Ok, so New Jersey threw out 18,000 dwi's. Still, that's 18,000 lives inconveniented, made to pay bail, higher insurance, possibly lost employment...where is their justice?
There's no justice in America. Hasn't been any for quite some time. America is a violent, Police State run by psychopaths. Our younger generations have been dumb down to the point where no one stands up to them. Yes, we do hear about a few who slip from tyranny and do get some justice but it's rare.
@@trevorsreya8277 You are absolutely correct. It's an adversarial system too. Even Black's Law Dictionary says it isn't about justice. Justice is but an illusion. Therefore, the door is open to corruption, money, unequal verdicts and punishment. The entire system is horrible to its people.
“Threw out “ doesn’t even mean the charge came off your record. Unless your charge was expunged it could still come up on a background check. So 18k people are still royally screwed.
I saw a court case video from a southern state. The arresting cop stated that the breathalyzer at the PD worked perfectly, and that every time he used it on suspects, it came back with either .12 or .13. It turned out he had used it almost 100 times over the past five years, and it had read either .12 or .13 every single time. The lawyer called the chief, and found that they called for service 5 years prior because they thought their machine was not working correctly because it often showed that drivers were not over the limit. A technician came in and "adjusted" it to always show the desired result - even when nothing but fresh air was used. It was a jury trial, and they convicted based on the cop's "experience and expertise", and the judge refused to give a directed verdict. We no longer have a criminal justice system - we have a convict everyone system.
Exactly. Generate revenue for the state, federal, vatican,etc, based on statues and codes laws, which are mere contracts, or attempts to contract. This type of law is what's called color of law/maritime/admiralty, and they only have jurisdiction against corporations/death entities/fictions or fictitious PERSONS. These laws do not apply to men and women, so they changed the definition of a person to be a corporation and men and women not knowing this, consent to be that name on government id's,which are written in all capital letters making them such CORPORATIONS. It all fraud. It's about consented contracts period.ATENTTION: This is fact, not fiction...
In 91, I refused a roadside portable breathalyzer because I watched the cop use a "hand sanitizer" before inserting the tube into the machine without gloves. NO WAY was I going to blow through an alcohol coated straw into a machine designed to read alcohol level in the air coming through that straw !😂😅 I still to this day believe that act WAS DELIBERATE.
That's ANOTHER anecdote of why you record, Record, RECORD all encounters with law enforcement. I can well imagine if you were recording and got THAT on camera, the cop would be royally pissed at being "caught".
@@selfdo You got to remember in 1991 cameras were bulkier. if there was such a thing as a dash cam setup, it would be expensive. I remember in those days you normally would have one for events or home movies not everyday use.
I got pulled over sober, taken in , failed the breathalyzer, my lawyer showed it was still connected to the calibration sample and had that evidence dismissed. I was still convicted because the officer said I looked drunk.. Guilt or innocence don't matter, they just do what they want without care , and its detrimentally affected my whole life...
@@Holypikemanz I did actually think of it back then, they told me that I would have to be injured to go to the hospital to get a blood test and have to pay for it out of pocket. But back then I didn't know that they aren't only allowed to lie about anything they want but are actively encouraged to do so and make it a general habit as well. If it is true I'd just put my head through the window, cut myself up real good and tell them I get powerful muscle spasms. They will be too worried about getting blood on themselves or having to clean their car then worry about how much they want to mess up my life. Hindsight 20/20.
@@Holypikemanz basically if that was something I could have done, they would just lie and tell me I couldn't, cuz I did ask and they told me I couldn't.
Yep, that's one aspect that the video didn't cover very well. You don't *need* to be over the legal limit to still be impaired - and that judgement is going to ultimately come down to the cop's "judgement". It's the same thing with them arresting you. They mentioned in the video that the PBT isn't admissible in court, but can give probable cause for an arrest. But if a cop wants to arrest you, they can anyway. "I smelled strong alcohol" or "based on my training and experience, they seemed very impaired" etc. That's why I wouldn't do a field sobriety test. If they ask me to do it the tests, they've likely already decided to arrest me, and now they're just trying to justify it.
New Years Eve 1997, I was pulled over for going through a red light in NY. Roads were coated in ice due to snow fall earlier. Officer asked me if I knew why he pulled me over. I said yes sir, I consciously drove through the light as it was turning red because I felt it was unsafe to stop given the road conditions. He said he wanted to give me a breath test. I said, ok, I am NOT refusing your test. However, I run an electronics warehouse a mile down the road. I can take you there right now and show eight of those machines that are defective. He never told me what I blew and said drive home safely.
I went to court for a DWI is Texas in 1987 for 0.28 . The officer testified he could not tell I was drunk and that I said the Alphabet backwards 3 times in a row because he did not believe it was possible! The judge dismissed the case against me, I was not drunk at all - machine lied.
I could only do the alphabet backwards if I'd been drinking and in the zone, otherwise I'd stutter -- busted 😂 I've seen fidgeting with those things. "0.28" he should've taken you to the hospital, that seizure and stroke territory from fluid build up in the brain. They're not supposed to release you if you're at/above 0.24... think the other set mark is 0.16, could be 0.12. meh I'm not an er doc
Back in 1983 in Pasadena Texas first DWI case they made me blow in that machine over 25 times to get an 009 reading I only had two beers the whole night and it was draft beers on top of that add a concert well that revoke my probation you got me sent to prison for 3 months and 29 days but from that day forward it ruined my life I wished I knew how I could go back in that time and fight that case I was given no test to see if I was drunk out there where the copper rested me were the cop arrested me no sobriety test at all no rights read to me I was very young and stupid
@@ScrappyXFL That is the best reply - thank you! I should be dead according to the breathalyzer. He said: "Do Not sing the Alphabet song"! How was that going to help - backwards? I was not drunk and just ran the Alphabet from Z to A. My first time ever! 3 times in a row. :)
I am a toxicologist. Several years ago in Brooklyn I stepped out of a bar after having 2 beers over an hour time period. A cop was waiting for me to get to my car. He stopped me and asked me to blow into a portable. I blew and he told me that I was above 0.1 (the limit at that time in NY). I knew that it was impossible so I told him that I am a toxicologist and demanded a blood alcohol. He let me go.
The fact that the manufacturers REFUSE to let both the general public and defense teams inspect these devices is an automatic injection of reasonable doubt into any attempted prosecution.
I just don't play their games anymore, period... I got medically retired from the military and on top of the litany of knee, ankle, back, and other ortho damage, I have a TBI and suffer from a circadian rhythm disorder- I'm up at all hours of the night, and sometimes I just want to go for a drive and clear my head. Why do I bring this up? Because of the amount of times I've been pulled over between 0130 and ~0400 on some bogus "crossed a line" or "didn't signal 100 feet before" claim, immediately followed by "how many drinks have you had" and "sir, I'm going to need you to do some tests for me"... Which is pretty funny, since I **DON'T DRINK**. It's gotten to the point that I just roll my eyes, point at my dashcam, and inform them "nope, I didn't, mypp dashcam can prove it, and I'm retired and bored enough to make a day out of hobbling into court to prove it". If that's not enough to stiffle their BS fishing expedition (it seems to be about 50/50), I send a pre-programmed SOS text that goes to a text thread with a few relatives and close friends alerting them that I need help and to contact my lawyer, and I've got a laminated piece of paper in my visor that I hand over that says: "1) Both my driving and this stop are being video recorded 2) I don't consent to any searches or siezures. 3) As you know doubt saw from the DV plate, I am disabled veteran with [redacted list of diagnosed injuries requiring these surgeries], I have a TBI and nerve damage, and I have to walk with a cane. As I am NOT REQUIRED to submit to any FST's, I do not consent to them and will not be participating. 4) I am willing to submit to a preliminary breath test in order to assuage any doubt as to my sobriety and speed up this violation of my rights, *IF* the device and a qualified operator are already located on scene and it can be administered in a timely manner. 5) As allowed by law, I *will* refuse a formal breath test at the station and demand a blood gas chromatograph at a hospital. 6) If the decision is made for arrest, I am hereby notifying you that because of underlying medical and psychological conditions, I require medical care and am requesting an ambulance. 7) I am hereby invoking my right to remain silent, and will answer no further questions. I will not resist, and will comply with commands under duress, as I must assume that I am not free to do otherwise. 8) My lawyer's name is [redacted] and he can be reached at [redacted]; I am requesting his presence, and any questions should be directed to him." Is my approach obnoxious, paranoid, and wholely unnecessary? Ten years ago, I'd have told you YES, without so much as a second thought... But after the ammount of times i've been pulled over, accused, and hassled, despite not doing anything wrong? NOPE, it's 100% necessary. The police here seem to drive around under the assumption that EVERYONE on the road is drunk or somehow guilty, and they have ZERO problems trying to fabricate something- they see my ratty old truck, and they just can't help themselves... After the 2nd time I wound up having to take an Uber home from the police station and paying to get my truck out of impound despite the fact that I was released with no charges, I had to come up with something... Do I still get randomly pulled over? Yeah, I'd sat at *LEAST* once a month... But ever since I decided to play hardball and sat down with a lawyer I met through an advocacy group and started handing over a piece of paper and shutting my mouth? It's never made it any farther than sitting there for another 15 minutes while they discuss with their supervisor... They can stare at me like I'm being an a-hole all they want, IDGAF. 🤷♂️
I got pulled over a few days ago because he couldn’t see the dealer plates behind my tinted window. It was a valid stop and I was breaking the law but when he asked where I was coming from I said “I don’t answer questions” (I should have said I’d like to remain silent but I didn’t really think first). He snarked back “oh you don’t answer questions” with a grin and immediately asks what’s in the open can in my cup holder. I refused to answer or show him and he says well then I suspect it’s alcohol and you’re going to have to get out of the car. I thought about it for a few seconds, I knew I didn’t have to show him and he can order me out of the car for any reason. I knew he would pat me down if I got out but I didn’t have anything on me or in the car that could cause me any trouble so I decided to get out. I wanted to shut the door behind me but he blocked me and had me put my hands on the car to pat me down. He checks every square inch of my body and then goes in my car to retrieve the Rockstar energy drink from the cup holder. He was shocked to discover it wasn’t alcohol. I asked for his card and he says I’ll give it to you with the ticket I’m going to write, get back in your car. It took him another 20 minutes to write the ticket. He claimed it took all that time because I had a dealer tag from out of state but I’m going to try to obtain anything that might show he was just stalling in retaliation. Asking to see the can was definitely retaliation but I don’t know how I could prove it. If anyone in the state of OH could offer any insight on this I would really appreciate it.
@@MatthewHensley8304 where did you read that you could use a powered vehicle on the public roads without a permission slip? Thats a actually a good way of wording it. What about the right to be safe on the roads? You do need to prove your eyes work and you can safely operate a vehicle on the public roads we all pay for. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to use any means necessary to travel from point a to point b. There is something in the constitution that says each state gets to make up its own rules, provided they don’t go against the US constitution. Much of the land used to build the roads you speak of was taken through eminent domain which I bet you also have a problem with but you still want to take advantage of the system it provides? Why stop at automobiles? Should I be able to buy a helicopter and fly over your house without training? It would inhibit my ability to travel.
My dad was a criminal defense attorney and always said to never take a breathalyzer test. In CA you have the option of what kind of test to take, and always demand a blood test.
My nephew is NYPD. We were talking about this subject one day and I asked him whether it was a good idea to submit to a breathalyzer test if pulled over. His advice? "Never blow". They know those things are junk technology.
The sad thing is that you're not even supposed to demand a blood test at best you're suppose to demand a warrant. Those documents make it clear that they are all self-executing no matter if it's the 4th Amendment that mandates a warrant. Those documents apply to the so-called government not the people and therefore it would make no sense that individuals would have to execute them before this so-called government is mandated to comply.
I am hyper paranoid when it comes to needles. But I will still refuse any test other than a blood test. It's the Only Test I trust to be even slightly likely to be accurate. And I don't even drink !!
I am a lifetime laboratorian. The operator is the most important part of the test system. Calibrations and controls are essential to an accurate result. Remember the Laboratorian’s Creed- “Assume It’s wrong. Prove It’s Right.”
@@allyn1016 I will elaborate. My degree is in Clinical Laboratory Science. I have worked in chemical plants making acetaminophen and ibuprofen. And also hospital laboratories developing test systems for hepatitis and HIV- and many others. I work in a laboratory. I am a laboratorian. I am a scientist.
My brother doesn't drink, I do! He got taken in for a DWI. They had a video camera in the booking area. He talked them into giving him his fany pack, telling them he had his driving license there. They got it for him after a quick search. He gave them the license. He also kept three tennis balls there. He was a juggling fool since we were younkers! He commenced putting on a 15-minute juggling/comedy show. They charged him. He called his doctor, who said he knows he does not drink and anyone with the BAC they charged him with would be near comatose, not juggling and making jokes. The cops were hardly phased, but the sheriff was PO'd that the booking took so long. COPS LIE! The judge tossed it!
Back when I practiced law and had to take CLE, I took a drunk driving defense course and the instructor said never take these drunk tests, none of them, because it's a rigged game.
As a degree holding scientist, using a tool to determine how much alcohol is in your blood by using your expiration to figure it out is a flawed test at best. These are used mainly to monetize the DUI stops.
The problem is there’s a lot of money in drunk driving. Police departments can get big grant money for DUI’s. Police chiefs send their guys out to get DUI’s. They offer all kinds of incentives. It’s the perfect scam, who’s going to stick up for the drunk driver!
Who's gonna "stick up" for the "drunk" driver? Well, in theory, NO ONE, if he's legally drunk and unfit to drive. However, as it's become a criminal matter, the accused "drunk" has every right to not testify against himself, and to the assistance of counsel in his legal defense. Many "MADD" types get indignant at DUI Defense Attorneys, pontificating about "how can THEY represent drunk drivers?". Answer: because it's a part of the justice system, that's WHY. And sorry, I forgot to mention "DAMM" (Drunks Against MADD Mothers).
In some states if you get convicted and sentenced to "work release" program at a county jail or ankle monitor, the country will for the time you are in the program garnish your pay check for "administration costs". Yes it is a revenue scam as are so many traffic stops. It is infuriating. Should be looked into by Congress, not that they'd fix anything. And before anyone beats me up for supporting drunk drivers, yes it is an problem but government should not be profiting off of it or entrapping innocent citizens to generate revenue which does happen. This is why an attorney is making videos, to show how seedy and abusive some of these departments can be.
Police get big money for DUI ARRESTS. Not convictions ARRESTS. There’s a class action lawsuit in Colorado because one cop generated drunk driving cases from people that were perfectly sober.
For several years, the Kern County, California Sheriffs Department used breathalyzers that weren't certified for use by the California DOJ. These breathalyzers had been modified to show higher blood alcohol levels.
As a now disabled/retired Cop in Florida I watch your channel for the learning opportunity. I also recommend your channel to other officers I know so they can learn as well and better them selves. My daughter, just out of the police academy and starting her fto, has started watching also. Thanks for your channel.
I’d say most cops don’t really care about doing the right thing when it comes to dui. And most don’t want to learn and better themselves . They will revert to their past training hood it bad and perpetuate it. When quotas and dollars are the goal regular folks are pretty much a means to an end
@@jeffconley819 I keep telling people they're not quota's, they're " performance guidelines". Or at least that's what the command staff keeps blowing up everyone's skirts. Lol.
Guy I went to school with became a cop, and started dipping Copenhagen Burbon when it first came out. He tested it against his breathalyzer and failed it. Looked at me and said thats good information to know and had a big grin on his face knowing a lot of people were trying it just like him. Back then i knew something was off with breathalyzers and wondered how many people were falsely convicted of a DUI over the years.
@cma9042 these days I'm not 100% sure as I've not kept up with DUI laws, I do know changes were made, but at the time this happened a breathalyzer was required else it wasn't considered guilty of DUI unless a breathalyzer test was submitted. You'd be surprised how often officers skipped the breathalyzer test here, forgetting that it was needed to convict guilty.
Excellent advice and information. I learned a few new things, too. That said, I'm noticing more and more videos about people who blow under the legal limit and even blow 0.00 and still get arrested. A few of these cases even go to trial ending with convictions. In a lot of cases, the police use lies, retaliation, or without probable cause to arrest.
Where they get you is building a case where a lawyer can't say for sure whether you'd win in a trial scenario or not so people end up taking a plea bargain and pleading guilty to something (even if it's a lesser charge) because the penalties will be so much more severe if they chance it on a trial and lose despite the fact that they were completely innocent in the first place. If they don't have chemical tests to rely on for evidence but they're hellbent on making a DUI arrest, they usually show evidence of intoxication through field sobriety tests which I promise you that you'll give them what legally amounts to "evidence against you" simply by doing those tests whether you're under the influence of something or even if you re stone sober. The irony of that is that portable breath tests results are not admissible in court because they "don't meet the reliability threshold" yet a subject's performance on a series of "tests" that literally amount to nothing more than pseudoscience and was literally designed to be unpassable from it's inception IS admissible as evidence against you and carries more weight as evidence than you might think. Our justice is system in this country is far worse than imperfect, it's in complete and total shambles.
because they make money by feeding the court and prison systems with victims. the entire us justice system has been made to enslave you. time to wake up
@bradburke8232 A circus performer once beat a field sobriety test by juggling multiple items while on a unicycle and performing other stunts. The officers gave up. But that's an exception.
Those intoxalizers should never be adjustable by any body at a police station,once they are out of calibration,a alarm should go off,too send the machine back to a test lab or a third party individual not employed by any police department-should be the only one able too fool the the calibrate or there is no telling what corruption can take place. Its gross negligence the way it is adjusted calibrate.
@@johnchestnut5340 Manufacturer/model and how do non-certs calibrate the specific model? explain. It's not a weight that needs a flat surface - unless it's a paperweight (like most of them).
@Decayrate-of-Ravn-Rike Just what are you arguing? What do you need explained? What are you assuming? I think some of your assumptions are invalid. I was licensed and trained to calibrate ignition interlock modules. The stand alone machines are very similar. But they are sometimes more sensitive. They aren't made to be moved around. But calibration is otherwise the same.
@@johnchestnut5340 Standalone can stand alone just fine, in a lab. Handhelds sensors in any other field, needs constant calibration and the duds needs too thrown away. Oddly enough, devices that cops use are magic. even tho, they are have the worst build i've ever seen. When the cops also lather up their gloves or hands with sanitizer (like so many stories) the result is complete garbage. Do the blood-work, because you're fumbling in the blind with these handhelds. Every imaginable test a institution or lab needs to do must have accreditation. Which is a whole process of checking the operator, instrument, logs and handling of instrument and samples. accreditation is done by a third party. If my field handled things like cops, there wouldn't be people left in the world. -Petrochemist and Lab-technician.
I got popped @ .08 back in ‘97 & I knew at the time that it couldn’t be valid. At the time I was on the road around 70 hrs per week, & a routine that my wife & I had slipped into was dinner @ the lodge whenever I got back into town on Saturday evening. Sometimes that was as late as 9pm & she’d do a food order for me before they closed the kitchen … the point being that we’re both very clear on the time frame, as was the server, the bartender, everybody in the kitchen, & pretty much every lodge member in attendance, etc. Our _kids_ were clear on the time frame, & our neighbors were too. I stopped at the house on my way by. On that particular Saturday I showed up at a little after 9, the kitchen was still working on my dinner & I started w/ one bourbon neat, nursed that through my meal w/ coffee, then had another bourbon for desert. After that I drank water for the next 3 1/2 hrs. We left at around 1:30am, each in our own car, driving away from the edge of town into the sticks toward the house. _She_ got pulled over. I passed her & the cop, then pulled off in front of them. Stopping my wife was a _complete_ waste of time, the woman drinks like a sailor w/ absolutely no apparent effect & she wasn’t w/in 10 drinks of her limit, so the cop steps up to check me out. My wife had given him some attitude & I did too - the next thing you know, though I’ve refused FSTs & a field breathalyzer I’m in cuffs & on my way. At 220 lbs my BAC should’ve been closer to zero, but I wouldn’t have argued too much about a .01 or .02 - .08, though, that was _clearly_ BS. As a “first offense” I ended up getting 30 days suspended w/ a substantial fine, then a provisional license to get back to work with. It was the best I could do, ok - I used the 30 days as an excuse to make changes in my district that my own boss had been resisting. A coupla guys got promotions & became road supervisors, etc. Basically, I took the hit & moved on. Since, I’ve applied the aviator’s 8 hrs Bottle to Throttle rule, my intent being to _always_ be a position to insist that I haven’t had one drop to drink. A few yrs ago there was a big flap in that county about invalid DUI arrests. Turns out the sheriff’s dept & the city police had been monkeying around w/ their Intoxilyzers & had at least one or two of them rigged to assure convictions in cases where they just knew their guy was guilty, or maybe in cases where they felt they’d been disrespected - right? A .08 for me was no less than 4 to 5 times what it should’ve been & all-zeros would’ve been the more _likely_ result. From what I recall, that’s exactly what was happening with the charged cases that led to investigating local law enforcement. Typically responsible non-offenders who could be expected to pay fines & costs & then move on were being picked off as they left local restaurants & bars. It became enough of a thing that local attorneys couldn’t but notice it. Turns out an Intoxilyzer or two had been calibrated to indicate not just high, but _way_ high - high enough to rein in those who were doing a couple of drinks with dinner, then driving home. I’m a little vague on the details because I didn’t get involved w/ the case. I did call the prosecutor’s office & suggest that they look at cases going back at least as far as my own, then left it alone. I’d already used my state’s 2nd Chance law to expunge the record, & I really wasn’t interested in getting into it again. They seemed to have plenty of cases to work with, so … One thing I would suggest for anybody that knows damned well that their charges are invalid - pull the local arrest & conviction record. Start w/ court records, then go for the police agencies that generated the cases & look for patterns that might establish the predicate for a formal investigation. That’s _exactly_ how a bunch of hick cops got busted doing what cops do.
There ARE physical reasons that blood alcohol can elevate which is why the body tolerates this toxin. Your case is too complicated to analyze but it can happen.
this is obviously a fake post you cannot legally be on the road for 10 plus hours a day in a professional setting (assuming you had a normal weekend with the family) 70/5 =14 hours 70/6 is 11.5 still over the legal commercial driving laws limit (this is a federal nation wide law by the way) not to mention you claim this was in 97 which was 27 years ago theres no way you remember anything from that time with enough clarity to give a play by play like this and i hate to tell you buddy 2 full 8 ounce glasses of burbon (a 40 proof alcohal) is enough to bring a 220 lb man over the legal limit your body weight doesent affect your blood alcohal level bro just because you weigh 220 doesent mean you have more blood than say someone whos 120 lbs or 150 lbs
When I saw the first line of this 2nd “reply” I was prepared to simply ignore it, or at least try to be charitable - & then I read more. 1. Nobody said anything at all about being an over the road trucker subject to CDL related DOT regulation. Who even knows how many _actual_ professionals are out there managing things like large technical service & sales districts, etc, _from their cars._ 2. I think I kinda covered the impingement upon anything resembling a “normal” weekend with the family. 3. I have an excellent memory supported by more than 50 yrs of business related record keeping. I could tell a similar tale of ass-clownery from the cops related to a then-common gas war & a Snapper riding mower w/ a trailer full of fuel cans. That incident occurred almost 30 yrs prior to the DUI BS, or _well_ over 50 yrs ago & I remember it like it was yesterday. I could share more from that era; if you’d been schlepping around in the late 60s & early 70s, trying to collect 70¢ per household for a week of newspaper delivery, you too would have memories that don’t go away. 4. 16 ounces of bourbon would make Sasquatch a little tipsy. That _might_ be why a _generous_ serving of bourbon, neat, will be an ounce & a half or so in the bottom of a small glass - _two_ ounces at most. I’ve literally never seen anybody fill a water glass full of bourbon, _& you’ll never see a bartender do that_ - not one that wants to stay out of jail & remain employed, anyway. Hell, I know bartenders that won’t serve _one_ Long Island Ice Tea in a venue that people are gonna drive away from. 5. No CDL holder would successfully negotiate a _No Contest_ plea w/ a provisional license after a mere 30 days of suspension. Applying the strictest possible standard to those who are handling tens of thousands of pounds of vehicle & load is kinda the point of a nationwide CDL standard. I was driving an RS Camaro w/ a load of hand tools, diagnostics equipment, spare parts & paperwork in place of a back seat. 6. … & finally, trained physiologist that you are, do you really believe that my 220 lbs doesn’t run on more blood volume than my wife’s 120 lbs? Or my grandaughter’s 105 lbs, or the little 5’-nuthin’ Asian lady’s whatever-weight across the street - or for that matter, any random mouth-breathers that don’t seem to be pumping enough blood volume to nourish a brain … 7. As-in, exactly how stupid are you?
@@dutchuss2016 I was a class a (with all endorsements, no restrictions) truck driver around that time ('97) According to the rules in effect at that time, you could drive up to 11 hours a day. Most did not push that hard, and would average 10 hours a day. The ones who ran legal, anyway. It wasn't unusual to have two sets of logs. But my point is, if someone's claiming to be on the road 10 hours a day as a commercial driver, that is plausible. And that's assuming the driver is fully in compliance with all rules / regulations.
The fact that these practices don't routinely violate the fifth amendment astounds me. I'm willing to take the ride to the station, and wait for a warrant to be issued (not like police ever request BAC warrants, instead they just take), but then again, I don't drink.
@@toriless Yeah, ok Kim Jong Un. Driving is NOT a "privilege." It is a Civil liberty under the 5th Amendment and Article 14 of the US Constitution. Class dismissed.
@@toriless The whole idea of having privileges given to us by the government is wrong and frankly, insane. A free people dont ask their government for permission.
@@lizard944 Travel is a right, driving a vehicle isn't. There is a reason why every single state has a requirement for a drivers license and insurance or a waiver. There are available alternatives to driving which is exactly why driving isn't a right. Due to clear inaccuracies all people who took your class had to be refunded.
@toriless "driving is a privilege not a right" is what has been taught by government which is always out to violate rights... driving is the most common form of transportation in the modern age and the right to travel exists regardless of governments nonsense
Requiring a biological sample of someone like blood or tissue is insane to me. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" you are literally being forced/compelled to stand as a witness against your own consciousness. The only possible way to justify a warrant for someone's blood is if their body is considered private property, but this could also mean you could issue a warrant for their brain, liver, heart, muscle, teeth, etc. That is a disgusting violation of our human rights.
Eh, driving is a privilege, not a right. Every state has an implied consent clause that you agree to when you sign your license, granting the state permission to submit you to an alcohol test. Refusal to submit to the test is considered the same as an admission of guilt.
Nobody’s compelling you you put your St on your drivers license, saying that you would provide a sample of requested. So don’t drink and drive and you want to worry about it. Drinking and drive and you’re gonna be compelled to give a sample and if you refuse that a warrant shall issue, in which case your blood seized by Order of a judge with or without force.
They can get a warrant quickly and easily for your blood. If you refuse then they will take it by force. The easiest way is to get a warrant for the Hospital's sample they take when you get admitted after an accident.
@@DerAptrgangrno, driving is a right, voting is a privilege. That’s how the founders saw it and they were right. When the state starts “allowing” privileges that are actually rights, we are no longer a free country. Was driving a horse in colonial times a right? Of course it was. Are horses dangerous? Yes. Do horses kill people? Back then, all the time. People have been brainwashed and lied to. Most have no clue what a free country is all about.
Not true , if i start harnessing my horses or cows and start pulling my 4 wheeled wagon up & down the roads , there gonna have to do something to change the road ..cause i have the right to travel at will .. do you think they want horses on the road with cars@@DerAptrgangr
I was at a fire department picnic, a police officer was there, he had one of these hand held breathalyzer, he tested me and said I was over the limit, I wasn’t drinking, I was on duty, and was drinking soda (Root Beer) !!!
Apparently in Arizona if you do not submit to a breathalyzer you will be arrested and have your license taken away. In addition they can give you a blood test out in the field. Isn't there something in the constitution that protects you from these types of situations??
My state is one that will take away your drivers license for up to 6 months for refusing a breathalyzer at your car. I never drink and drive. But due to my age, I will fail the field sobriety tests. Maybe it’s just better for me to request an immediate blood draw, which will register stone cold sober. And not even try a breathalyzer. It may take a few hours. But at least I will retain my license. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Alcohol meters can give high blood alcohol results on chewing gum and on coffee and a lot of other things!! I myself have tested it with several breathalyzers when I was working.
@@princesspiplaysbass it doesn’t take 6 months to get a BAC from a blood draw. It takes about an hour if they are in a place with a lab. If they have to send it out, it can take a few hours.
In VA there is an implied consent law that anyone driving on a public road in VA has given implied consent to a breath test, blood test, or both. The law says specifically that you WILL take a breath test unless a breath device is unavailable. If you refuse, your license is suspended for 12 months.
I got a DWI for drinking 1 beer, i blew the minimum you can blow over to be considered intoxicated. I only agreed to blow because i knew without a shadow of a doubt i was NOT impaired in an way at all. I passed every other test they gave me. It caused all kinds of problems for me. NEVER EVER agree to blow in one
@@the_kombinator in some states no. In VA you can refuse the portable breath test, but you are required to submit to the breath test at the station and they only have to draw blood if that machine is unavailable.
Fun part is, I don't fear a breath test, as I refuse to drive drunk, in fact, I really only drink 3 to 4 times a year. But knowing that the machine can be entirely wrong, says that I could catch a DUI, while being stone sober
You can blow 0.0. You can pass RST 3 times. Cop can still arrest you. Then they can a battery of tests for alcohol, weed, common narcotics, and medications. Even if those tests are zero they can still arrest you for undetected drugs. Only after lab tests come back after 5 months with zero , does DA drop charges. Cop will claim that it was a good faith arrest and he is limited by training g and followed policy and procedures. They are lying, useless, sacks of..... Examples Deputy Eli Max LA Paz County NV Ofc. Halferman , Ft. Collins CO PD Case of Yevsennia Gomez, Scottsdale, AZ. Bad DWI arrest.
Yes i do not drink amd failed a breathalyzer 3 times in a row for trace alchohal. It was due to cold air causing alchohal sensor to falsly think evaporation was happening. DO NOT trust police sober or not
Happens all the time. And even when you prove in court the breathalyzer was wrong or even that the department tampered with it to show false results, all the arresting officer has to do is say you looked drunk and you'll be convicted anyway.
Alcohol meters can give high blood alcohol results on chewing gum and on coffee and a lot of other things!! I myself have tested it with several breathalyzers when I was working.
I'm a retired deputy working traffic and was a PAS calibration officer. I tested the devices every week. If the device failed, the test it was sent back to the company for repair. This took at least an hour for just about 20 devices. The driver does have the right to refuse, including the FST. Only minors under 21 cannot refuse. I used a PAS device to clear a man after striking a pedestrian and killing him. He was hesitate at first, even a friend told him no. He agreed to the test and it came back .000 % BAC. I included this info in the report. The ped was jaywalking and found at fault. I agree with you that some dept. don't do this work which is shameful. I least you got all the laws correct. I was in court once and the attorney brought up all these questions. He lost the case.
That’s the way a Constitutional government is supposed to work, but unfortunately a lot of these laws operate outside the Constitution because the first DUI is almost always a misdemeanor and the Federal Constitution is generally only triggered when it involves a felony
I worked for a company and one of my supervisors was drunk on the job. He admitted he had a problem and we had a forgiveness program if you got treated. When he came back he had to be tested. I was with the nurse when he was tested. It showed a high level and he asked for a blood test. We ran the test gas that showed it was working properly. He said he had not had anything. So we tested both the nurse and me and it showed we were drunk. Machine had stopped working properly and I told him to go back to work.
In Indiana, I know someone that found out their portable breathalyzer unit could save previous readings. A previously saved reading from another individual can be used against you. My friend went to court and won this case. He was the DD and did not drink before the test.
Demand a blood test, then don't volunteer. Make them get a warrant. Even that can be erroneous dependent in large part of hydration levels over time. One blood test, I got an over 1.0.... not .10, not .01, Walking Dead Man, the song, came to mind. I was barely hydrated 😂They had trouble drawing blood 🤣3 tries, 2 phlebotomists and I'd not even drank the prior day...
@@mwmulv Depends on the state dude on exigent circumstance. Poking me requires a warrant. Your state may be different. Exigent circumstance only leads to probable cause for detainment or arrest. Try working for a DA or lawyer for a few years. Get back to us on forced penetration of a suspect's body... with no warrant. Bet you like cavity searches. 🤔You sus
Our legislators need to pass laws requiring all money taken in from traffic stops and DWIs to be placed into escrow to be used by the state. Some of this money should be used to reimburse the cost to citizens for false arrest and damage to their lives from the lies told by the police. People lose their jobs and have their cars impounded plus damage to the reputation from unfounded allegations which the police are never held accountable, but citizens must pay for out of their own pockets.
Thx for this. Years ago my father was a group president of a large conglomerate. He oversaw about a dozen well known international companies. One of them, a top gun manufacturer, had expanded into making breathalyzers. Police depts bought tons, based purely on the maker's gun rep. Dad asked the chief tech guy how accurate the devices were. The guy squirmed a bit then said, well, I woudn't want to get pulled over and have to blow into one. This and other dubious practices made my father sell the company, turns out a very prescient decision.
It amazes me that the court can forcefully make you incriminate yourself with a blood test. Yet they refuse to allow defense attorneys access to their equipment to conduct their investigations.
One night at RAF Lakenheath about 40 years ago, we were all leaving the NCO club. You have to follow the road that circles around the Class VI store where the SPs were waiting. I get pulled over, of course, and asked where I have been. At 1:30 am, the Commissary was long closed and it was clear we didn't leave the bowling alley. Since the SPs had given me a ticket for running a stop sign that I had stopped at a couple months before, I decided this was a good time to get even with them. "In the NCO club, officer." "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" "Yes, officer." "Would you step out of the car, please?" "Certainly, sir." He goes through spiel about giving me a breath test and how it works and so on. I agree. I blow on it real hard, and he goes, "Uh, you don't seem to be blowing it in. You need to blow in this tube and not hold your breath." So I try again. And again. This is frustrating him, so he is watching me carefully to be sure I am blowing in the tube. He goes to talk to the other SP and try to figure why the machine isn't showing anything. My three drunk friends in the car are rolling with laughter. This isn't helping with the SPs. 😄 The other SP gets another unit out from his car, comes over, and repeats the process. I blow on the tube again and again and again. They can't figure out why two machines don't seem to be working and keep checking how I am blowing in the tube. Finally, the second SP asks, "How many drinks did you have tonight?" About three or four, sir." "And what were you drinking?" "Coke, sir" "Why didn't you tell us that sooner?" "You didn't ask, sir." The rest was unmentionable words about getting in the car and getting out of there. In the mean time, a couple dozen cars had gone by and a lot of airmen were safely back in their barracks without any tickets.
America is weird with different DUI laws in different states - in UK there is no FST, and roadside breath test is only indicative but must be regularly calibrated. pass you go free, but fail this test then you are arrested on suspicion and get station breath/blood test again calibrated - pass it and you go free - refuse either test or fail the second and you go to court and lose your licence for over a year
The problem here in Tx l, refusal to the FST is a ride to jail and your car towed, they refuse the breathalyzer test, they go straight to blood test that takes up to 3 months to get results. Meanwhile you are unlicensed.
MADD is such a crock - they won't be happy until every last person is a teetoaler. Granted, don't drink and drive, but their tactics are relentlessly aggressive and ruin lives just as much as they "save" them.
I had a friend (passed away last year) he was a full blown alcoholic and drank from the moment he woke until he passed out that night. He found a loophole and I am absolutely not recommending this to anyone here. He would always carry several airline sized bottles of Jack or Vodka. If he got pulled over he would grab these bottles and take the keys out of the ignition and toss them out the window. When the officer arrived at his door window he would unscrew the bottle tops in plain view of the officer and he would guzzle them both in seconds and before the cop could react. Now the officer has just observed the driver downing two shots of alcohol in his presence but after the car was parked, turned off and the keys were not in his possession. He would get charged with open bottle. But they could not prove that he was already drunk when they pulled him over. He did this about six times according to him. He never got a DUI. No points and no loss of his license. Pretty smart for a drunk.
Would not work in some states. You clearly had keys before you got to the middle of nowhere. And a blood alcohol level and a clock could easily determine metabolic rate and blood alcohol just before drinking two shots!
@@johnchestnut5340 This was a couple decades ago and I am not sure how far science has advanced since then. I never tried it as I never really drank alcohol. He insisted at the time that it had worked for him at least once but he could have been stretching the truth.
@@Adam.NavyVet Even back then I'm pretty sure the blood tests could have conclusively proven his BAC at the time of the stop, from a scientific point of view. Blood tests for alcohol are older than breathalyzer tests. Thing is, the law and police procedures might not have yet been ready to take all that into account and that is what matters at court, which is probably how your friend got away with it, if his stories are true. Nowadays I would be *EXTREMELY* surprised if there were a US state where that trick still worked, but I'm no attorney.
I was arrested for suspicion of DWI in June over 7 months now ago still have not been to court yet and my lawyers don’t know what they are doing. I was not intoxicated and I 100% believe that it was retaliation from be driving like an ass hope doing rolling burn outs and I would not tell on myself
Field Sobriety Tests are completely unreliable. For example, the leg lift test. If you have any kind of physical problem you can not pass this test. Leg injuries, back problems, even arm injuries can make it impossible topaz's this test. I used to be part of a high wire act. But I have had so many injuries that standing on one leg is impossible.
I worked in the assembly plant of a breathalyzer company. I was 18 out of high school, they had me calibrate the master tanks used in testing lol. I did a lot of surface mount soldering.
I was pulled over by a drug enforcement specialist once and he decided that I was on drugs because he couldn’t properly detect the drugs that I was on because I am actually autistic and learning disabled and have dyslexia so when he said I know that you are high on narcotics and we want to test your blood 🩸 I laughed in his face and dared him to take me in his superior officer told him to release me immediately upon talking to me and he attempted to apologize to me I told him that he needed help training his stormtroopers !
In most states, the roadside breathalyzer is VOLUNTARY, as are the Field Sobriety Tests. REFUSE to perform them. Sure, the cops will get "huffy", and threaten arrest for "obstruction", or say it's a "refusal" per the state's "implied consent" law, but it's NOT. Note: Some states DO require all drivers, upon command by the police, to take the roadside breathalyzer, but that's still considered a "screening" tool, i.e., the reading can only be used to establish probable cause. There are still procedures to perform the "Intoxylyzer" or other breath machine tests, including, in most cases, a mandatory 15-minute waiting period, where the officer is supposed to observe the arrestee for things like burping, vominting, etc, actions that would invalidate the test. In general, if the officer is demanding the FSTs, they've already made the decision to arrest for DUI. They're trying to establish probable cause. DO NOT give it to them.
What about getting your drivers license suspended for however many months? If we work for a living and MUST drive to keep a roof over our head... what do I do in that case? Genuinely asking because thats the main reason I'd submit to the tests.
"I just need to make sure you're okay to drive" is a lie. "I want to gather additional observations to use against you by performing a series of biased subjective tests on you in the dark."
@@nicksshitbro You will NOT get your license suspended for refusal to submit t6o the breath screening tool, unless, in virtually all states, you're under 21 or on DUI probation (where typically you MUST as a condition of probation, else the officer can and likely will arrest you for the probation violation and contact your PO). It's the post-arrest breathalyzer test that you gave "implied consent" to submit to when you got your DL.
In 1972 I went to school and became a Breathalyzer operator for the Pennsylvania State Police. We NEVER administered a Breathalyzer test to a motorist until AFTER the physical "arrest" was affected. Which meant, the Breathalyzer could not be utilized to establish probable cause to affect an arrest and could NOT be admitted as evidence in a preliminary hearing. Secondly, the breathalyzer was tested for accuracy utilizing a "Blank test" immediately after every test by pumping room air through a solution of distilled water and alcohol certified by the crime lab to produce a reading of .10% BA before the testing vials were removed from the instrument thereby guaranteeing the accuracy of the test. Thirdly, the Breathalyzer eliminates the probability of the motorist being affected by some other (and potently more dangerous drug or chemical) cause for their behavior. The Breathalyzer only measures "Grain Alcohol" in the blood. It can be affected by Wood Alcohol (which would render the motorist dead) and Paraldehyde but the chemical reaction will not crease so as to establish a level of intoxication. Fourthly, the subject was NEVER permitted to put anything into their mouth from the time of the arrest until the Breathalyzer test was administered, minimum of twenty minutes. That was considered a "Refusal" and would result in an automatic suspension of their operating privileges un "Implied Consent". Like Radar, the integrity of the Breathalyzer can be abused (or as I call it, prostituted) but that only violates the integrity of the officer or department committing the abuse. Any officer or department caught committing this violation of integrity should be banned from utilizing this tool.
Your first point. The difference between 1972 & now is huge. One would think technology has improved, but it hasn't. Having been employed in the tech field since before I graduated high-school, I can without hesitation inform you that tolerances & acceptable malfunctions have significantly increased in just the last 20 years. Now imagine what sort of acceptable tolerances & malfunctions have become industry standard in over 50 years time. An example of this is to look at the number of current model year vehicles driving around with failed tail lights, and other important saftey lighting with only a few months of operation. This was not the norm 20 years ago, today it is. Now, the road side test is used to establish reasonable suspicion for an arrest, and a 2nd test is run on the intoxilizer at the station. Both are used as evidence at the ariegnment hearing, but only the test run on the big machine at the station is admissible evidence at trial. Your 2nd. Many current day departments have been caught coming up with their own "homebrew" testing agents for the "blank test" or using expired test agents. There are far more departments who can not even afford to operate a crime lab capable of certifying the blank test, then there are those who can. Plus, relying on in house certification of the test agents is fraught with problems when it comes to due process & beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why outside, disinterested 3rd party certification is critical. Your third point. Wood alcohol is only deadly when consumed by drinking it. When a person works with it, or is exposed to it for 8 or more hours a day, they get the vapors in their deep lungs, and has been proven to provide false positives. Which is exactly what a properly conducted test runs it's test on, "deep lung air". This type of exposure is neither deadly, nor does it produce intoxication. There are other elements one can be exposed to That cause a false positives depending on the industry one is employed in. A blood test is still better, and doesn't suffer from this. Your 4th point. That is the way it is supposed to happen. We don't exactly have the best of the best being employed by most PD's anymore. There's been a huge "brain drain" & experience drain in the departments across the country. It's not uncommon for the officer administering the test to do so in 5 minutes or less. Completely ignoring the requirement to monitor the suspect for 20 minutes for situations that may compromise the accuracy of the test. That's an issue with the officer, and not a refusal, or an implied consent issue. I take special issue with your comment about the abuse of the machine's integrity only violating the integrity of the officer or department committing the abuse. When these abuses occur, it destroys the lives of the officer's/department's victims. A false DUI charge has very significant negative impacts on a person's life. Even if a person is found not guilty, there are many employers who fire people just for being charged. Which can quickly lead to the loss of one's place to live. Specialy if the victim is poor, which is often the case. The poor don't have the financial resources to challenge police who abuse the public, so they tend to be their targets. Yes there are supposed "good cops" but they tarnish their shine when they hold thin blue line. A good officer tarnishes themselves with the same crap of the bad officers when they refuse to report the bad officers.
@@williamallen7836some interesting points and a number of logical fallacies. As an example of a better run system, the State of Iowa selects, tests, inspects and owns all breath analyzers as well as conducting training for all certified officers. There are thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country. Many are understaffed, poorly paid, and lacking in standards and training. Most often this can be traced to the governing body; city councils, county boards, etc. and the citizens who don't demand more from them. There's a lot of pity in this thread for the drunk driver, but little mention of kids burning to death in a car, or losing a daughter and son-in-law on the same day, or living with an injury, each of which was caused by a drunk driver. But what would I know? I was a "supposed good cop", I guess.
@@PearlHandle Oh I have no pity for a drunk driver. In fact I was happy that my father, a terminal alcoholic, had finally ended up in front a judge that was a victim of a drunk driver. There was no quarter given in that case, and was the end of his diver license. As well as being declared a danger to himself. As such he was put in an assited care facility during his final few years. The only reason it wasn't worse for him was because the officer did not witness him driving, but was relying on a law that made being in the vehicle with keys in your possession as a dui. That law was being challenged both in the State Supreme Court, and the Federal courts at the time. The sympathy I have is for those railroaded at the side of road at night by an officer intent on an arrest. I don't think having the very same goverment, or goverment agency that is attempting to convict people owning the whole process is a better system. That is asking the fox to guard the hen house. Most jails & prisons in the US are outsourced to private companies. Those contracts detail a minimum occupied beds, or the overseeing goverment agency faces a penalty ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands a month depending on the size of the facility. This creates a very significant budgetary incentive to fill beds any way possible, even if just for the night. Anything to keep the bed count above the penalty amount. The preasure to fill beds filters down to the street level. To ignore is like saying there's no quota for an officer on traffic enforcement to write tickets. We all have a boss. If an officer is writing fewer tickets then his/her peers you can be sure that officer will be having a discussion with their boss about the number of tickets written. Offical, or unofficial the preasure creates the same result. As a good cop, which I have no reason to doubt you are or were, how many times did you witness the illegal behavior of a bad cop & report it to the correct agency? Instead of holding the line, and "handling it in house" Those who themselves act with integrity, but cover for the bad cops, tarnish their own image as a good cop. It happens far more often then it should. What are the logical falicies. I am more then open to accepting when I am wrong, or when one of my beliefs are wrong. A simple you are wrong doesn't suffice though.
In England refusing to take a breathalyser test is a criminal offence that carry’s the same penalty as being DUI, so there is no point in refusing, BUT…… it is not the road side test that convicts you, if you fail the road side test they have to take you back to the station where you take the test again on a proper calibrated machine. If you fail this test only then are you charged. If you are border line on the legal limit It is not uncommon to fail the road side test and then blow clear at the station on the desk top test and to then be let go free.
There's a few things that need to be mentioned. 1. You can't calibrate something that's been specifically uncalibrated to intentionally fail. 2. You can refuse. It will automatically make you guilty. And they can deny you a blood test. 3. You're likely to end up with one in your car and possibly your home. 4. Treat every state like it's a "Zero Tolerance" one. Protect yourself at the root of the problem. 5. Drinking or not, most courts have a history of convicting people whenever they want to. They need no evidence whatsoever.
The biggest problem with the breath testing machines is they: 1. Does not store a sample of the breath being tested, and the printout becomes evidence that can't be examined or challenged. 2. The machine relies on assumptions and wild conclusions to determine blood alcohol content even though it doesn't test blood at all. 3. Blood alcohol levels do not directly relate to impairment in a linear way. (What causes impairment in one person does not in another) 4. The rate of absorption and metabolizing alcohol is different between people and a person who is not over the limit may become "over the limit" after being in custody and metabolizing more of the alcohol they have consumed.
You missed a couple points. What about someone with COPD where they can't take a deep enough breath or blow sufficiently into the breathalyzer? Also related... many inhaler medications for COPD (such as commonly used albuterol) contain a small amount of ethyl alcohol that can give a false positive result. The alcohol used in these medications can not cause intoxication.
From Santa Barbara an independent news reporter from Noozhawk got pulled over after drinking 1 glass of wine. The ‘DUI office of the year’ whom gets a huge bonus learned how to put her finger on the back slightly and increase the BAC. He exposed her and many of her arrest got under turned but at what cost to the innocent? All she got was fired.
Once submitted to one whilst parked, sitting in my backseat. Was told I blew .28 and warned not to drive. Didn't. Hadn't drunk enough to blow .28. So I bought a breathalyzer off Amazon and spent a month in a motel trying to duplicate that level. I could not drink enough to blow more than .12 before conking out
Under Iowa's implied consent law, any driver in the state agrees to have a breath, blood, or urine test to determine alcohol level or presence of drugs anytime …
With the number of these units all over the country, seems to me there has to be enough units getting swapped out every year that someone can pick one out and pick them apart.
@@BillyBobDingledorf Supposedly. Even if true, that doesn't mean that their result curve isn't wildly inaccurate. Having worked as an engineer in precision gas detection for 7 years (O2, CO2, N) our equipment was often faulty and required constant recalibration and repair. The O2 sensor operating voltage was keyed to the individual sensor, and required a voltage resolution of three decimal places in the 2 to 3 volt range. Small drifts were rare - most failures of the CO2 and O2 sensors resulted in wildly high readings, or readings of zero. (N was inferred as the remainder of 100% minus O2 and CO2) The calibration process took hours as we had to use a sealed temperature chamber that cycled through intervals from 0C to 40C and 4 different gas mixtures in order to produce enough logged data to generate the curve ROMs which again, were unique to each sensor PCB. And even then, the math was fuzzy. These systems were used on shipping containers containing perishable goods. One container could have a value between $40,000 and $120,000 in cargo. And trust me, even with how much care went into maintaining and testing these modules, the company paid out a LOT of claims. My short point is that precision gas analysis in environments with wild variables is unreliable, because it is also unreliable in all but the most controlled of environments.
Just state that you will or will not take it since it is unreliable anyway. It traps them into proving otherwise. Truth is if you are actually drunk you will do nothing. If someone asserts their rights correctly chances are they are not that drunk.
You can be stone cold sober and still fail a FST. The cops know that they can lie on the stand without any risk to their career. It's the cops word against yours. ALWAYS demand a blood draw. They will get real pissy but under the law, you have the right to demand a test that the cops can't lie about.
Slow your roll with the .08 Many states have a "grey" area of .04. If you blow over .04 and the officer thinks you're too drunk to drive you can still get a DUI. I've watched a few videos by you one saying 50 feet for a turn signal useage(it is 200 in IL and TX). You need to step your game up and not state this as facts if you blow under in most states you can still be charged.
In Japan, the police have "Magic Flashlights", 5hesvare flashlights that have an alcohol detector built in. The Japanese police love American Holidays, because of the traditional consumption of Alcohol during the year end holiday parties. The problem with these "Magic Flashlights" is that they can be Triggered by perfume, aftershave, mouthwash or breath spray. The only problem is that if one of these "Magic Flashlights" is triggered, this is all they need for a DUI Charge. This means that the Japanese police set up just outside the gates to military bases and in the 80s collected many a charge. The standard procedure was to get to the ER of the Navy Hospital and have a blood alcohol test done.
How about if we create a law where it becomes financially devastating for an officer to charge a DUI in a case where there isn't a true DUI. $50,000 to come out of the officer's PERSONAL funds.
hello thank you for your tips on DWI I have a question if you have a CDL driver's license and you refuse to take the breathalyzer you automatically lose your CDL license as I understand ,my question is first would it be is it harder to get your CDL license back for refusing to take a test my second question is if you have a CDL permit and you're driving in a car ( not a truck ) can they restrict you from getting a CDL full license for not taking the test. Thank you
@@torilessJust know truck drivers are under full attack too! Don't take too much ibuprophen. Never use CBD. Try not to take any rx drugs. Don't let a doc give you cortizone. Don't EVER drink and drive anything! Drink at home or quit!
The main lesson I learned from this video. Make sure you always have enough cash on hand to bail out of DWI arrest. After that, make sure you always have enough funds to retain a good DWI attorney.
My son was a functioning alcoholic. You couldn't tell he had been drinking other than the nasty smell. He was stopped because he didn't use his turn signal to change lanes. He was the dd that night. The officer did a breathalyzer on him, and he failed. He passed every other roadside test. He was arrested and it cost him over $10k dollars(first offense in Okla with an attorney). He had to have a breathalyzer on his truck for a year, which the company who installed it didn't know what they were doing either, and it caused his ignition to go out. The bad thing is, the night he got arrested, the officer let one of the other kids that were in the truck with him drive his truck home and dropped off the other 4 also. Every one of them were drunk. The kid that drove home from the stop, ended up totaling his car after he hit a tree head on about 30min later. The system is def flawed. Some get punished that aren't affected the same as others. Some people can have 1 drink and be drunk off their butts. Other can have a whole case and walk/drive just fine. I was pissed when I had to tow my sons truck in after it quit on a busy highway just to find that the stereo shop that put the breathalyzer in didn't know how to do proper wiring and shorted out the ignition. I was also pissed that night when I got a call saying the other kid was in a major accident after he was allowed to drive after my son was arrested. He's the kid who wasn't legally drunk but is drunk with just the smell of alcohol.
Oklahoma has screwed up DUI laws. The breathalyzer the state forces you to install is 1500 dollars that you have to buy but don't get to keep. Plus you have to pay an additional 100 dollars a month to get it recalibrated every month. And mouthwash will lock you out if you use it before starting the vehicle. But they won't accept the print out if you get stopped a second time and if the officer has decided that you're intoxicated ( some counties use portable breathalyzer others don't) you can't use the breathalyzer that you have to pay every month for calibration and it's inadmissible for your defence.
" He was stopped because he didn't use his turn signal to change lanes." hehehehehe, like 25% of drivers, but continue, ... ... I bet it was 3 grand in attorny fees and 6 in interlock fees and a grand in court costs... ...tree boy was probably even more drunk, enough said ...
I earned my arrest. However, I’ve quite drinking since and won’t ever be found intoxicated behind the wheel. It’s disheartening that there’s no sure protection for us citizens. We basically have to allow ourselves to be falsely arrested, then hope a lawyer cares enough and is affordable enough to go get it dropped. Scary as hell thinking I could catch a second dui being sober. Nice to be able to refuse field sobriety, but you can just give up your license half a year for rejecting a breathalyzer. But say I did blow… knowing I’m sober, they could get me for my second DUI which would be a BIG DEAL. am I supposed to not drive just to avoid that? Sucks knowing I’m not protected even if I’m in the right…
Some of the best info I've ever seen in a RU-vid video. I'm pretty much a non-drinker due to medication i take. Even so, I feel it is my duty to be responsible for my own actions so I wouldn't drink and drive anyway. I agree with harsh penalties for doing so but I insist that people are afforded their rights.
@@Diabolus_Musicaright. Thats not how this works lol. Once you're in handcuffs you're literally at their whims. Plus the whole suspended license thing.
In Maryland, and I’m pretty sure in some other states, you can refuse a roadside breathalyzer test without consequence. You have to be stupid enough to assist the cops in ginning up some other “probable cause” (by agreeing to do “sobriety tests”) sufficient to arrest you to get a blood test or breath test at the police station. Refusing that test will result in a suspension.
Persons with emphysema/COPD are likely going to have difficulty with a deep breath. My pulmonary doctor has a torture device that I struggle to provide a similarly deep breath.
I have that issue and had to have a lock out in my vehicle. It was impossible to start the truck some days and I had to get a nextdoor neighbor to start the truck so I wouldn't be late.
My job requires I wear a respirator. I must be certified to wear a respirator every 2 years. I struggle every time I have to take the test. It's virtually identical to the breathalyzer test but checking for different variables. Obviously the company doesn't want me to fail the test, so they give me multiple opportunities to pass. I'm a smoker and that doesn't help my situation.
When I got out of the military and then college I went from a casual drinker of beer to liquor but I wasn't an alcoholic. But then I got married and came home early and caught her in my bed with another man and I did crawl in the bottle for a while. And managed to get a DUI and had to jump through hoops that did absolutely nothing as far as dealing with drinking and driving. Most of it is a money racket for the companies you're forced to use. since they fix the price you have to pay and they really don't care about stopping drunk driving but when you stop and think about it they subtly don't do much of anything to change behaviors. Simple because if they do then they are removing their customer base and then go out of business. Nobody takes a career where success means you end up unemployed.
It doesn't cost any more or less on blood vs breath or Visa versa. They will profit GREATLY in the end on either when it's time to give you your fine, court cost, monitoring device on your car, probation costs and maybe even slave labor jail time. They will profit.
In Nebraska, if you refuse the road-sized PBT, you *can* be cited with committing a Class V misdemeanor with a $100 fine (and allows you to be arrested for DWI anyway).
Even in Nebraska, the officer(s) must have reasonable suspicion that (a) you've recently consumed alcohol, or (b) you're committed a moving violation or exhibited poor driving (weaving, driving TOO SLOW for the traffic, etc.), or (c) been involved in a collision, regardless of whom is apparently at fault. Absent these circumstances, an LEO can't simply demand a PBT. Of course, (s)he'll probably just claim, "I smell alcohol from you, sir, (or "weed")". That's why you always record, Record, RECORD any encounter with law enforcement. Also do not roll down your window more than an inch or so, and avoid talking. That will lessen a phony claim that the officer detected a "strong smell of alcohol". Of course, best not to be driving shortly after drinking. An Uber ride home, and later to fetch your ride, or even having your ride towed HOME, is a helluva lot cheaper than a DUI arrest, fines, court costs, mandated counseling, ignition interlock, and an SR-22 filing, which make your insurance costs huge in comparison to any car payment. And never mind if your job would be threatened by a DUI; which, if you drive for a living, you'll be finding other work, as also if your job involves a security clearance. Either booze it up at HOME, and stay home until you've sobered up, or have a plan to NOT drive while "tanked", like a non-drinking designated driver or a pre-arranged Uber ride.
Incomplete information. Field testing can be refused including Field breath tests. You will not be charge any crime for refusing field tests including portables. Portable breath tests are not admissible in any court in the United States. What you cannot refuse is the intoxilyzer at the station. Refusal for that under implied consent will result in the Class V misdemeanor.
@@vortec2k2 *WRONG*, as the information is complete. Again, in *Nebraska* when stopped for a potential DUI investigation, refusal of the preliminary road side breath test is a a Class V misdemeanor with a $100 fine. You will also probably also be arrested at that point.
I am a retired cop and a retired attorney from California. I arrested hundreds of DUI suspects in my career. The slang term in my area for a DUI was “deuce”. When I was a new cop, there were breath test machines that used a needle like device to graph results onto a strip of paper. Older cops called the machines “dial a deuce” because an officer could apparently bump a machine while it was working and jog the needle to produce a higher indicated blood alcohol content. I never saw it done and those machines were replaced with new machines on which that was not possible before I completed my probationary period. The new machines used a digital readout and digitally printed the results. My department never cared about how many DUI arrests a patrol officer made. I never heard of a patrol officer being pressured to make a DUI arrest. I never knew a patrol officer who received a commendation or award for making DUI arrests. I knew some patrol officers who did not know how to make a DUI arrest. My department pushed tickets. Quotas for citations are illegal in California but there were always unofficial quotas. A common saying was, “A ticket a day keeps the sergeant away.” Because I was not pressured to make DUI arrests, I simply did not make an arrest if I had any doubts. The folks I arrested were obviously impaired. If I had any doubts, I let the person go and moved on to other things. I worked for a large police department in a major city so there was always something else to do. I think two of the obvious ways that police departments go wrong with respect to DUI arrests are failure to adequately train and in pressuring cops to make DUI arrests. Adequate training in DUIs should start with classroom training, include practical exercises, and include training in the field by a qualified instructor. Cops who make mistakes should be promptly identified and retrained. Pressuring cops to make DUI arrests results in officers arresting suspects that they would not otherwise arrest. There have been some high profile cases in which cops have arrested people for DUI who had blood alcohol contents of 0.00. Combining a lack of training in DUIs with pressure to make DUI arrests is a recipe for disaster. I don’t have personal experience with the way in which my department maintained their breath test machines. My understanding is that this was done during the day by trained and qualified technicians. I worked the vast majority of my career on the graveyard shift. I’m not sure if I ever saw a technician working on a breath testing machine. I did occasionally see an “out of order” sign on one. There were a couple of times when machines were left partially disassembled and had “out of order” signs on them.
Based upon this video, I guess I dodged a bullet about 8 years ago. Got stopped and then was asked whether I wanted to take a breath test. I was not in a hurry, and I do not drink alcohol, so I was completely sober. So I consented. It was an interesting experience to take the test. The officer did not tell me the results of my test, but he did "let me off with a warning" for some minor violation that I did not even commit. So I guess that breathalizer turned up clean. I do not drink, so if I am ever again presented with the same scenario, I will decline the test.
you might want to check and see if the state you live in requires you to take the Portable Breathalyzer test or not, a lot of states do not require it. what they require is you take a breathalyzer at the police station or a blood test at a hospital. also, you do not have to take the FST (field sobriety test).
You were probably perfectly sober but just a shitty driver, I see them every day. You never use your turn signal until you are already turning or within 1 second of a turn or lane change. I literally almost crashed with one of you assholes 2 days ago, a bet you drive a pickup, always the worst drivers, RAM drivers must be drunk all the time, only Tesla drivers are worse then them.
@@brendafrost7001 Article vi us constition: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. any law made must conform to Constitutional authority. Article VI All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/ please tell me where in article vi does it say I have to assist law enforcement (in incriminating myself)? What does - shall be supreme law of the land - mean? Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment is cooperating with the cops a potential of which they will arrest you with a dui? it is. Salinas v texas 2013 scotus ruling - you must now invoke verbally your right to remain silent. actions are words in motion. then there is Miranda v Arizona 1966 scotus ruling section 491 - [491] responsibility today. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/ this means that no state/subordinate state jurisdictional venue can make any rule making or legislation which would abrogate the exercise of a constitutional right. thus: I am not obligated to assist them in their investigation of any type I can refust to incriminate myself (to include actions that may incriminate myself) No state can make any ruling or legislation abrogating the exercise of a constitutional right - the very same law that cops use to issue the miranda warning. Article VI states a supreme court ruling = law of the land under the case law of Madbury v Madison. If it is law of the land, then not only can not the federal govt do it, so can not the states/subordinate jurisdictional venues can. So, why should I perform any act that may incriminate myself? sherar v cullens - fed case law - no state can saction or penalize the exercise of a constitutional Right - that also means any state subordinate jurisdictional venue also. miller v us - scotus - no state can convert the exercise of a constitutional right into a crime. that also means that no state suboridinate jurisdictional venue can do the same.
But... what is the best thing to do when stopped? I don't drink and drive. If I get pulled over, I won't agree to do roadside sobriety testing. Should I or should I not also refuse to blow?
@toriless See, and I would think that is the dumb thing to do. The sobriety test is mostly subjective and a way for them to gather evidence against you while it is easy for even a sober person to fail several parts, giving cops an excuse to arrest regardless. That's why not a single lawyer advises to consent to that test. The breathalyzer can also be used by cops to strengthen their suspicion, but only if you actually did drink. Even allowing for calibration and usage errors, it is highly unlikely I would blow over the maximum allowed if I didn't actually drink. So, would this actually strengthen my defense and make it easier for the cops to decide to send me on my way, or is it always a bad thing to consent to? Why would you do the sobriety and not do the breathalyzer?
Here in Norway, breathalyzers are only used for a quick check. If it indicates intoxication over the legal limit, a blood sample is then required immediately at a local hospital (or at an equipped police station for blood testing).
do not take the PBT if your state does not require it. please correct me if i am wrong, but i don't know of any state that requires you to take the FST. in my state i would never consent to any roadside tests.
I once refused the breathalyzer test demanding the more accurate blood alcohol test. It bought me TIME before they could draw my blood. It came out to 0.07, but the limit on base was 0.1. Off base it was 0.08, so i was just barely legal. They still punished me! What good is it to have a LIMIT if you're STILL going to punish someone for a nom-DUI?
