Real Lawyers React: Did this driver deserve a DUI? 

That doesn't make any sense...

What's frustrating is how bad these cops were. I know you gotta do it, but if you ask me a question twice...are you mentally OK is all I can think. Over 10 times they "asked" him to get out, made threats. But never TOLD him or more importantly, "ordered". This is just insanity. Stop with the "I'm asking" and get to making actual legal demands. It's just so frustrating to see just bad communication and use of english from these officers. We have words for a purpose. use the right ones and say them clearly.

I thought the battle was not getting the DUI arrest and the war was not getting the DUI conviction.

@@topshelfdustin3060 "But never TOLD him or more importantly, "ordered"." Did you actually watch the video? 22:45 verbatim "I am telling you right now, I am ordering you to get out of the vehicle."

@@amathy9690 more than 20 minutes into the video...that was my point bro.

A lurking variable might be impairment due to high blood sugar. High blood sugar causes the body release ketones which smells like, guess what? Alcohol.

@@droiduseruserdroid1731 Eh, there are genetic conditions that can cause the body to either smell like the person's been on a 9-week bender or causes fermentation within the body to literally put the person on a 9-week bender. The problem is those conditions are extremely rare. Granted, they can be tested for and most with a simple genetic screen. But if I were the defense lawyer, I would only look at that if their friends and family stated he never drinks. It's much easier to argue that him trying to eat a taco while driving is what caused him to swerve, and then use that to try and kill the probable cause on the DUI. Of course, the prosecution is going to argue that one sign of being drunk is not being able to control his impulse to eat a food he needs to turn his head for.

Yes it does. Lawyers, Judges and cops seem to forget that part

Read the actual opinion. It’s not that simple. I’m not being a know it all dick to you. I think it’s good practice to read the actual judges rulings in these cases. Mimms didn’t present that type of reasonable danger either. He had expired license plate. The cop ordered him out of the car and notice a bulge in mimms pants. The cop then patted mimms down and found an illegal gun. The reasonable danger was only assessed after mimms excited the car. They have the right to order you out to dispel any suspicion of you being armed and dangerous. It might be wise to ask before you exit if being ordered if the officer suspects you of being armed and dangerous, they’re probably say no. Then you might have a case but probably not. In the case you are suspected of being intoxicated they can’t let you drive away. So what then. It’s just not as clear as you’d think. That’s all.

The little snippet on the screen mentions neither "armed" nor "dangerous", and I can't remember if the full opinion mentioned any specific requirements. Still, the fact that it's so widely abused that the officer openly said it was "just to have a conversation" and "if you say no to a search" is telling. These officers will have a hard time arguing safety concerns

For officer safety It shouldn't be applied in my opinion to just talk

@@DaveBigDawg I agree but they’ll say in the report or when questioned that they believed someone to be dangerous so they ordered them out of the car is all I’m saying. I find the whole Supreme Court ruling a violation of our 4th amendment. As I said before it would be a good idea to ask the cop if they suspected you to be armed and dangerous before exiting. They might say no.

No they will not reimburse you. But if a cop orders you out of a car because of a suspected DUI, then you're going to jail with or without your compliance and with or without taking the field sobriety tests. Might as well be polite and not give them a reason to further suspect you - so that you have a better chance of getting the charges dropped. It's not fair, but that's the reality of the situation.

if i had nothing to hide i would get out and ask them

That's not what the law states, the law states officers can control the scene including removing drivers and passengers from the car. Those are lawful orders as long as you are legally detained.

@@Soul_Reaper_L4 time after time, people with nothing to hide get abused by cops.

​@@antoinewood2478 That varies from situation to situation and state to state.

@@antoinewood2478 Reasonable control, not absolute control. The guy is not running into traffic or acting crazy so YES Mims is the controlling doctrine and Mims has limits. Specifically a citizen needs to be considered "armed and dangerous" and the officer is removing him from the vehicle for a "Terry Frisk".

I guess the driver here chose to pay $8k (extra charges against him) and likely lose.

No, saying you don't answer questions would in fact be invoking your right

This should be a good test case regarding the 5th amendment as well as the 4th amendment. Although he clearly didn't invoke his 5th amendment right, he clearly stated that he was not going to talk to them or answering anymore questions. Additionally, he said his lawyer was on his way. By asking him to get out of the car to continue the conversation would violate his 4th and 5th amendment rights because he clearly said he didn't want to talk without his lawyer and the reasoning for getting out was not due to officer safety. If a lawyer argues this well, and a judge accepts that, all charges--except for the DUI charge, should be dropped as fruit of the poisonous tree.

If you don't do your job, you get fired. If you violate tenant rules, you get evicted. If you break the law, you get punished. There are limits to all of these, which we get to enjoy for the low low price of reasonable limits on us. TL;DR: Yes, we follow orders. Endlessly hitting beehives begets endlessly getting stung, whereas working with the bees yields honey

You don't need to sign anything to be bound by the laws of the country, because that is how society works. Glad I could clear that up for you.

My understanding; if they ask you to do something, and they can ask you to do anything, then, you ask them if they are asking you or giving you a lawful order, if it is indeed a lawful order then they can site or arrest you. If you think that it's not a lawful order, on the side of the road is not the place to contest that, I would comply and let them prove that it was a lawful order in court. They have a lot of latitude to order you out of a vehicle for officer safety.

@@SpaceFrawg Unfortunately, several women have been raped by police officers with the "lawful order" statement. managing in court later didn't prevent their assault. But you are correct.

@@SpaceFrawg when does a man have the authority to order another man to do anything ? Are we not free men ? The answer to that question is never ! We are not free Men.. We re bound by laws imposed upon us by another. Freedom in the United States is a sham. It doesn’t exist as long as anyone can ORDER you to do something against your will, when you are not part of that service.. I know, laws and they are ment to protect citizens.. Not to enslave them and generate revenue. There lies the problem in our policing and judicial system.. So here is the question, is it better to be a slave and follow orders just or unjust and be some what safe ? Or is it better to be free and protect yourself and family and live your lives without the imposition of the will of another upon you ? Wether it be walking on the road side taking pictures without being molested by authority .. where is the freedom. ? Where is the accountability, where is the justice ? It has been shackled by fear and malice by men who strive to take from you what you own wether it be your property, your livelihood, your family, your wealth or even your life.

Taco bell order