyzer. I refused, he arrested me and it cost me 7k and a plea deal for a lesser charge. My lawyer said it was all about money. Oh one last important piece of info is the arresting officer was a friend of my ex gf. I don’t live in a small enough place for that to be a coincidence.
Well said, a traffic stop is “an audition for an arrest.” The officers are just looking for enough evidence, I.e. probable cause, to arrest you. Initially what they need is sufficient evidence to take you into custody to get a warrant for a breath or blood test back at the station. Therefore: 1) Never admit to having had a drink earlier in the day, it will be used against you. Often an officer will tell a driver they smell alcohol on their breath, and the driver feels compelled to provide an explanation, like they had a drink earlier in the day. Don’t do it. The officer may be lying and fishing for an admission that you’ve been drinking. 2) Don’t agree to perform the field sobriety tests, if voluntary in your state. They will be used against you. In our state, field sobriety tests are not exculpatory, meaning that you can still be arrested even if the tests are done perfectly if the officer otherwise thinks you’re drunk.
In South Dakota, if you fail a physical field test and have any hint of alcohol on you (legal limit is .08 and i blew a .001), the failed field test was my feet were not toe to toe on ONE step as i was on a broken up sidewalk that they forced me on. They cuffed and stuffed me and drew blood(came back 0.0000) and made me stay a night in jail(caused me to miss work the next day) towed my car(160 to get out) and charged me with DUI. I fought it and the SA did a plead deal as the BAC came back zero, of Careless driving(same fine as a 1st DUI of 400 at the time and i couldn't have even a speeding ticket in the next 6 months. I took the deal as the state of SD said "we can prove you were drunk at the time you started your car" I told my lawyer, "how is that possible as i didn't have anything to drink that night, but i had a steak that was made with bourbon butter over 4 hours prior to that" , he said to take the deal and move on, as it would cost over 5k to fight it. So in SD all DUI's are is a money scheme, as you can be way below the limit and still get charged. Same thing happened to a biker in SF, SD. He took it to court and won after 7k to fight it.
@@slappy8941 That actually happened in a small town in eastern Ontario a few months back. There was a call made to police about domestic violence, it was a false complaint, when police showed up they were fired upon, one officer was killed on the spot. I’m not saying that this was right, just pointing out that some citizens frustrated by police abuse will snap… Police misbehavior is much worse in the USA, but canada seems to be catching up…
I was pulled over once and asked to do a field sobriety test. I'm disabled and have a handicap placard in my car. I also walk with a cane because of nerve damage and bad balance. I explained this to the officer, as well as showing him my cane and my placard. I got off with a warning and considered myself lucky.
I've had to re-learn to walk twice. Managed to get to cane level, "third leg". I'd be f'd on a "field sobriety test", I'd have to look through a few planners to find out how long I've been w/o alcohol. Over 2K days that I know may be over 3K by now. They wanted to kick me out of the rehab learning to walk on a walker... nope... long story short I pissed of a few people while walking w/o a walker
@@user-zt5pm1hi6d 🤣 Um, I doubt it. I read what Comicsluvr wrote. I'm disabled and need a walking stick too get distracted by movement so my head is on a swivel and head moves with great peripheral vision so I can still see what's in front of me the whole time, steering may be slightly off. Dad, has the same thing, yet he's in his lane and not pushing into oncoming. We are both cognizant of it. He says I scare him, yet he scares the hell out of me. 😂He was surprised I was that fast going from 50something, hitting brakes, going 90 right hand turn, then another 90+right straight into a parking space at the bank that I did not know the exact location of... copper probably would probably be concerned with that. Yea, dad's been a cop too, he taught me how to drive, 3 on the tree, no power brakes, no powered steering. Either he or I usually are the designated driver. Since HS friends would rely on me even after partying... I had to drive, f' me. That was the joy of learning to drive by a vet and ex-cop. Turn that wheel and maintain control. 🤔
I recall when my oldest daughter was pulled over and admitted to having one glass of wine over the course of a two hour dinner. Well, it was a mandatory arrest. The officer let her call me using his cell phone on the drive to the jail. She was obviously not intoxicated. My wife and daughter met with three DUI attorneys. The lowest price quoted for representation was $6,000. All three of the attorneys informed my daughter that she would lose her license for one year, but they could keep her from serving time in jail. I served as consigliere on my daughter's behalf and had the case dismissed. It still bothers me that I had to resort to using corrupt practices to clear an innocent person, but such is the nature of our corrupt system of justice.
Great vid...thanks. FWIW, one thing that I do if ever stopped at night is turn on my inside light and have both hands on the wheel. A buddy was a California state trooper and said that one of the worst parts of the job was walking up to a dark car. I started doing that out of respect for the officer, and of the 2-3 times I've been pulled over (in 20+ years), the officer was always appreciative and never ticketed me. Obviously not a DWI specific stop, but might be worth the effort. Also, never, ever be reaching around under or behind the seat looking for your wallet or ppurse while the officer is approaching. If you need to dig around for something, tell them ahead of time what you are doing. So many of the officers now are young, poorly trained, and anxious. No need to raise their anxiety level.
Inside lights on, hands on wheel - that's been my routine for many decades, ever since I worked in security a long time ago. And have my licence, registration, insurance card, disabled placard and Veteran ID accessible. And my cane in plain sight. Especially if I am going to be driving in the dark. But my best advice is, try NOT to do anything that could get you pulled over.
I have gone as far as to remove the keys from the ignition and put them on the roof. I give police no reason to be nervous. On a side note, I had a new state trooper stop me. He still has his mother's milk on his lip. He did t run my plate. Just walked right up. Small town and all but still, not wise in this world.
What I hate is if I pass a field sobriety test AND pass the breathalyzer, the cops can STILL take me to the hospital for a blood test for my blood alcohol content. That happened to someone I know, and it pissed us off. What else gets me is I'll NEVER be able to pass a field sobriety tests due to problems with balance that have no effect on my ability to drive.
If i ever get pulled over for DWI, i will do everything asked of me. If they chose to arrest me because i failed a test, i will be out of debt and on my way to a nice vacation when the agency pays out my lawsuit. I do not drink, or do drugs. After 51 years I see no point in starting now.
@@rethinkcps2116 That's a good idea. Even though I don't drink and drive, there could well be some situation that makes an officer think I've been drinking. Thanks!
@@Daniel-tj2wm You are foolish to perform field sobriety testing! Why would you "do everything asked of me" when _every_ attorney in this manner says _do not_ perform field sobriety tests?! You then _assume_ you're going to win a lawsuit against the police because they arrested you for failing FSTs! LOL! You're delusional!
Prosecutor here: This is probably the most reasonable and well-balanced video on this topic that I’ve seen from a defense attorney. I will point out one thing that is worth considering though. At ~9:30 he says he has rarely ever seen a police officer let someone go who has been drinking at all. This is a sampling bias issue. Defense attorneys and average people don’t see these cases unless someone actually gets arrested. Virtually none of the times when police do let people go will ever make it on the radar. Only the police officer and the person who was pulled over actually know about it. I can assure you it happens a lot more often than we might think.
@@SaraMKayactually no, at least in Alabama, the police in multiple cities are refusing to cede body cam footage on FOIA requests. So, footage might exist but it’s def not publicly available.
Little over a year ago I was pulled over for cutting through an alley way (totally legal mind you) late at night and the officer immediately started in on me saying he smelled alcohol, blah blah blah. I did the field tests despite knowing I'd fail them as I'm overweight, and have bad feet & knees, because I knew if I didn't I'd be arrested for sure. I wanted to be given the portable breathalyzer because I hadn't had a drop to drink and hoped blowing nothing would influence him to let me go. When I blew all zeroes he was shocked, and asked if I'd do another one from a different patrol car on scene. I again blew zeroes, and he let me go. It was the only way I believed I wouldn't be arrested that night, and it worked, thankfully.
Sometimes they want you to blow again because they adjust the scanner to register some number. There was a woman in Wildwood, NJ who was tackled and arrested on the beach for being "drunk" even though she blew a .00 and had NOT been drinking. She eventually won about 250K in a legal battle with the town. I say, if you blow less than a .08, why arrest you at all?
Don't see how he smelled alcohol if you wasn't drinking maybe he was just hoping you was drinking so he could take you to jail!!Same way they say smell marijuana but don't actually just want to search your vehicle!!
Kern County Sheriff's Department California got caught by the California DOJ using breathalyzers that weren't certified by the State of California and had been modified to give positive readings.
I was pulled over years ago and failed the touch my nose test, alcohol breath, ABC test, 50 mph in a 35 mph, and two empty beer cans in the car. I was a professional athlete at the time and the cop let me go with a warning ticket and his personal number. We became friends and he said to always have peanuts in your car, cause peanuts are stinky and it’s hard to smell alcohol if you’re eating peanuts. He also advised not to drink and drive. True story. I don’t do stupid things like drinking and driving anymore.
That explains why they serve lots of peanuts in bars! So I bet the odor that police are equally smelling for is peanuts…peanuts, to them, means you’ve been drinking…
@@jamess.7981They serve peanuts and pretzels in bars because they are salty and make you want something to drink. It's also a hand to mouth action that helps keep smokers inside, where they're going to order more drinks, rather than outside smoking. Setting a bowl of free peanuts or pretzels in front of someone in a bar is almost guaranteed to get them to order at least one more drink than they had planned to have. Casinos go for the bigger goals. They'll often serve free drinks, as long as you're gambling. Your inhibitions get lower and lower, so you're happy to keep throwing away money. If you want to have one drink with friends, stay away from the peanuts. If you want to drink all night for cheap, sit yourself at a nickel slot machine with $10, go for minimum bet every time, and give yourself a minute or two between plays. And then call a cab or an Uber. There's never a good reason to drive drunk.
@@miguelservetus9534 I don't know anyone who would disagree with that, but that's not the point that was being made here...pigs are filthy, self-serving, three-toed, knuckle dragging troglodytes.
I am a police officer who is also a crash reconstructionist (fatalities, crashes involving criminal conduct such an assault with a vehicle, or crashes involving police officers). Most of my fatality investigations are caused by drunk drivers, I absolutely can not stand drunk drivers...buuuuutt... Every person in America has rights and they need to practice their rights. This attorney is correct, if you have been drinking or did commit a crime, stop talking. I won't just ask the robotic cop questions, I start small talk for a reason. I want you to talk so I can detect smells, speech patterns, etc. Politely tell the officer you don't wish to speak. Be polite with the officer, because he is right, it is a popularity contest with the jury. Even with the worst types of people, I try to be courteous and respectful for two reasons, one, even the worst criminals are human and deserve dignity and two, I want a conviction and do not want to give a defense attorney any ammunition. You do not want to give the prosecutor any ammunition. My favorite people are the ones who insult me, tell me I am useless, say "fuck the police", etc...those are the ones I am sugar sweet to because when the video is played for their defense attorney, we don't ever go to court. I am trained on SFSTs as officers should be, considering they are a standard. Sober people never fail SFSTs with me because we are supposed to take all three tests together and make our decision, never basing our decision off just one test. While officers should be using all three tests as a decision maker, some officers are not properly trained and were only shown SFST by a training officer or learned it from some other random officer they work with and they don't make proper arrest decisions as a result. My opinion is, never do SFSTs. I am a cop, I know the SFST instructions to heart, I never drink intoxicated, I would never consent to SFST. Too many departments don't send their guys to actually be trained to the standard. I have never had a sober person fail the overall SFST, but I have had sober people fail the individual portions. No one should ever be failed on the walk and turn or the one leg stand alone. If you are intoxicated, while it might get your license taken up for a short time, I would suggest delaying the inevitable. Refuse blood and breath, make them get a warrant. Yes, there is a math formula we can do to figure out what your BAC was at the time of the arrest, but we have to prove you were going down at the time or know how many beverages you drank (back to the first point, shut up). Also, you might get lucky, I have dropped a DWI to a PI before because the only oncall judge to sign my search warrant wasn't answering his phone because the battery died. Never consent to a search of your vehicle. If the officer has PC to search, he should not be asking consent. I will ask consent if I am not completely sure if I am smelling alcohol and I want to seperate you from your vehicle or passengers so I can better determine if I am smelling alcohol coming from you or your vehicle. I know some cops are assholes and get offended, the majority of us want you to practice your rights. Please, make our job difficult on the evidentiary side but do so politely so you don't look like the bad guy. And remember, following this guy's advice might not get you out of the arrest but it could definitely help you get a lesser sentence if any at all. Defense lawyers are not necessarily to prevent your conviction, they are there to ensure your rights were respected and you get the lowest possible penalties. It is nice when they are able to get a charge dropped though! With all that said, please don't drive while you are intoxicated. Please, please protect your life and the lives of others. Call Uber, call your friends, hell, if nothing else call the cops and maybe you'll get a ride home or maybe you'll get a ride to the drunk tank but its far better than being killed, killing someone, or getting a DWI. Remember, it only takes four beers to get to the .08 level or three in .05 states.
im being charged with a second dui and i wasnt even drunk nor did my car smell like alcohol, the officer lied to establish probable cause and im thinking about taking my case to trial. i refused all the bs test just to get it over with cuz i knew i was gonna be arrested anyway.
4 beers in an hour. When I went to DWI class with a friend (he was nervous about going alone), the handy dandy little DWI calculator they gave us, I determined I could drink 5-3/4 drinks in an hour and still be under point one oh. And one drink/hr thereafter. It was surprisingly accurate, tested against my fuzzcop friend's PBT.
I know an airline pilot who was pulled over because he was weaving (no sign of the driver weaving was on the dash cam) The cop stated he could smell alcohol on the drivers breath and forced him to perform a FST, which he passed (though the cop said he failed) and he made the guy do a breath test. He blew a 0.00 Still the cop arrested the driver for DUI. This particular cop had taken a special training course that was suppose to teach him the signs of intoxication that sold itself as "Better than any blood test or breath test." This cop lead the department in DUI arrests, *AND* the department's acquittal rate for DUI. This totally unlawful arrest caused quite a bit of damage because for a pilot, *ANY* DUI arrest results in the suspension of a pilot's license. As a result of this arrest the guy lost his job and he was unable to fly legally. It took more than a year for the pilot to clear his name. Turns out the training this cop had received was not valid, On top of this, the cop did not properly apply this training. Any one sign of intoxication was not meant to be taken on it's own. Several signs needed to be present at once to indicate intoxication. But this cop was saying any sign indicates intoxication.
Cases have been found in TX for 'reasonable suspicion' of drunk driving - 1) Talking too much 2) Not talking enough 3) making direct eye contact 4) not making direct eye contact 5) being overly cooperative 6) not being cooperative and on it goes. The blue gang needs to find 'crime' to justify their existence and budget. But the big money is in court, the police must feed the 'system' so the Judge's positions is justified. With a lawyer being necessary to get you out.
I was once pulled over late night. I had not been drinking. I told them I hadn’t slept in several and was falling asleep at the wheel. I passed all their sobriety tests and at they end they were astonished. They were almost apologetic. I thanked them saying they may have saved my life. That was it.
You got extremely lucky that this was a long time ago and/or you had a rare non-corrupt cop. We've seen many videos of corrupt cops arresting people who blew 0.00 and aced the sobriety-tests. Moreover, I'm amazed that they didn't latch onto you admitting to being drowsy at the wheel which IS an offense and jump at the chance to arrest you. 🤨 🤯
Im from England (UK), first time I drove in USA in Myrtle Beach, I drove in the wrong direction at a roundabout. The car coming the other way was a Police cruiser. I apologised and explained to the officer, we both had a good laugh and went on our separate ways. Never had a problem with US Police.
You aren't the type of person the cops in Myrtle Beach typically look for. They make the majority of their revenue off of intoxicated party goer's. So if you're a sober person in MB, then usually you're in the clear.
I've been stopped after exceeding the limit (50MPH) by 30 MPH. By the time the officer caught up and turned on his lights, I was within two blocks of my home. I was cordial and had my license and proof of insurance ready when the officer game to the car. He asked questions I answered simply and concisely. Finally he asked if I was going home and I answered that it was just up to the next intersection and around the corner. He let me off with a warning.
11:00 not enough attorney's talk about physical limitations to taking a field sobriety test. Thanks for bringing this up. I don't drive at night much anymore (i used to do it a lot), I am lucky I was never stopped/asked to do a FST. Because of physical limitations I would FAIL 100% of the time, stand on one leg, heel to toe nonsense (I don't drink alcohol at all) but I could never pass that test. Even doing the verbal part I am sure I would fail that as well (I always would have verbal flubs in school when randomly called upon and not knowing what I was going to be asked next), I am just the nervous type (especially if standing on the side of the road with vehicles speeding by).
The NHTSA tests are specifically RIGGED to fail sober people. That's why cops NEVER do the full test when demonstrating it, they only ever do a truncated version.
Its important to note that field sobriety tests are NOT pass/fail. They only administer these tests to give you a chance to show "indicators" of a DUI. That, and they will run you through EVERY test they can think of (in order to gather every indicator) before they conclude the tests because they have enough evidence.
My wife has osteopenia/ osteoporosis . If she falls during a walking test, there is a high probability of breaking her hip. She has been told by her Dr. to not ride a bike. She is currently recovering from 4 fractured vertebrates. She will not be taking a field test that puts her at risk.
I got a DUI when i was 23, and I wasn't even intoxicated. I hadn't smoked cannabis in 3 weeks, but they did a blood test and said they found a fine trace of cannabis in my system and suspended my license for 6 months. I think I got screwed on that arrest.
@@mytuberforyou they don't jail people for having smoked it. While illegal, it's almost impossible to prove you smoked it, where a lot of people have never smoked it, but know what it smells like.
Road pirates are rewarded by MADD and other groups, as well as leadership for arrests - not convictions. Each officer needs to have a batting average arrests/convictions. Would love to see those stats.
I don't think that would ever be a part of discovery, department statistics. For a start, the prosecutor wouldn't have that information to hand, they are not a police officer.@@MuzixMaker
@@jamesrowden303 no, it's not. From a criminal prospective and how law and procedure or commonly known administrative code tell the state and defense how to do "discovery". Discovery provide the a"defendant" the right to discover ( duh ) evidence , facts or information, that the state has against the defendant to provide him/her the means to mount a proper defense or to challenge the evidence. In a DUI case that would be police officer written notes, reports, training history, blood or breath testing results, procedures, radio traffic call, medical staff certification,DUEI officer or DRE certification and training ,blah blah ...none of this means FoIA.
Step 1: ask if you are free to go. If they waffle or refuse to answer keep asking, say no more. Step 2: if they say you are detained and not free t go, say ‘I want a lawyer’. At that point say nothing, they cannot ask you any questions, but you’ll probably take the ride Step 3: DO NOT EVER CONSENT TO A FST. EVER. They cannot make you, there is no penalty, but you’ll have to blow at the station. Step 4: demand a blood test if you are 100% clean
I am old. I don’t drink alcoholic beverages. I don’t use drugs, I’m not on any medications. I can’t stand on one foot, I have a balance problem. I was stopped one night (in CT) where the cops were stopping every car at that location. A cop literally stuck his head into my car through the open window to smell for alcohol. Fortunately, they didn’t demand a field sobriety test.
Twenty years ago, my sister-in-law failed a field sobriety test after being pulled over in her car. This was a woman who hated alcohol! But she had a horrible strep throat, and had been heavily dosing herself on cough syrup for days - really overdosing herself. She wasn't the brightest tool in the shed, and didn't know about codine. In the end, it was a legitimate bust, as she was driving with diminished capacity. After it was explained to her she later admitted it herself. Her intentions were innocent, but there you are. The judge went light on her after reviewing the situation. Her only hope was honesty.
I am a criminal defense attorney in Arkansas and I fully support this information. These are the exact points I tell my clients during DWI cases. Only thing I would add as far as Arkansas is concerned is that the test results of a PBT test are not admissible as stated, but the results CAN be used as a “stick in the bundle” in the officer determining probably cause to arrest you for DWI.
I am a retired LE after 25 years, most in traffic and traffic homicide. I agree with everything this man said. I would only add to it that when a driver is instructed to exit the car, that they do so and not ask why. Pennsylvania Vs Mims is why and the officer does not have to explain. No cussing, no attitude, just keep the trap shut. Say yes sir or no sir. And the myth of having the right to have a lawyer present on the roadside needs to go into the dustbin. It’s getting ppl hung up on bs they’ve made up or heard somewhere, and makes that drunk yapper start flapping which always ends up with cussing and screaming and stupidity.
@@RetiredLE2112this saddens me. I have always been a strong supporter of our LEOs, but I see more and more comments like your arrogant response, from other officers on here, and it suddenly becomes easier to understand why some people have a problem with you guys. Tone down your ego and quit demanding everyone to not question you at all. All while expecting them to shine your shoes while replying yes sir /no sir...... Freaking sad!!! 😢
@@alangravley9574 do me a favor. GFYS for one. Secondly, next time you get pulled over and are told to exit the car, don’t do it and see what happens. And then when you get an attorney and he explains Pennsylvania V Mims to you, then your dumba** will possibly get the point.
True story: I did a field sobriety test decades ago when I was in my early 20's, I really wobbled when I had to stand on one leg. There were two cops and one said to the other "Ah, there we go..." I noticed, but then told them that I had been hit by a drunk driver when I was a kid and lost part of my right foot which was why I could not balance well. This was true. I offered to take my shoe and sock off and the officer said no and asked me more about what happened. He was genuinely interested. He noted that I was only a mile away from home and let me go. Funny thing is even though this was true, I was actually very hammered at the time. I still don't know if he actually believed me, or it was empathy for what had happened to me as a kid. I learned my lesson though and never did it again.
About 8 or 9 months into the pandemic I went out with my dad to the AT&T store. We parked next to a cop who had her window open and was doing paperwork. I said, "It's funny, a year ago if you saw two men get out of a car, put on masks and walk into a shop, you'd want to look into that more deeply. Now if you walk into a shop without a mask, you're going to want to look into that." We both laughed as I went into the shop. A few days later I encountered the same cop, only this time it was a traffic stop. She was asking me a bunch of seemingly innocent "friendly" questions. I asked her why he was asking me these questions and she said, "I'm just trying to be friendly." I said, "I'm not really interested in being friendly right now." She remembered me as the guy who commented about the masks, so she was rather taken aback by my less than friendly attitude, as I had been quite friendly with her just a few days before this. I explained I was in no way anti-cop. I said I wouldn't hesitate to help if I saw a cop in trouble. But I also do not trust the police. I said as this was not a consensual conversation, I felt that being friendly not appropriate. You know how the cops always ask where you are coming from or where you are going? You should never answer these questions. Lets say a crime took place in the location you just left. Or if a crime takes place at the location where you are headed? If you say you just came from 7-11 and a few seconds after you drive away someone walks into the 7-11 and shoots the clerk. What's that cop going to think? What's going to happen if the cop is lazy and fails to properly investigate the murder? He has a suspect already, why investigate further?
…and you’ve only scratched the surface. When first approached by an officer and they ask you a question, politely tell the officer you’d rather not answer any questions and then thank them. Any, and I mean ANY question that comes your way after that, say, I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent and thank them AGAIN. Any questions after that point can strip them of their qualified immunity in a court of law. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and I’m not offering legal advice.
You started it. She is a person, just like the rest of us. You began a "friendly banter" with her, then resented it when she did it back. No offense, but how would you feel? If you didn't want anything to do with law enforcement, then just leave her alone. Is that hard? To say you started a conversation with a female (or seriously any sex) police officer, then took offense days later when they tried to continue it, is just dumb. You played with her emotions, and yes, even cops have emotions. Your bad.
@@kenmore01 *with her, then resented it when she did it back.* No, I didn't resent anything. I was protecting myself by standing up for my rights. *If you didn't want anything to do with law enforcement, then just leave her alone.* Where did I say I wanted nothing to do with law enforcement. That is not the case at all. I did say that I don't dislike cops. But I do not trust cops. Personally I think most cops are good, but the prevalence of bad cops means trusting a police officer is unwise. hen cops make a traffic stop, they don't know anything about the driver. Most likely the driver has no desire to attack the cop, but the cop takes steps to make an attack less likely to succeed. I am simply doing the same thing. *To say you started a conversation with a female (or seriously any sex) police officer, then took offense days later when they tried to continue* But this cop was not continuing the friendly banter. She was conducting a criminal criminal investigation hoping I'll say something that would establish probable cause. There are 2 ways you can interact with police. A consensual conversation with a cop is just like a conversation with anyone. The police are not investigating anything, and either one is able to end the conversation at any time. Then there is a non-consensual conversation. This means you are being detained while while the cop conducts an investigation. Can you see the difference here?
@@kenmore01Do you know every single law on the books? City, county, state, federal, regulatory agencies? I believe every person breaks a dozen laws every week and they don't even know it. But a cop might.
Except when on a military base/reservation. There my response would be: "Thank you, but at this time I believe I would like to invoke my Article 131 rights under the UCMJ", and if you would like to ask me questions? I also believe I have a right to have a JAG Officer present. The UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and Srticle 131? is the equilivent to the 5th amendment. A JAG Officer is a lawyer from yhe Judge Advocate Generals office. @@jamess.7981
I like your way of explaining. Good advice without the confrontational undertones you often see. There is nothing wrong with asserting our rights, but as you mentioned so many people start getting emotional, irate or nasty with the police and all that does is increase any scrutiny and provide video evidence of your behavior.
When I was 20 years old. I got pulled over for a loud exhaust. And had to do a field sobriety test which I failed. I was then taken to the police station for a breath. Elizer under arrest, passed it with flying colors and told the officer. Now you can take me back to my vehicle. I told you I had not been drinking. He replied. You can't drive and I said why not? I just blew zeros, he said. Because your car has been impounded. I had to spend the night in that town. Walking the streets and then finally in the morning called a family member to come and get me so I could get a ride to the impound to pay $300 to get my car back.
Just a small extra bit of information, you know the cop will ask for your license and insurance. Don't unhook your seat belt and start reaching for your wallet or glove box until the cop asks for them. When the cop walks up to your car you are not wearing your seat belt, a citation will follow for no seat belt. Digging around for your registration before the officer can see into your car can be considered furtive movements and you are trying to hide something leading to a search.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WILL NOT BE VIOLATED! PIG GETS NOTHING! NY RIGHTS WILL NOT BE GUVEN AWAY! PLAY YOUR THREAT GAME...MMY RIGHTS WILL NOT BE SURRENDERED! NO REGISTRATION, NO LICENSE..THISE ARE IKLEGAL CONTRACTS WITH THE LEGAL FICTION 'STATE'...A CORPORATE ENTITY THAT HAS NO COMMON LAW JURISDICTION!
I've often debated this. I know they'll ask, and figure I'll be polite and have it ready. But I have settled on turning off my car, keeping my hands on the wheel, and complying when they ask. Also, when asked "you know why I pulled you over?," my answer is "no sir/ma'am." I get a funny look, but even if I do know why, I'm not going to be recorded admitting guilt.
There is no quota, but they are expected to write citations. As a Sergeant explained to me once, sand on a street corner look at how many violations you see, if you are not writhing tickets, you are not doing your job.@@shanecabbage2187
Negative. Have your license, registration and insurance ready on your dash, car and radio off, window down and hands on steering wheel...all before the cop gets to your door.
Window, radio, steering wheel, car yes but don't dig around until the cop is looking into your car. Police need an excuse to search your car without permission. Furtive movements give him that excuse. I thought he was hiding something. @@jrvane11
I’ve been watching a lot of body cams. And I’ve noticed that once you’re pulled over and they’ve tagged you as intoxicated, they are gonna do everything they can to push you to make a mistake so they can bring you in. Now, there are so many I have seen that deserved to be taken in and it does make me chuckle at how bad people are at being decent humans 😬🙃
It doesn't matter if you don't driunk, cops don't care about reality, they'll catch whatever prey they can when they're on the hunt, and facts and the truth don't matter, they'll still arrest innocent people. We've seen it sooo many times.
The only time I've been pulled over on suspicion of DUI, I was not drinking. The cop asked me lots of random questions, and finally after maybe fifteen minutes of this I was beginning to get annoyed and he finally asked me if I'd been drinking. I told him not only had I not been drinking that night, I was eight years sober. To my surprise, he became angry with me, as if I'd been wasting HIS time. Real eye-opening experience. My real crime, as far as I could tell, was driving home at the same time the bars were closing. I don't know if he was trying to make a quota or what, but I was not impressed. He made some statements at the end of it that were totally unprofessional -- that the police "knew my car" and that they would be watching me. To their credit, I was never pulled over again while I owned that car, but why say such a thing? Did I bruise his fragile ego by not cooperating with his plan to drag me off to jail?
In this incidence I had not been drinking. When I told the cop I would not consent to search of my car nor answering any questions without an attorney present he threatened me with both pepper spray And taser.. Police searched my car without a warrant or probable cause destroying 2 weeks of groceries. Monster mashing all the deli items and things like Ricaroni. The prosecutor was relentless but went to a jury trial. With the physical description of me it was readily apparent nothing the police had said was accurate. Yet for travel to Canada the arrest still counts as a conviction even though I was proven innocent in court. US, Canada and Australia have some of the most corrupt police in thew world. When I was 15 and delivering Sunday newspapers I was struck by a police car driven by a drunk cop. I was unhurt but the bike and papers destroyed. Boy did they cover that up quick. Except that morning the papers were delivered by police car courtesy of the Phoenix AX police in 1963.
@@riskyron1416 I suppose I should be grateful I didn't get put through THAT but it was already unnerving enough for me. As I told the cop at the end of our conversation I really just wanted to go home and sleep so I could get up in the morning and work. The moment he lost his temper was when I used the phrase "fishing expedition", which is exactly what it was. He was convinced I'd done SOMETHING, he just couldn't figure out what.
One thing I think that would also be good to point out is that those with ADHD or who are on the Autism spectrum are highly likely to fail the field sobriety test because we struggle with multi step instructions. Thanks for this info... Hopefully I'm never in this situation, mostly due to good choices 😉
I’m retired law enforcement and was a breathalyzer operator. Overall good advice, but I recommend against drinking and driving, even one drink. Too many things can affect how it may impair you - full vs empty stomach, medications, illness, fatigue. I never did physical performance tests for field sobriety for the reasons in the video. If you are not impaired, don’t speed and follow the rules of the road, you will be almost invisible to the police. It’s not complicated.
Not always, but overall great advice, … some cops have an agenda, or quota that must be met, … and some cops are just assholes, … no thanks for a field sobriety case, … and does not mean that one is not handicapped, … me, I’ll fail to pass any type of sobriety test, because of my disability, … balance issues, …. and the facts that my body does not respond, as I would require it to assist in my test, one leg stand, ummmm, not gonna happen, … 3 point turn??? Ummm, believe it or not, a single point of about face, … would give away my military background, … so, … ohhh, welllllllll, …
Many of the clips shown on here seem to be "just because", rather than any real reason. Especially if you're black. Excuses about tags not coming back is the usual favourite. Or even "You were looking at my car when you went past, and I thought it was suspicious".
You are incorrect!!! I have been pulled over for no reason! The law enforcement didn’t get my license and they didn’t arrest me! They wanted too, but they had violated my right’s in video twice in one stop and they made all kinds of threat’s that if they would have executed it would have been much worse for them! Most law enforcement are gross violators of human rights! This will be their demise!!!
Excellent! Well presented with great detail and examples. Thank you! Years ago, I left a wedding party with my bro-in-law driving. He was drunk and I was terrified. Cop pulled us over for non-working headlight. Driver gets out of car and talks to officer. Driver had NO license on him…. I figured he’d be arrested on the spot. Nope! Off with a warning. My conclusion? Brother-in-law had years of experience talking his way out of DWI episodes. 😱
1.) Why did you pull me over? 2.) I'm not discussing my day/night with you. 3.) Am I being detained or am I free to go? 4.) [If detained] I invoke the 5th Amendment to not answer your questions. 5.) STFU Never consent to any searches.
The one time I was pulled over when I probably shouldn't have been driving, I nodded and did and hmm, hmm then looked away and shrugged trying to look shameful when he said I was speeding a bit and gave yes and no answers. He let me go with a warning. The time I was dui tested, I knew I was under the limit. I pointed out I was over 300 lbs and the one leg stand test was hard for me. He did not believe me on how much I had to drink, (well how little) but the portable breath test showed me as ok. He made me call a friend to drive me home, but that was fine. Reality was I was exhausted not drunk.
Unfortunately refusal of the tests guarantees arrest. You'll have to get it dismissed later, but they will arrest you that night, that's why so many sober people take the test.
@@vu7419 Never advocated refusal of a field sobriety test. Learn to listen carefully & follow instructions exactly as dictated. Only speak when spoken to, with one word or as short as possible answers. Memorize the alphabet backwards & rattle it off as quick as possible when prompted. Most people don't know the alphabet backwards sober. As long as you can hold your composure you're good as gold. I've passed many doing exactly that. Even if you miss a letter or slightly mix up the backwards order the officer/detective will not notice. Possibly ask you to repeat it but will stop you halfway. Ask ppl you know who are sober to recite the alphabet backwards 9/10 can't. It's that simple.
This might be true. But, I was pulled over several years ago after a night at a friends house. I had been drinking, shouldn't have been driving,. but obviously made a poor decision. I answered his questions honestly, did everything he asked me to. I gave him no grief and spent a night in Jail. But, because of that, I was let out with no bond after blowing clean. The judge worked with my lawyer and got me reduced to a careless driving all because I was cooperative. I learned my lesson, paid my fines and don't drink and drive anymore. A friend of mine once said, "Everybody who does stupid things needs a night in jail, because it teaches you not to do stupid things anymore." I found that to be true for me anyway.
what u said about "do not drink and drive " is the best advice, why drive even if u have only had one beer, if pulled over the corrupt cop will book u just to make a point,
You said "...I gave him no grief and spent a night in Jail. But, because of that, I was let out with no bond after blowing clean." You said blowing clean. Dose that mean you were innocent of the offense of DWI ? Blowing Clean means 0.00% right ?" So you went to jail on an offense that you hadn't committed. Bye
@@MilanoGuyTexas my impression was that after being allowed to sit in jail for a little bit he was asked to use a breathalyzer and the number was under the legal limit. Basically they threw him a bone by delaying the test.
In 2017 I had a stroke that effected my eyes. I have Nystagmus it is permanent bouncing eyes which also effects my balance. Officers need to be aware And remember that there are medical conditions that will prevent an individual from passing a sobriety test. As a retired officer I saw ridiculous sobriety tests such as saying the alphabet backwards. One officer I knew practiced this so he could prove it was easy. It isn't easy and I told him it was an unfair test. I agree with what you say. My son had been helping a friend at a bar and was driving home one night on a winding road and his tires ( not the whole vehicle) briefly and barely crossed the center line as many drivers will do on winding roads, especially later at night. A police car that had been following him from the bar for miles used this as grounds to stop him. My son had not been drinking and clearly passed a field sobriety test but was arrested anyway. He then took it again at the jail. He asked the officer to show him what to do.and the officer demonstrating the test for him did a worse job than my son. When it went to court the tape was played and my son was found not guilty. But it cost him an unjust suspension, days in jail, over a year of going to court, and thousands of dollars. Not to mention that the embarrassed and vindictive officer "put the word out" on my son and he was harassed by officers until the bar owner complained to the department and the harassment stopped. 0:54 2:05 4:35
Police find a variety of things suspicious. Talking too much. Not talking at all. Speeding or rolling through stop signs. Following traffic laws too precisely, driving at the speed limit and making three second stops at stop signs (yes, I kid you not, obeying the law has been used as grounds for suspicion.) I'm politely telling him I invoke my fifth amendment right to remain silent and then doing it. More than once I've seen RU-vid videos where cops claimed to observe strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes for people who subsequently blew 0.00 on a breath test. The cops said all of it very quickly as if it was a practiced speech for the body camera. Saying "I just need to make sure you're okay to drive" before field sobriety tests is a lie. The _whole purpose_ is evidence gathering to bolster the case against you.
@@jamestfx2965 YT has at least one video of a guy who got stopped for going between 60 and 65 in a 65 MPH zone with everyone passing him. He refused to give his license and reg because he wasn't committing an infraction, and things got ugly fast. It a policeman wants to stop you, he can deem a hallucination about your plate light or your seatbelt suspicious and "need" to check it out while he sniffs around for anything else he can use against you.
@@jamestfx2965 Here's a good one where the most minor ticket became a retaliatory arrest. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pkh6FRanPTg.html&ab_channel=TheRealNewsNetwork
Police _do_ have phrases they've memorized and repeat. I noticed that about 25 years ago. I went to court for a speed violation, and every defendant was given a 9AM time - and there was no order-of-cases available. My case was heard last - probably because I had requested discovery of some info - so, I got to hear all the other traffic cases that day, and all of them were LIDAR-based citations. All of the officers (except the one that never showed up) used the same wording for their statements. All of them had been written in the same safety zone, using a fairly-new law that made it a fine-doubled-and-a-judge-can-not-reduce-the-fine zone. It was unfortunate for the other defendants that their cases were heard before mine, and none had discovered what I had discovered. The deputy who had papered me had about half of the cases that were heard that day, and his were all from tickets he wrote on the same day I was cited. From others' attempts to defend themselves, I learned that deputy was also the department's trainer on use of LIDAR. When it was finally time that I could cross-examine the deputy, I started with the stuff they've heard before, but tried to ask follow-ups they had _not_ heard before. I paraphrase my questions to the deputy: - I asked about calibration-to-a-known-standard, and learned that is done by the manufacturer, once per year. "When the manufacturer has to adjust the calibration of a device, do you have a method to track down all the violations that were based on that device since it was last known to be correct?" - I asked about training, and he boasted that he is the trainer, trained by the manufacturer. [Which I had seen him do earlier in the day, and it stopped that defendant's questioning.] "Does your training include recommended wording to use in court?" ...which got a reluctant Yes. "Did the manufacturer's training include recommended wording to use in court?" Another Yes. - Then, I asked about the thing I had discovered. "When you applied the fine-doubling qualifier to this violation, had you been told that the fine-doubling applies to [whatever the name of that highway was at whatever milepost that was]?" He answered that he and other deputies had determined that as a group, and there is no question that it is included in the fine-doubled zone. I ended my questioning. (My discovery had requested any written department communications about the new fine-doubled law or the fine-doubled zones, and the response was that there were none - which I interpreted as a lack of guidance-from-counsel when they decided to enforce the new law.) One element of the fine-doubled-with-no-chance-of-a-reduction law was that signs must be posted on _every_ public road that enters the safety zone. When it was my turn to testify, I described the route I took, and provided a local newspaper article - from a few days after I was cited - that had a picture of the last sign being put up...a few days _after_ I was cited, and that last sign happened to be on the road I had traveled. I argued that the wording technically made all the cases heard that day eligible for fine reductions, but that I was in the position of not seeing the notification that the legislature clearly intended to make available. Sorry about the length. The judge's statement admonished the deputy for a couple of things, then editorialized about the legislature restricting the courts from considering individual cases...so, I thought I was gonna win. But I was found guilty, and the fine was reduced to $26. The judge explained that the state got a flat $25 from any guilty verdict on a violation, and the remaining $1 would go to the county.
Law abiding citizens should not have to be terrified of the police ! They used to be respected and appreciated. Now , people don't trust them , a traffic stop is a shake down.
At every stop, they automatically assume every person is a criminal and a threat. I automatically assume every police officer is an assumptive, trigger-happy idiot.
Hell Im white but because I drive a piece of shit geo I keep getting pulled over. Now I'm documenting it and gonna sue the next time.@@damonmelendez856
The cops are there to maintain the status quo so those in privileged positions have always thought the cops did a good job. Minorities and those on the bottom economically don't feel the same nostalgia for the 'good' old days.
What is so frustrating that you are completely sober, never drank, and they still arrest you. Now you have to get a lawyer, costing you money. I believe that if you are found not guilty, the town or county should pay for your defense
If you have no alcohol or drugs in your system, would it be a good strategy to refuse the field sobriety tests, but consent to the blood tests? And perhaps get your own independent blood tests done as well? It seems like that might get rid of the cop's ability to "interpret" the field tests in which ever way benefits them and at the same time offer them pretty much absolute proof that you are not chemically impaired.
The ONLY thing a FST can accomplish is to provide the officer with probable cause for an arrest, and you will ALWAYS fail. Check your state laws. Unless state law requires you to do the test, I wouldn't. (Not a lawyer tho) I know for a fact that I would fail a FST at the best possible time.
State of Florida the field sobriety test is not mandatory, only the breathalyzer is. After completion of the breathalyzer you have the right to a blood test in a timely manner which you must pay for.
if you are completely sober it is even more important to not do any of the tests, because they could use them as evidence of impairment where otherwise there will be none
I had a positive experience after admitting to drinking, which is definitely rare. I was driving home from Philadelphia @ 3am & had taken an unfamiliar route & ended up going 5mph over the speed limit. I was pulled over by a NJ State Police female trooper. She asked all the questions- for my documents, why I was speeding, where I was coming from/going to, had I been drinking, etc. I had been @ a bar watching bands perform while catching up with an old friend. She asked me to exit the car & I did. At the event, I did have 2 drinks - 1 during each of the first 2 bands - last drink around 9pm. I wasn't trying to drive 75 miles home inebriated. I relayed this info to her honestly & thoroughly, thinking she'd probably want me to do sobriety exercises. She remarked that she didn't think I was drunk & never asked me to do them. I informed her that I'd never taken that particular route home, & had just turned onto that road from a road that was 55mph. (This road was 50mph, but there was no sign yet from where I came from.) She listened & accepted what I said to be credible & we actually stood there for a good 20 minutes chatting about music venues in Philadelphia we'd each been to & some of the various bands that play them. She just gave me a verbal warning to always obey the speed limit & we parted ways, only after she was called to another task over her radio. It was truly a lovely experience! We had a great conversation. I believe we struck one another as the type of gal who we'd be friends with in real life, were circumstances different. Watching all these videos, however, make me so grateful for that experience, because she could've pulled me out of the car & found a way to say I was drunk, since I'd admitted to those 2 drinks 6 hours prior. She had an outstanding character; she listened & was friendly, yet still professional in carrying out her duties, not simply looking to screw someone who had 2 drinks & wasn't intoxicated. Don't drive drunk! Blessings to all❤
@OlRuss-ki8go 😂LOL, thank you for that! It's much appreciated. Perhaps we'll just leave that as a mystery. In this context, however, a person's physical appearance shouldn't have any bearing on the situation. When I analyze the encounter, maybe she did do an "informal" sobriety test by speaking to me at length outside of my car, standing up. I'm sure if I was slurring my speech, speaking incoherently, having disjointed thoughts, or falling all over myself, the outcome would've been drastically different.
Another thing with talking a lot, that gives the officer the opportunity to smell if there's alcohol on your breath. Another thing that I was advised about ages ago, is that if you've been drinking, absolutely DO NOT think that a piece of gum, a mint, or a piece of candy is going to help mask the alcohol smell. They actually do the exact opposite. They all actually enhance the sweetness of the alcohol smell making it much easier to smell.
Knew a man many years ago who was drinking, had a wreck, 1 car accident, got out of the car poped open a beer started drinking. About 4 beers later the cop arrived dude made sure the cop saw him drinking, then went on to explain that the wreck shook him up so much that he then started drinking to calm down even tho he was drunk when the police arrived there was no evidence that he was drinking before the wreck!
I once saw a prank video (probably foreign) where cop was giving a field sobriety test. The driver was easily passing it, then the cop opened his trunk and brought out a unicycle... 🤣
Do not answer questions, do not consent to searches, do not perform any tests including field sobriety tests. Nothing will help you it will only hurt you. The only required test is a blood or breath test AFTER you have been arrested. The roadside ones are not required even to maintain your license. The only thing you should do is hand your license, registration, and insurance. check the video of the Iowa college student who blew 0.00 and they arrested him for DUI anyway.
One double standard I don't understand is when Officers know you're intoxicated, you may even tell them you are but, they still may ask you to consent to something. Why is it ok for them to ask this when in other cases the law will say you can't consent when intoxicated? For instance, a guy meets a girl at a bar where they both get intoxicated, then she consents to going home with him and have sex but, the next day, she doesn't remember giving consent etc. and she says he took advantage of her. The law/lawyers will say she was intoxicated and couldn't consent. Yet, every DWI/DUI, Officers will ask for consent multiple times throughout the stop for different reasons.
The law is written such that you consented to the sobriety tests when you signed your license. It is assumed that you were sober at that time, and you consented to the tests for sobriety when driving when you signed your driver's license.
#1 Check the laws in your state. In Oregon, you can refuse the field sobriety tests, but if you refuse the breathalyzer (or blood) test, your license will be automatically suspended for 1 year, regardless of whether you are convicted of a DUI.
*if you have been arrested* for DUI. Implied consent laws don't generally apply until you have been placed under arrest, not field sobriety tests while detained during a traffic stop. Oregon: oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_813.100
Amazing. In America we need to receive a special education to protect us from our own police. It used to be the case that our police existed to help and protect us. The days of encouraging our children to learn that police are our friends are over.
It's always been this way. Back in the day, if you got stopped by the cops, the consensus of your friends was that you must've done something wrong. Not anymore.
What I've learned from watching the videos online and reading through the case files for probably hundreds of dui arrests: As soon as the officer says he smelle alcohol, thats it, that the whole game. There is virtually nothing you can do to prevent being arrested, if they want to arrest you. You can do as much calisthenics on the the side of the road as they are asking for, it wont matter. The decision whether you will be arrested or not has already been made they are just looking for things to bolster their case. Even if they have a pbt and you blow .03 or .04 or even straight 0.00, they will usually say the pbt isnt super accurate and often massivlly underestimates someones actual intoxication. If you again blown straight 0s, at the station, they will assume its a drug of some sort and ask for urine. Those results take time so either way, you are going down to the jail. None of this means the case will hold up. If you play it the right way and take the advice of the attorney here, you may have a fighting chance. So usually they will ask you a few preliminary questions, like have you been drinking, how much have ya had, when was your last drink etc then they go to the car to run everything. At that point you may have 5-10 minutes where you will still have access to your phone, thats the point where you text your boss if you work the following morning, your spouse, see if you need to make child care arrangements for the night if you have animals that need care that night. If the officer who stopped you is going to handle the dui, he will be back and want you focused on him not your phone, if they have a "expert dui" officer on shift, they often call them out and they take over. One case I remember was a hit and run case. So there is already probable caus for arrest before the officer goes to the home of the registered owner. At this point its probably 30-45 minutes post accident. The registered owner is a young woman, 20-30 or so. Shes already effectively under arrest but he doesn't tell her that right away, give her the miranda warnings before asking more questions. He asks her "Have you had anything more to drink since you got home?" She says "no." Had she not given an answer it would be very hard for the state to prove she had not consumed the alcohol at home after driving. A defense attorney could say she wasnt intoxicated while she was driving, she came home and took 5 or 6 shots of vodka so thats why her bac was high. Another case of note. It was a vehicle crash but not with another car, it was a fixed object, a street sigh or phone pole...not a lot of damage but the driver fled. Registed owner of the car calls the police, says he was at a house party, someone took his keys and drove off with his car and hes not sure exactly who it was. Needless to say the officer is extremely skeptical. He had a vague description from another motorist but they couldnt be certain it was him, couldnt positively identity him as the one they saw. The officer is very suspicious that he was the one driving, but doesn't have probable cause to put him behind the wheel. The kid is like 21 or 22, he calls his mom out. The cop tells the kid he has been positively identified as the driver and that making a false report is a felony. He tells them hes willing to let the felony slide, not charge him with the false report, if he will just admit to being the driver. After about 10-15 minutes, the kid breaks and admits it.....the officer lied. Filing a false report under those circumstances is a misdemeanor since it didnt adversely affect someone else, same as dui and that case would have been work, he was talking about going to nearby businesses, seeing which had cameras and if any of them caught any footage....thats an awful lot of footwork for a misdemeanor.
Where I live, a new law lets them charge you with DWI up to 2 hours after you arrive at home. Saw a video where some karen called the cops and said a car was driving erratically. Cops went to the guy's house and made him blow.
I was pulled over and had had 2 beers and was told I had to do sobriety test because I admitted to drinking. Thankfully, I passed the field sobriety test and went on my way but I was nervous as I did the test in high heels.
This is good advise. I was pulled over in Vegas after having a few drinks and respectfully declined any tests. I was cordially arrested and my blood was drawn at the station(I was over the limit). I did 24hrs in jail but a month later the case was dropped due to iffy probable cause and lack of further evidence other than the officers speculation. The blood draw was inadmissible as well.
@@agoogleuser3808 he declined field sobriety test, which you can do, and took blood test. So you are allowed to decline the sobriety tests. If they question tell them you have a bad back.
@@agoogleuser3808 Only if you are convicted. If they do a blood draw and you are under the limit, why would they take your license, for what, a non-conviction?
Interesting take on the PBT. I’ve heard another DUI attorney say never ever ever take the PBT because of the fact that it’s inadmissible and can’t help you but only can hurt you…..
It depends on the state. In some states, when you sign your license, you're agreeing to an automatic suspension for a year if you refuse to take the PBT/sobriety-tests, so you'll HAVE to get the blood-draw, but even that might not help depending on how corrupt the cops and courts are.
2:34 I agree, arguing with a cop is pointless during a traffic stop. By the time they ask if you have had anything to drink they have already made up their mind on giving you a field subjective opinion test. You will never pass a field sobriety test if they think you have been drinking.
It's so sad that most of this does NOT apply to me, up here in Canada. If I refuse a roadside sobriety test, not only am I charged but my charge is doubled, fine is doubled. I can be stopped for NO reason now since 2018 in Canada and told to take a roadside test, nystagmus, walk the line, and hold one foot up for 30 seconds. Canadian police are NOT allowed to make me to math tests...I do not have to count backwards or say the alphabet, etc. I cannot speak to a lawyer before my roadside test or the roadside breath test, only after being arrested and taken to the police department can I then call a lawyer. Here is where is gets greasy, say the cop does not like me, he can arrest me for DUI, take me to the department to test me on the accurate machine, where I blow all zero's...BUT, even though they now let me go...I STILL have a record for DUI arrest, just not conviction ! ...that can stop me from getting a job AND from entering the USA. My car is towed and impounded by "friends" of the police, so they charged over double what a regular tow is and I have to pay impound fees...that can get into the hundreds of dollars ...even though I did not drink a drop. Because the car is being impounded, the cop now has the right to search the car to check for any valuables before storage, BUT he gets to search the car in the meantime. Since I cannot stop the cop from giving me a roadside test that is designed for failure, something like a 60% fail rate ... I have decided to educate myself on roadside tests. I have downloaded the file that teaches the cops themselves, what to look for etc. I have tested myself over 100 times so far now. I do not even have to listen to the directions anymore...I have them memorized. I also learned how a cop can cheat a little bit...when giving the nystagmus test, if he points you towards the headlights of oncoming cars, or stands you in front of his flashing lights, that can cause a false positive during the nystagmus test. He can move the pen the wrong way called " looping" which causes a false positive, he is to hold the pen 9 to 15 inches from your face for the test. Like I said, I didn't just watch RU-vid videos on how to take the test, I downloaded the actual manual that is given to the cops and learned what mistakes the cops themselves can make to give a false positive. The way a cop wins is, he tells you to stand with your feet in front of each other and then he proceeds to give you TWELVE directions, while you are standing like that. Normal people are trying so hard to not step out that they fail to understand all the directions, so this makes it so dam hard to pass this test, UNLESS you have practiced it over and over and over until you can do it without any directions. I have 3 dashcams in my car, 2 are out in the open and a 3rd one is hidden, in case the cop takes the micro SD cards out of the first 2. I have my phone set with a program that shuts the phone down, no incoming calls or texts with a black screen, BUT, it's recording all the time and saving the data to an encrypted micro sd card. . . Android phones have an external micro SD card port, iPhones do not. One more year and I won't have to worry about all this because in Canada, a police officer CANNOT give you a roadside soberity test if you are 65 or older ....I'll be 65 next year, plus, I don't drink.
Buddy, just about every single thing you just said is true here too, except for being stopped for "no reason" (although they can make up just about anything to justify it and the courts will go along with it, and I would argue all of the DUI checkpoints and stuff we do are effectively the same thing as being stopped for no reason either way). The only thing that's different from what you listed as far as I can tell is that you're allowed to refuse to do their hokey-pokey dances, although plenty of states will also automatically suspend your license or impose extra fines or charges if you refuse and you can absolutely still be arrested anyway, so there's no real difference there. You also can't speak to an attorney before any tests in the US either, all requesting a lawyer will do is stop questioning (assuming the cop is honest, and I think your human rights charter says pretty much the same thing, although I could certainly be mistaken) so you will absolutely be arrested and taken for a blood draw or breath test without consulting an attorney beforehand. Cops here are also allowed to ignore the 4th amendment in order to do an "inventory" when they impound your car. Hell, the cops here can field test an 80 year old if they feel like it (will it actually hold up under cross examination? probably not, but that's besides the point, the arrest is still always on the record) and the methods of field testing can vary massively from state to state or even department to department, so you can't even really prepare yourself here in the same way that you described doing, so that actually sounds like one area where you guys have a leg up. A DUI arrest (not conviction) can also prevent an American from crossing in to Canada as well. The part where you talked about here's where it gets greasy is absolutely identical to what goes on here, especially when it comes to how dirty the towing and impound hustle is, which is one of the most evil aspects of the entire operation. All I'm saying is don't imagine it's somehow better down here. People accused of DUIs are incredibly easy targets, they're automatically assumed to be a villain so they're an easy cash cow to be exploited.
@@lorehammer40k4 Wow, I read every word you typed, twice. I find educating myself about cop to civilian interactions important. I BET you that you do not have this law that was enacted in 2018 also. In Canada, if a police officer witnessed you driving or you admitted it yourself, you can be forced to take a breath test up to 2 hours AFTER driving your vehicle, and up to 3 hours if you have consumed drugs. So, picture this, you are sitting in a bar, at 10 pm drinking, the Cop walks in and asks you if you drove there, you say yes, he then asks you how long, you say 2 hours ago. . . he can then take you outside and make you test. The cops say that they can "figure out" if you were drinking and driving before you got there by how drunk you are ... if you blow a high number, they say that you could NOT have drank that much booze in 2 hours to give a reading that high and you care charged. What if I am an alcoholic, a bad alcoholic, walked into the bar and started drinking triples of scotch for 2 hours, of course I'm going to be way over what is expected. There is more to the story but this is generalized here. What can you do? ...if you drove home after leaving a bar and then the cops knock on your door ... Don't Answer ...they are not allowed to come in for you and it would take too long for a warrant. . . just don't answer the door. Be careful if you lie to the cop if in a bar because the bar cams can show that you were truly there for less than 2 hours, etc ... and lying to a cop is a charge in itself. This is the "fake" reason why this Canadian law was enacted...to stop "power drinkers" ... The Government said that people are buying quarts of hard liquor and downing the bottle and then driving home before the effects of the whole bottle has made the person drunk...My God, that is even hard to believe that the Government would even use a far-fetched story like that to get the Bill passed, but it did. Another reason for this law was to stop this: You are seen driving badly, but before the cop can stop you, you pull into your driveway and run up the steps and grab a bottle of vodka on your porch and chug, chug, chug half the bottle . . . now you can't be given a test because you drank AFTER driving. I really have to admit, as I'm reseaching this here so that I can copy and paste, I'm finding conflicting data, but it might be because I am finding data from different provinces, maybe each province has subtle changes to their laws...maybe. Here is how a lawyer explained how corrupt this new law is: " He points to a number of scenarios where people park their cars with no intention of driving anytime soon, then start drinking. "You can imagine a situation where a husband and wife are out together. The husband drives to the bar knowing the wife will be the designated driver on the way home, and she's not going to be consuming alcohol that night. The husband drinks alcohol and is now over the limit and has driven a vehicle within the previous two hours," said Brown. Brown says police can legally enter the bar, or wait for the couple to leave the establishment and demand a breath sample from the husband. "Even if he's walking to the passenger side of the car, if he is now over 80," added Brown, he will be arrested. " You probably know this, but this applies to driving, boating, bicycling and yes .. Canoeing. I'll copy and paste the exact wording just so you know what I mean and if I made a slight boo boo in my recollection of the law: 320.14(1) of the Criminal Code). Bill C-46 Operating a conveyance while impaired (paragraph 320.14(1)(a)); Having a BAC of 80 or more within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14(1)(b)); Having a blood drug concentration (BDC) over the prescribed legal limit within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14(1)(c)); It gets worse: Here in Canada, the cops can take your alcohol level and ADD it to your weed level and if they add up to 0.08 or more, you are charged with DUI. They can actually figure out that those 2 beers you had and that small little toke you took off a joint on the back patio of the bar is enough to put you over. . . so, 0.04 of alcohol and 0.04 nanograms of weed, you are in jail. Here is how it is written in the Criminal Code of Canada: Having a combined BAC and BDC over the prescribed legal limit within two hours of operating a conveyance (paragraph 320.14 (1)(d)); I got to stop typing, the more I read, the more pissed off I'm getting by reminding myself that I live in a communist State.
@@TYRONE_SHOELACES I also like learning about this crap, even from other countries, and I have to say that whole adding of the numbers is completely absurd, an absolutely nonsensical law that we have nothing similar to, as far as I'm aware they would be considered separately, however you can easily be charged and convicted of DUI here without even being tested or even having a cop see you driving, and it can happen hours or even days later so long as they have witness accounts or some kind of video evidence of your driving behavior. For example, there are plenty of stories of people crashing their car somewhere, walking home and being arrested for DUI hours or even days later despite there being no actual evidence they were drunk (or even, technically, that they were actually the one driving), just that they crashed and fled (which is obviously it's own charge as well). When it comes to DUI or DWI here, neither of them are "driving while drunk", they're driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated, so they don't have to actually prove you were intoxicated from being drunk or even taking an illegal drug, they just have to convince a jury that you weren't stone cold sober, and since jurys are full of complete idiots who think things like "you must be guilty of something if you're being charged" or "cops wouldn't lie". You can be seen swerving a tiny bit but never crossing any lines and be charged with a DUI because you took cough medicine that morning. It literally happened to my mother, she is over 65, doesn't drink or anything (and hadn't even taken anything like cough syrup), but someone called and said they saw her car swerve a little bit so the cops showed up at her house two hours later and made this elderly woman do their agility test and charged her with a DUI despite her being 0.00. Just look what happened to that college kid who had his high beams on, all it took was him "struggling" to get his insurance and he was about to be charged (luckily that department had another officer test him before going through with it, but that's very rare). Like I said, there's just about no one who is so easy for the government to villainize so they can extract thousands and thousands of dollars in fines and towing fees and all of that crap, and they know 95% of people are just going to take a plea deal anyway. It's easy to pass more and more ridiculous laws around DUIs, because everyone hates drunk drivers, right? Hell, even us describing how absurd it is could easily have other people asking us why we want to protect drunks and crap, and on another channel it probably already would have. As for your last point, neither of us live in communist countries, I mean, come on, that's just ridiculous and it sounds just as absurd as blue hair twitter kids calling everything under the sun that they don't like fascist, so please don't do that, I can tell just from the small exchange we've had so far that you're smarter than that. However, we both do absolutely live in authoritarian police states, and there's no way to argue against that if you're paying attention to what's going on at all, at least in my opinion.
As a retired police officer, my best advice is not to drive after drinking any alcohol at all. If you want to forget that then the next best advice, I can give you is to make 100 percent sure that all the equipment on your vehicle is working perfectly. And last but not least.......do not drive under the posted speed limit unless you are in the process of stopping. Going thirty miles per hour in a posted fifty and above speed limit zone is the biggest red flag available as to your sobriety. You probably are not.
So I guess everyone on their phones and texting while driving 30 in a 50 would be counted as drunk drivers then. Also, if you're a cop and drunk drive, nothing will happen to you (good ol' boys and all...)
I watch a ton of these dui body cam police videos and most of the time, the drivers are combative and become difficult-they make their own mess. But those field sobriety tests are ridiculous. Old folks aren’t passing that if they have balance issues. And according to many body movement experts, young folks aren’t as active and are also losing balance. They need to reasses the fld sobriety testing. I agree the drivers need to communicate they are scared to death and terrified. This was a great video! Thank you!!
I've see a guy so obese he could barely walk demonstrate those tests. There is no reason anyone without major medical issues should struggle with them.
How about this one? Drive right, dont drink and drive ever, maintain your vehicle especially lights, try not to ever go 5 over the speed limit on open roads but never in towns. I have over 4 million miles as a truck driver. Been pulled over quite a bit for random roadside DOT inspections. Passed them. Been stopped for speeding twice way over the 5mph mark. Got a seatbelt ticket for 20 over and a roadside DOT insp for 17 over but no speeding ticket. Passed the DOT insp. Two non fault accidents. Rear ended. Then a motorcycle tried passing me while making a left hand turn. All signal lights were working per witnesses. Yes everyone is nervous getting pulled over. But overly nervous? If the evidence says you were not dwi or dui fight it and never plea out. Hell make a payment plan with your lawyer if need be.
Great video. As you pointed out, different states have different rules. In Arizona it's no tolerance, if you used mouthwash or are tired, you're going to jail.
I used to routinely drive to work at 0200-0300h. I also walk with a limp (getting worse with time). Well, one morning I'm pulled-over for 85 in a 55 (4-lane highway, no other cars in sight), and I don't think that I even had both feet on the ground before this smart-ass cop made a comment about me having difficulty stepping out of my car. I just calmly told him that he could watch me have just as much trouble getting back into my car. I did not go for my cane, fearing getting shot. He did the "follow my flashlight test" until I was almost blind, and then apparently gave up. But the bastard did charge me for the full 30 mph over the limit. Prick. You could tell he was salivating over getting another DWI to his record, and I disappointed him. A-hole. I also had another nuclear engineer (like me) who was tall and gangly, but did not drink. At all. He was just so uncoordinated that he was actually arrested for DWI. I hope the cop was embarrassed when my friend blew a 0.00. Just like I would have. I love to drink, but I'm not stupid.
I'm sorry, very true. The police are looking for intoxicated drivers ( as they should), but you were pushing it. Going 85 in a 55, ok , that was your fault. The flashlight part definitely would make anyone blind. Be well.
Your 10-Step Guide to Police Encounters 1. Always record the police. 2. Always ask, "Am I free to go?" 3. Always get their names and badge numbers. 4. If you are certain that you are being detained unlawfully, you are under no obligation to identify yourself. 5. Always say, "I don't consent to any searches." 6. Never resist arrest. 7. Always sue. 8. You can also sue the cops if you believe they don't deserve qualified immunity by showing in court that no reasonable officer would believe that the officers' conduct was legal. 9. Note: Qualified immunity applies only in civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions. 10. Seek legal advice if you're unsure about your rights or the legality of a police encounter.
Refusing a breathalyzer in Oregon put a friend of mine in jail for the night and resulted in a suspended license. There were no charges filed against him. But, the only way to remove that suspension meant taking alcohol classes. I don't know the details, but it seems the law was kind of weird on that since there was no actual proof of alcohol being involved.
Refusing the breathalyser in the UK always results in you being assumed to be over the limit, and you lose your licence for a year anyway, unless you have a proven medical reason that you are physically unable to perform the test properly.
