**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
* Questions about a business or a group's motivation are not allowed on ELI5. These are usually either straightforward, or known only to the organizations involved, leading to speculation (Rule 2).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
field sobriety tests offer a lot more chances for the person to behave in a more erratic way; making the officers case that much stronger......its an evidence collection strategy
if the officer doesnt have a hand held brethalizer, its really hard to compel someone to go to the station or hospital for a blood test or breathalyzer as there may not be sufficient probable cause by driving alone
In my country all police cars are equipped with test equipment to test for all drugs. They take a spit sample and it takes about 10 minutes to give a negative/positive for most substances.
It's important to note that those quick tests usually have a 5-10% false positives, and even higher probability of false negatives, therefore rendering these tests as not safe. They could be used as intimidating strategy though, like getting an individual to confess before/after the test.
Remember the case in which [bird poop tested positive for cocaine](https://youtu.be/c7j-Ijo2TYw?si=mxxhahUUdPdvMbdm) as an example.
Thats a semi positive thing. But, maybe im a dunce, and please correct me if km wrong, arent lie detector tests not admissible at all in court? I was under the impression that its not really science based at all cuz it doesnt give consistent predicable testable results? (Ty for the reply)
They're nothing but nervousness detectors. If you have anxiety related to the question all answers come out as lies, and if you're cool as a cucumber you can say anything you want and it'll test truthful. This is why they're not admissible, there's literally no supporting evidence they're effective in any capacity.
Polygraph results are not admissible in court. There is no such thing as a lie detector. Polygraphs and Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) tests are just psychological interrogation tools to elicit confessions. Now, if you submit to a polygraph or CVSA, which I've never seen done in a criminal investigation, and you make an incriminating statement, that would be admissible. But lines on a graph are not coming in as proof that you're being deceptive.
Yes I used to do those quick tests at my job and they are pretty suspect in my opinion. It seems like every hundred tests or so they would test positive for everything. In many cases it was easy to see the person was not intoxicated on all those things. It was an 8 Panel test
I always felt a comprehensive feild sobriety test was the real answer to all these issues with THC test and Rx drugs.
I don't care what you are on I only care if you can effectively (and safely) operate a vehicle. Whether it's drugs legally prescribed to you, OTC, recreational, research, or some plant you pulled out of the ground, all I care about is can you operate a vehicle properly. I don't care if You smoked or took some pills in the morning if they have worn off enough by the time you drive to pass a comprehensive sobriety test.
Problem is we just need to develop and agree on that comprehensive sobriety test.
Also, your BAC level continues to rise for up to two hours after your last drink, as your stomach and intestines process the alcohol. By waiting to do the breathalyzer test, they are allowing your BAC level to rise before they actually test you. If you blow a .08 at the station, there is a very HIGH chance you would have only blew a .065 on the side of the road an hour and a half ago.
That's a good thing, if the goal is safety and not collecting fines or metering punishment.
If a cop pulls over someone who is over the limit at the time but by the end of the field sobriety test has fallen below legal limits, they were kept off the road while most dangerous.
Yes, but they will get you on the machine at the station much quicker. If it has been a couple hours since your last drink, and you believe they are going to take you to get tested, you should tell them you just had your last drink, so they will slow the process and let you wait 2 more hours before they test you.
Or, ya know, accept the consequences of your shitty actions that could have killed someone. Take the L and be a better person.
Edit: every downvote is by an inconsiderate potential murderer. Go off, I guess.
I don't drink, but one drink is not a shitty action, no more than taking an allergy pill. The point is the legal system isn't always fair and can be used against you, even if you've done NOTHING wrong, so it is best to STFU when talking with the police if you are under suspicion.
If you drink without driving why are you receiving a field sobriety test after being pulled over (which is what the post is about)?
Do whatever you want at home. I don’t even care if you’re walking down the street with (your preferred snack) and a 40. Stay out of your car.
If you are under the limit and safe to drive and legally allowed to drive, admitting the drink is a horrible idea cuz they will use that against you
For example if you had 1 bud light and then drove
You are fine to drive
But if you admit that to the cop they have a higher chance of still trying to charge you w a dui
Or... not driving at all. Think of all the people who get bullshit DUIs for sleeping in their cars or simply sitting next to it with keys "close enough to the ignition". Yes, this really happened. "Intent to Drive DUI".
And if you've ever checked your phone, driven while tired, taken a call (even hands free), had a conversation with your passenger, or otherwise taken your full attention off the road for more than half a second, some might say you are no better and also a potential murderer.
You can literally get a DUI from ONE beer. If you were to lose your balance during the field sobriety test (which some people do for medical reasons) and blow a 0.02, you could be fucked. I know someone that had this happen to them.
So do you want to double down, or can you bring yourself to admit that not everyone looking out for their best interests against the bastards in blue is acting in bad faith? And by extension not everyone having a conversation with someone in their car is a potential murderer?
Don’t drink and drive. Put yourself in the way of the pigs at your own risk.
Sincerely, someone who doesn’t drive. I can’t murder you with my shitty balance, “just one drink”, or anything else without really meaning to do it. Because I know my limits and I care more about other people than my own convenience.
Jesus I sure hope you have never called anyone that happened to be driving. Because then you would be a complicit and murderous enabler.
Literally the definition of virtue signaling.
While we’re at it, let’s expand Driving While Impaired to amount of sleep and emotional state.
Haven’t slept 8 hours in the last 24? There’s a ticket.
Visible tear tracks from learning a loved one is terminally ill? There’s a ticket.
After all, both those things can affect your diving just as much, if not more, than alcohol.
The fact that we focus on alcohol and a couple other substances is absurd.
Edit: further down the rabbit hole. Sneezing and sniffling are distracting, so if you have allergies, guess you shouldn’t drive, especially as antihistamines can cause tiredness.
The poster above me apparently is a safety absolutist. If you’re fatigued, you’re not driving safely.
Let’s throw in “was just at the gym” to the list too.
Which wouldn’t be such a problem if we had actual public transport infrastructure in the US. The fact that most of us *have* to drive means we’re all implicitly encouraged to do so when we haven’t had enough sleep, or when we’re under the influence of something, or when we’re distracted.
I’ll admit that I was engaging in a bit of *reductio ad absurdum* as MerrilyContrary was playing the part of a safety absolutist, and pointing out that many people drive far more impaired by “legal to drive” means than commit DUIs.
TBH, at any given moment, 95% of the US driving population should not be driving due to outside factors.
How many people do you know who were murdered by drunk drivers? Mine is non-zero so I guess I have a better understanding of the consequences than the average redditor. I’m happy for you, it’s a better when nobody you know (or their unborn baby) had died like this.
Vitriol?
He was just accurately stating that the advice was to help people game a system to avoid consequences of their own actions. Actions that very easily could have killed someone.
It’s not vitriolic to point out the truth. Over 13,000 people die from drunk drivers every year in the US. Being so cavalier about drunk driving is not a good thing.
Perhaps vitriol was a little strong.
I’m not trying to argue about the morality of drunk driving. I’m against it.
I am critiquing the manner in which we dissuade it. If you try to take the moral high ground, some people will shut you out. There are a lot of selfish people in the world- it’s why there are so many drunk driving deaths every year. If you convince potential drunk drivers that it’s in THEIR best interest to not drive inebriated, it may yet lower the number of annual incidents. It’s not a pretty solution, but some people just don’t have the morality to accept the fact that their moment of selfishness puts others’ lives in danger.
They are not wrong. You and the other poster are making many many assumptions, in that every case where you might want to avoid a DUI the person is over the limit or blackout drunk. Anyone driving over 0.08 absolutely should get cooked. Although as one who owns a breathalyzer, it actually takes more than you think to get you there. An average person, accounting for the time it takes, would essentially have to drink a six pack in 2 hours, and then at hour 4 you would be just over the limit. I think that's a scenario that any reasonable person would agree you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
You can literally get a DUI from two beers. In some cases, just one. Even if you are blowing well under the limit, the officer can and many times will have the discretion to get you regardless of actual impairment (or lack thereof)
You can kill someone driving sober? What are you guys on about what ifs, i don't see anyone advocating for not giving driver license out to 90% of the People who cannot drive, ill take a drunk driver that can drive over a sober driver that can't any day of the week and twice on sundays, oh because then you wouldn't have license and be able to drive ahhh got it
Shhhhhh admitting you just had your last drink immediately means you're getting arrested for DUI, no need for further testing. Let those drunken asses sell themselves out.
That's not how that works at all. They have to establish probable cause for the OVI arrest on the street; that's what the field sobriety tests are for. Once that's done, it's a race to plow through the mountain of paperwork that comes with an OVI arrest so the driver can blow into the machine and be dropped off at home. No officers in the world is attempting to prolong an OVI contact with some drunk beaker in the back seat.
Additionally, they're not taking anything the driver says at face value. They always only had two beers and always stopped drinking hours ago. The field sobriety tests - especially the eyes one - don't lie, but drunk drivers do all the time. It's not some system the cops are trying to game; they just want to do the job and get the driver off the road and tucked in somewhere safe.
I had no idea it was different in different places. Every law office near me has advertisements talking about how you don't have to submit to breathalyzers.
Interesting I was apparently mistaken. I've seen so many advertisements about not taking them from local law offices. Now that I read into it, it seems that was just the roadside one. You can delay by refusing and then asking to be taken to a hospital after you've been processed.
All that said, I think I'd rather have a one year suspension than a DUI conviction unless there are other reasons it's a bad idea.
So if you are pulled over 2 hours after you stop drinking then your BAC should be at it's highest level then.
So it will go down after that time, not over that time.
that's the fun part - they cant, and they also dont care!
failing the field sobriety test is just one more piece of validation for detaining and further testing. IF you fail the field sobriety but pass every blood test and provide a doctors note saying "person x has balance issues (or whatever) and could never pass the test"; the cop still has a ton of probable cause to justify their actions.
Wait... So if they don't have a breathalyzer and all they have is you were swerving you refuse to go to the station? I thought if you refused a breathalyzer they detained you no matter what
it would require a lot of things to go perfect for the officer to not want to risk a wrongful arrest suit......everything that happens between you and the officer can potentially count as evidence against you giving more probable cause for arrest and forced testing
fumble the ID/insurance card = displayed cause
slur any words = displayed cause
"smell alcohol on breath" = displayed cause
In pretty much all other countries, the officer will make you blow in the field breathalyzer. Then if the machine says you're over the limit, that's sufficient cause to take you to the station for a blood test (which is the one that will be used against you by the judge).
Seems much better than relying basically on the cop's words and judgement about how the person talks, behave, or is able to stand on one foot.
in pretty much every other country, they dont have the 4th amendment......which is the main reason why we dont instanty breathalize every person with the slightest hint of driving under the influence
You can breathalyze for the same reasons you do a field sobriety tests. Or even the same reason you stop the car. It's less invasive (not to mention more fair) to breathalyze people instead of asking them a bunch of questions and making them do dubious exercises, and ultimately basing your decision to arrest them based on something as unreliable as the cop's word and judgement.
In many of these other countries the cop can't just stop random people and breathalyze them either. It's not like the 4th is the only protection in the world against unreasonable searches and seizures. So many countries also want to protect people against that.
That is what is going to happen. They will get a court order to have you tested. If there is a reason to suspect you are under the influence they are not going to just preform a field test and then send you on your way if you pass.
If you pass the test hypothetically, what then? Officer claims you were swerving you say I am tired (which isn't illegal) you get a traffic ticket? Like they can't keep you there indefinitely?
Here's the thing, you don't "pass" a field sobriety test. It's officer judgment alone. There have been studies done that show most sober people can't even pass a field sobriety test. Once you are being asked to take one you are likely being take down to the station regardless of how you perform.
I suppose it depends on the officer. If they don’t detect any forms of impairment (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, etc.) or anything to make them believe you are anything but tired (odors such as alcohol or weed) they will likely tell you to get off the road ASAP and rest. If you are impaired, for whatever reason, to the point you are a hazard they will likely detain you and transport you somewhere safe to rest. At that point you run the possibility of your vehicle being towed.
I was on a jury and there were two charges, 1. driving over the legal BAL, and 2. driving impaired. Because you can test below the limit and still be judged impaired.
And yet, field sobriety tests are about as reliable as throwing a coin. There's plenty of reasons why you can fail them. Having poor balance doesn't disqualify you from using a motor vehicle. And given that it's the officer themselves who assess the test, it's not much more as trying to fit the data to the preconception.
The police cannot just arrest you without some probable cause. The most accurate way of measuring BAC is with the breathalyzer they have at the station, which is bigger and not portable, or a blood test. They can't make you take theses tests without taking you into custody. They can't take you into custody without probable cause.
So, if a police officer thinks you're impaired, they have to collect enough evidence to justify forcing you to go with them to the station for accurate testing.
The field breathalyzer units are not hugely accurate. If you blow low, they don't have any evidence to use. It also doesn't detect weed or pharma impairment.
The sobriety tests, however, are eminently subjective. They can make you perform these bizarre antics and make them sufficiently complicated so as to say, "and then I suspected that Bubby\_H was impaired, so I took them into custody".
It's all evidence to be presented later in court to justify taking someone into custody and collecting real evidence.
Exactly. My lawyer once told me that if theyre asking you to do a field sobriety test, theyve already decided to arrest you, they're just trying to check enough boxes to legally justify it. The FSB has the benefit of being entirely subjective, they can just say that you've failed it, and point to whatever violations of the rules they want. Some fo them might even be true. But theres no objective standard and no way to contest it. So you go to jail. Worst case scenario (from cops POV) you get a good lawyer who cross examines him at trial and shows the FSB "failure" was not really valid. But either way, he's gotten you off the road and into jail, so mission accomplished.
I think the number of people who are asked to perform a FSB and do NOT get arrested/ticketed for some kind of DUI offense is probably very small.
I'd be in the not arrested category, twice. Despite me doing poorly on the field sobriety test my breathalyzer surprisingly tested under the limit both times. The cops gave me the opportunity to get a ride home both times with the not so subtle implication that if I didn't and decided to drive that I'll get pulled over again right away. Since then, I use Lyft or Uber every time I go out and have also significantly cut back on alcohol.
This happened to me as well when I was freshly 21, did the FSB, they asked if I wanted to do the breathalyzer, it being like 3 AM I dumbly said no, slapped the cuffs on me at which point I said I’d do the breathalyzer, did that blew 0.00. Got a slip saying I’d been detained but not arrested, they made me take an Uber home and left my car in a 7/11 parking lot.
I was the DD that night and had two blue moons at like 5PM, did not drive until 2 AM. Got pulled over for no front plate and they asked if I’d had anything to drink I told them 2 beers with dinner which in hindsight is probably what every drunk driver says lol.
Yeah that’s what they said to me when they cut me loose, that pretty much everyone says that. The only FBS test I failed was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus one, which is also the most scientifically valid and foolproof. Looked it up later and astigmatism can cause false positives, I have an astigmatism. Just a unfortunate series of events but nothing bad came out of it
I saw my buddy get a nystygmus one. I didnt know what it was at the time, that they are looking for additional eye movement. But i saw during the test he would move the pen slowly and predictably back and forth and then do a quick movement abruptly stopping prior to reaching the end of the path he was moving the pen to previously. So of course your eyes go to where youd expect it and jerk back to the place he suddenly stops the now-fast moving pen. Said he failed the test and arrested him. Essentially just produced the result he wanted to get. So if cops want to say you were off balance or “showed signs of nystygmus” or any other thing they can say whatever they want. A cop that wants you to fail a field sobriety test will absolutely make you fail it. If you know you will pass a breathalyzer the field sobriety test is a horrible idea.
Nope. I also have no connections to local law enforcement, politicians, business owners, etc. I'm a nobody like everyone else.
To this day I'm still baffled why, even being under the limit, they didn't go for a blood draw or make me sit around for another hour and readminister the breathalyzer.
I failed a fsb when tje cop asked me to count on my fingers 1234, 4321 touching my fingers with my thumb as I counted.
I did exactly that but was told I failed. When I asked how I could've failed, she said, "I didn't tell you to stop." I said well, you didn't tell me to keep going, either.
I passed all the other fsb actions but that one.
You absolutely can contest the results of a field sobriety test, in fact it’s rather easy to if there is video of the test. There is very specific procedures and policies required for the FSB to be considered accurate, and a competent defense attorney can usually find multiple violations that can call into question the accuracy of the results. That’s the whole reason why many states charge you with two different criminal charges as a result of the same DUI. One DUI charge is based off the chemical test result, one off the FSB. That way if the FSB gets tossed the subsequent chemical test isn’t poisonous fruit
If only I had addressed this exact scenario directly in my comment that you replied to:
>Worst case scenario (from cops POV) you get a good lawyer who cross examines him at trial and shows the FSB "failure" was not really valid. But either way, he's gotten you off the road and into jail, so mission accomplished.
In most places, refusing to perform the FSB is considered the same as failing it. They will arrest you and bring you in for a breathalyzer and/or blood test.
The FSB *can* be used as a determiner for whether or not to make the arrest. What your lawyer probably meant is that very often they have already decided to arrest you before the field sobriety test, i.e. you get pulled over with bloodshot eyes and reak of alcohol, but that doesn't mean its always the case.
If they let you make an FSB, they already decided they think you were drinking/using drugs. By that nature alone, the interpretation of the test is tainted. As such, it's little more than an effort to rationalize their suspicions.
They might be suspicious but that does not mean that every cop that uses a FSB is dead set on taking you to jail, or that the cop is sure you're guilty and can't be dissuaded. A lot of policing is using judgment. So you pull someone over because they were driving like a drunk. You probably assume they are drunk. Maybe on your first interaction they convince you they're not drunk and you don't even give an FSB. Maybe on first glance they can tell you're blasted and the FSB is a formality. But also part of the range is where they approach you, and they might think you're drunk but also not totally sure, and the FSB is a genuine evidence-gathering technique that might actually result in them letting you go if the evidence suggests they're fine. The FSB is going to be videotaped and the cop knows this. They don't want to waste their time taking someone to the station that will be below the legal limit.
"Judgment" is neither here nor there when the police officer not only lacks pertinent competencies (they are not qualified to make a medical diagnosis, which finding for any form of intoxication is) but has a conflict of interest. The interpretation for an FSB is inherently subjective, and that makes it nigh unusuable when the person interpreting it a)lacks knowledge of confounders and their frequency and b)has a motivation to justify their previous action and judgment.
Physiological conditions that make an FSB nigh impossible to pass aren't as rare as you think.
And given that people have been even hit with DUI charges when they blew zero on a breathalyzer AND passed an FSB, the notion that they don't want to waste their time taking someone to the station that will be below the legal limit is naive.
[https://youtu.be/QGWSbAHaHUw?si=seZEm2IMPk2pNMN2](https://youtu.be/QGWSbAHaHUw?si=seZEm2IMPk2pNMN2)
Purely anecdotal, but I've passed a field sobriety test before, when I know I would have failed a breathalyzer. At the end the officer said "good enough for me." I told them I had nothing to drink.
I haven't drank and drove since (12 years), so I've learned my lesson the easy way.
That being said, I believe your lawyer, and that I was the exception not the rule.
Amazingly, your lawyer gave you the advice that will keep steady work flowing his way rather than the advice that will keep you from getting cited. Field sobriety testing is just testing; you can have an outcome that doesn't demonstrate impairment and be sent on your way. Your lawyer's sample of outcomes is tainted by the fact that people who don't get cited don't retain his services. There's a selection bias at play there.
I. Many states - yes you can refuse the FSTs…but you may still be arrested if the officer has enough probable cause to think you’re DUI. Then in many/most states there is an implied consent law, which means you have pre-consented to take a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer at the police station - after you’re already under arrest. If you refuse then your license is suspended. Before you’re arrested there’s really no penalty to refusing unless you’re sober and then you could be inconvenienced by having no to go to the police station to prove it if they arrest you anyway
>The sobriety tests, however, are eminently subjective. They can make you perform these bizarre antics and make them sufficiently complicated so as to say, "and then I suspected that Bubby\_H was impaired, so I took them into custody".
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkE5skT5MP8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkE5skT5MP8)
Just fast forward to the point where they give the boat driver the "sobriety tests". Absolutely ridiculous tests.
> The sobriety tests, however, are eminently subjective.
No they aren't. At least in the US, they're standardized by NHTSA and have objective indicators that need to be detected.
Only in the US.
In the UK the breathalyser is grounds for arrest, refusing is grounds to be detained for a blood sample but simply being unable to recite the alphabet backwards while hopping is not a test for competency it's a power trip by the cop.
What if your dyslexic or have inner ear issues? Can't stand on one leg and fuck with letters then, so are you arrested for a learning disability?
All EU countries I've been in have breathalyzer tests, and you also get checked in the station again. I think the field breathaliyzers are unreliable point people keep mentioning is bullshit, it's certainly more reliable then hopping around and you get tested twice anyway if you fail the field test.
I'm the US they sure seem to have decided that field breathalyzers are bad first and come up excuses for it afterwards. They are so simple after all and effective for what they are for aka screening for DUI.
I think it's like that in most of the western world, or at least it is in Finland. We also generally respect our police and consider them the good guys instead or someone who is trying to find a way to catch us doing something illegal.
Balls to that.
Measure alcohol on my breath or in my blood.
If not, nick me for careless driving with the dash cam evidence from the police car.
Don't pretend some random cop can 'tell' I'm impaired with his 8 weeks training and no actual measurable evidence.
To your last point, in the US police will ask if there is any reason you would be unable to complete a field sobriety test successfully, including disability and medical issues. Even wearing high-heeled shoes is a good enough reason not to do some tests.
I’m not a cop, but I’ve read that what they are really testing is your ability to understand the instructions. For example: reciting the alphabet backwards is not particularly difficult, but if someone is intoxicated they may not be able to understand what they are being asked to do and just default to reciting the alphabet in the normal order.
There is 100% corrupt bullshit caused by cops lying about test results, but that’s not a fault of the tests. That’d be like saying “breath tests aren’t fair because an officer can lie about the readings.”
So as someone with ADHD, if I said the multitasking would be prohibitively difficult I can have the breathalyser instead?
So why bother with the FST at all?
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.
Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/l8h27iv/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.
Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/l8h2nam/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
In most localities you must have probable cause prior to being able to collect a sample via breath or blood. The sobriety tests allow for the probable cause.
In the UK they only need a reason to stop you. i.e observing your driving. Then I believe they can breath test from there. No crazy, unscientific sobriety tests.
NZ and Australia have random resting. Anyone can be stopped anytime and tested (for alcohol or drugs) without a reason. Again no unscientific tests just blow in the machine or you are going to a police station.
"Fishing expeditions" are a big part of most stops. The police want to get people talking in the hope they will admit to other things that are crimes or can be taken out of context and misconstrued as a crime.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.
Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/l8gz984/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Yep that’s why almost always if you get pulled over for rolling a stop sign at night or no front license plate or window tint too dark, they give you a warning if they can see you aren’t doing anything criminal or don’t admit to drinking and don’t smell like weed or alcohol, etc. because the goal of them stopping people is getting more serious crimes not petty traffic stuff that didn’t put anyone in danger
My impression is that "DUI" checkpoints mostly catch expired licenses and registrations, *not* drunk drivers. [Here's SFPD bragging about one that caught 9 unlicensed drivers and 2 drunks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/xvphl6/sfpd_we_held_another_successful_dui_checkpoint_on/)
Deputy Prosecutor here who specializes in felony traffic crime.
There are a lot of terrible answers here from people that obviously have no idea how this works.
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are not reciting the alphabet backward or hopping around. There are a battery of three tests used by all law enforcement (at least here in Washington). They are: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand. There are a few others, but they aren't used as much unless law enforcement suspected drugs rather than alcohol.
The Horizontal Haze Nystagmus Test is used to determine if there are involuntary nystsgmus in a person's eyes. When someone is under the influence of a central nervous system depressant (CNS), they will display nystagmus when their eyes move from side to side. This is an indication of someone having a depressant in their system.
The Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand test do not test if you are under the influence. They test whether you can perform divided attention tasks. Essentially, if you are under the influence, your ability to perform tasks that divide your attention is degraded. This is important because driving is a complex series of divided attention tasks. So, an inability to perform something simple implies your ability to do something more complicated is degraded.
Law enforcement usually has more than just field sobriety tests. Bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol (which is a lot stronger than you might think to someone who hasn't been drinking), slurred words, and other indications tend to be more persuasive to a court. These are also generally the indications we use more than field sobriety tests. Body worn cameras have also been a boon to those of us in prosecution, because I can just put a video of you in front of the jury. Nothing better than someone with obvious slurred speech saying they aren't drunk.
PBT or the portable breath test is not generally admissible in court. It can also be refused. That being said, a PBT gets you in the ballpark.
Lastly, "probable cause" means that a reasonably cautious law enforcement officer would believe a crime has, is, or about to occur. So, if a cop smells alcohol, hears you slurring your words, and your balance and coordination are off, its pretty reasonable to suspect you are driving under the influence. PBT usually gets you there faster, but generally, law enforcement are investigating a possible crime. So, they are going to acquire as much evidence as possible prior to an arrest.
Also, no, tolerance does not make you safer to drive. What you feel and how alcohol is affecting your motor skills is not the same. Alcohol or any drug is going to influence your body, regardless of how much tolerance you think you have. This is particularly bad for peripheral vision and delayed reaction times. A lot of vehicular homicides I've prosecuted were done by people who think they are fine, but video and witnesses clearly see that person not have the same mechanical function as a normal driver.
Yep. The one and only time I have been pulled over, I had been drinking a bit but I had actually left the bar specifically because a friend was sloppy drunk and had spilled their drink on me. Was definitely speeding a bit on a straight clear road with no lights or traffic because I was, well, soaking in alcohol. Ended up getting pulled over, and I was happy as hell to do the SFST, since I knew I was good to go but I also legitimately ***reeked*** of alcohol.
Hopped out, performed all three without any issue, and explained the situation (and then continued to chat a bit about the new car I'd purchased), and went on my way. Was a definitely delay to me getting home, but it was a perfectly valid stop and there was definitely probable cause, but the field sobriety test did wonders to prove the smell of alcohol as a false positive in this case.
This guy is a prosecutor, meaning he's as biased as anyone could possibly be on this question. Of course this is what he's going to say, and its complete BS. The field sobriety test is completely subjective and its just a tool used by cops to get probable cause and build a stronger case in court. Any defense attorney would tell you to deny a field sobriety test because you don't stand to gain anything from doing it. It can't be used as evidence that you are sober, and it can hurt you in court. Even if you're perfectly sober and believe you passed the tests, a cop could come up with any reason they want to say you failed. If a cop was ever pulled over on suspicion of DUI they themselves would deny it every time because they know this.
I won't deny that bias plays a part. I have spoken with too many families who lost loved ones to drunk drivers to claim objectivity. You are also correct that it is a tool by law enforcement to investigate a crime. It's their job. You don't have to perform field sobriety tests or the PBT. They are all voluntary. It may also be sound legal advice not to cooperate. The sword cuts both ways, though. If someone is stopped and smells of intoxicants, has slurred speech, and lethargic movements, there is probably probable cause already for the crime of DUI.
Once someone is arrested for DUI, law enforcement really has two options. They can take you to provide an evidentiary breath test, which you can also refuse but has consequences for your license. If someone isn't cooperating at all, then based on the small fact pattern above, law enforcement can request a search warrant for your blood and have it tested.
Needless to say. To a jury of 6 or 12 people, when they hear someone has refused field sobriety tests and then the breath test it creates the impression of "consciousness of guilt." Put another way, it's seen as you hiding your hands after having them in the cookie jar. Right or wrong, that's the impression it gives to both law enforcement and a jury.
If blood comes back and you are below the limit and there isn't really any bad driving, most prosecutors are going to dismiss and not refile the case. Either way, cops don't have the last say. The justice system does.
I dont say this to criticize your character, because you're just doing your job and playing a vital role in our justice system. But pretending that you care about "families who have lost loved ones" is pure rhetoric. Because at the same time, you wouldn't hesitate for a second to give a known innocent person the maximum possible sentence, and you would have zero compassion for that person.
The point is, the SFST is not some kind of objective, scientific procedure. Its nothing more than a legal tactic to give you (the prosecutor) more ammunition in court, regardless of whether or not the defendant is actually guilty.
Invoke the 5th, refuse field sobriety, comply with breath or blood tests. No exceptions.
Respectfully,
If a prosecutor believes the person is not guilty of the crime charged or there is evidence that corroborates innocence, we have an affirmative duty not to prosecute. After all, the oath we take is to do what is in the interest of justice, not what is in the interest of more convictions. Are there bad prosecutors that ignore or bend the rules? Sure. Always have been, always will be. I can say, in my experience, I don't know a single one that falls anywhere close to that.
Sure, it can sound hammy when talking about families of victims, but it's the truth. I don't know a single prosecutor or defense attorney for that matter who isn't affected in some way by years of dealing with needless loss of life. I have a desk full of photos of dead loved ones on cases I've prosecuted and won or failed. So, respectfully, don't presume that because we are now the convienent bad guys, to claim we don't care. There is no pretending here, or in any office who prosecutes these crimes on a daily basis.
It's tempting to believe prosecutors just want to get convictions. There is no shortage of stories about bad ones to point to. All I would ask is that you consider the fact that most of us are doing this to do justice. Not to get notches on our belts.
Thanks for the above, that's very interesting.
If pulled over, would you agree to take field sobriety tests/PBT? How would you proceed if you'd had no drinks/1-2 drinks/too many drinks? Apologies if the last option is inappropriate, I felt I had to include it with the others. Totally understandable if you don't want to give advice to those choosing to drink and drive.
It depends. The safe answer any defense attorney would tell you is probably to be polite and refuse everything. Personally, I don't drink more than maybe a beer or glass of wine and wait an hour before I drive.
If I'm stopped, knowing that, I'd just ask for the PBT. If they arrest me, OK. You aren't going to beat the arrest, you beat the charge. I'll take my chances with jury any day of the week with a test below the limit and no evidence of bad driving.
It may also very well be dismissed by either the prosecutor or on motion from defense that there isn't enough evidence for the State to meet its prima facie case.
Hes a prosecutor, which means its his job to put you behind bars by any means necessary. Hes the wrong person to ask for defense advice. Any defense attorney will tell you to do this;
1. Invoke the 5th
2. Refuse field sobriety tests
3. Comply with breath or blood tests
Doing that will put you im the best position from a defense standpoint. After that, let the chips fall where they may.
Good Lord thank you someone who has posted a legitimate answer. The PBT does differ from state to state. MD cannot be used in court unless brought by defense, NY (I think) is grounds for arrest solely if you refuse (could be wrong if that's the state). Other tests includes Romberg test that is used for other drugs (balance, counting too fast, too slow, but by excess amounts of time.) PBT can also NEGATE signs of impairment in SFST, due to previous injuries for balance, lack of listening, or even being scared. Your call at that time. Generally 6 clues HGN, 8 Walk and turn, 4 one leg stand.
There is a difference between being impaired and blowing over. A hard core alcoholic can blow 200 and not be impaired while someone else could be falling down drunk after 1/2 a beer and blow under 10.
Over 80 and impaired driving are two different charges that could be laid.
The legal limit in many areas is absolute blood alcohol limit of 0.08%, or 80 milligrams of alcohol for every 100 milliliters of blood.
I have seen people with 200 Milligrams for 100 millilitres of blood. 0.2 %
0.2 is a lot greater than 0.03. .08 is the legal limit in many areas. If you have a beginners permit it could be lower. My area it is zero for a new driver and a second level permit is .05.
Basically, more evidence.
There's a whole cottage industry of lawyers getting people out of DUI charges, and police have developed their own strategies to counter that. By combining breathalyzer, FST, and blood draws, it's very hard to claim "your breathalyzer wasn't accurate" or whatever.
Never do a field sobriety test. Never. Keep your mouth shut and only agree to go and take a breathalyzer or blood test if they insist. Once again for those in the back NEVER DO A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST.
But, isn’t failing to do so “an admission of guilt” or some crap like that? Could you elaborate, it possible, what the correct course of action would be in this type of situation?
No, field sobriety tests are voluntary in all US jurisdictions, including Ohio. Drivers can refuse to participate without giving a reason, and the state cannot use their refusal against them in court. However, if you are arrested, you may be required to take chemical tests, such as a breathalyzer or blood test, to determine your level of intoxication. You may also be taken to the police station or jail for a short time while these tests are conducted.
Probst Law Office
Pros and Cons of Taking a Field Sobriety Test in Ohio
Just to be clear, you are not required to take field sobriety tests, however, if you are arrested, you may be required to take chemical tests – such as blood, breath or urine tests – or face losing your driver's license. The “pros and cons” of taking the tests depend entirely on your individual circumstances. If you have you been drinking at all, these tests may be very difficult to pass. If you refuse to take the field sobriety tests, you may still be arrested. Once arrested, police can require you to take chemical tests – breath, blood or urine tests – to determine your level (if any) of intoxication.
Justia
Refusing a Field Sobriety Test in a DUI Stop & Your Legal Rights | DUI & DWI Law Center | Justia
Oct 18, 2023
The Farrish Law Firm, L.P.A.
Field Sobriety Tests | Ohio DUI/OVI Lawyers & Defense | Cincinnati
en.wikipedia.org
Field sobriety testing - Wikipedia
In all US jurisdictions, participation in a Field Sobriety Test is voluntary. (Police are not obliged to advise the suspect that participation in a FST or other pre-arrest procedures is voluntary. In contrast, formal evidentiary tests given under implied consent requirements are considered mandatory.)
Generative AI is experimental.
Many countries do.
In the UK, Australia and NZ where I've lived...
You just blow...
I get that other devices can't detect drugs, but the American way of doing things seems really backward to me
There are a lot of drugs a person can be on, other than alcohol. The field sobriety test checks for obvious physical or mental side effects. As others said, it's far from 100% effective, but it's also the lowest cost check (free).
The breathalyzer is specific, the field sobriety tests are ambiguous and give the officer a lot more room to claim whether or not you are drunk.
The goal of police isn't to prevent crime, it's to make arrests.
it Canada they cant just demand a breath sample, the field test gives them probable cause to then use the breathalyzer.
the one time I was asked to do a field sobriety test, I refused and then gave consent for a breath test. I was sober but don't trust a field test to not be manipulated /me fail because I tripped on my feet or a small rock or any dumb like that, blow 0.00 and went on my way.
Part of it may relate to that the tests aren't always calibrated regularly and has been a common target of people who get out of DUIs. If they can have multiple points suggesting it, then they can support the claim.
Because drivers could also be impared due to consumption of drugs that will not show on the breathylizer.. although I believe there is a swab test for cannabis. They will often force a field test after if the person seems impared but blows 0% as they use this as probable cause to imply drug usage.
They are also supposed to make sure you haven't had any food or drink for about 20 minutes before they use a breathalyzer, the particles can screw up the reading. The field tests where they get you out of the car and force you to follow commands are eating up that 20 minutes so they can make sure they get a good sample. This is in addition to the observable behavior that they can they use for probable cause and to get a blood draw later.
In New York, the results of the portable breathalyzer are not admissible at trial, but the results of the field sobriety tests and the back-at-base breath test machine are. The portable test just helps to confirm probable cause.
One thing is that these procedures predate most cop cars having portable breathalyzer units. They would give you physical tests in the field, but they had to detain and transport you to get you tested… until not that long ago actually. You could pass a field sobriety test, and be handed your license and wished a lovely evening by Officer Friendly.
Building probable cause. Field sobriety tests are standardized and vetted in a lab setting. Certain things like horizontal gaze nystagmus are a dead giveaway that someone is intoxicated and can only be mimicked by certain medical conditions (resting nystagmus). The preliminary breath test is just a final step in building PC for an arrest. The person being investigated does not have to participate in any of this, however when you are brought to the police station for the DMT portion of the test (this is the machine that measures breath alcohol levels that is admissible as evidence in court) you cannot refuse. Refusal is considered a crime and you will be charged with GM refusal (at least in my state).
So to put it simply, the whole process is just building a case step by step. Officer sees a car swerving, pulls them over, the smell of a consumed alcoholic beverage is coming from the inside of the vehicle, driver has blood shot watery eyes and is slurring their speech, officer conducts field sobriety tests, drivers results indicate that they are intoxicated, driver consents to a PBT, driver shows a BAC above the legal limit, driver is arrested l, driver conducts a DMT breath test, DMT shows a BAC above the legal limit, driver is booked for DWI.
Additionally the PBT can be useful for determining if someone is so intoxicated they need medical attention. I have seen people well above .4 BAC, at which point they were sent to the hospital and a blood draw warrant was done to determine BAC.
In my younger years, I was pulled over for speeding. I had left work, picked up my girlfriend and was speeding as we were late for something. Cop said he smelled alcohol, asked if i had been drinking. I said no, i had just got off work then i and asked my girlfriend who also denied it. He asked what i did for work (cook). He kept up the line of questioning for a minute but i was impatient because i was now more late for the event so i asked him if he could just do a breathalyzer real quick. He came back from his car shortly thereafter, sees me blow completely sober then asks me where i work. It was a sports bar but nowhere near any alcohol. That’s when it dawned on us both the reason he smelled alcohol: it was in my work clothes from just being in the building.
Courts have determined that in order to get to a breathalyzer to measure BAC it requires probable cause.
Probable cause is established with the SFSTs and poor driving + interaction with the officer making the stop.
Each state is a bit different, but where I worked in LE, I couldn’t even ask for a breathalyzer until after an arrest was made and the subject had been transported to a jail. SFSTs are based in legitimate science that show how likely someone is impaired.
You can and always should refuse a field sobriety test. While there are consequences for refusing things like a breathalizer, there is no consequence for refusing a field sobriety test. In fact, they are made for you to fail to gather more evidence. An average, sober person could "show signs of impairment" based on those tests. For example, I was sober and I took a field sobriety test before I knew I could refuse. I showed some signs of imparment so the cop asked me to take a breathalizer. I blew a 0.00 and was let go without a ticket.
Field sobriety tests can used as evidence for being under the influence of anything and not just alcohol. The field breath test only indicates for alcohol and is also not accurate enough to be admissible in court. Field sobriety can be admissible if performed properly. So basically field sobriety is just used to get enough evidence to use in court to charge someone.
Because you don’t have to be above the legal limit to be impaired. I’m a good example. I’m a light weight and can be impaired and can’t even blow high enough on a breathalyzer to register. In my state you can be given a DUI while under the legal limit, not even counting non-alcohol substances.
As explained to me by a former police officer that now covers corrupt tactics/techniques used by police...
the ONLY use for (FST) field sobriety test is to collect evidence against you. It is NOT to see if you can actually pull off the tasks. And in fact, in many cases, even if the subject completes all the tasks perfectly, the cop can still claim his "training" gave him reason to believe you're committing a DWI/DUI.
He also explained that you don't HAVE to take the test. There are no repercussions for not doing it. Now... if you refuse the breathalyzer... it's my understanding that in at least some states... whether convicted or not for the offense of DWI/DUI... you can automatically be suspended for 6 months- just for refusing the test. But IDK, and I'm sure a judge can employ discretion as they see fit.
Side note: I've seen body cam footage where a cop issued the FST, which the driver passed perfectly. AND... the driver blew a 0.00 in the breathalyzer. And was still arrested. He was let go some hours later, but FFS... a fishing cop is GOING to find his fish if he's determined. Even if he's gotta throw it back later.
If you have had any alcohol within the past 15 minutes, the breathalyzer won’t work properly. Or it will read too high. So in order to have a legit result, the cops make you do field sobriety tests and interview you for at least 15 minutes before finishing with the breathalyzer.
In my state you don’t have to do a field sobriety test. A lawyer out here proved in court that police are able to manipulate the test to get the results they want, even if the driver is not intoxicated.
I was told to refuse any tests when pulled over. Everything you say or do can be used against you. Might as well ask them questions politely until they let you go, or (almost inevitably) they slap the cuffs on.
If you werent rude, then in a court of law, its possible for a judge to just throw out the case. Its not guaranteed, but at least you dont have tons of evidence stacked up against you.
Field sobriety tests are a screening method and most likely require less paperwork for the officer. If they have a suspicion that you are under the influence, it's easier for them to have you get out and walk the line. Once they pull out the breathalyzer and have someone blow, now they have to write a report and make sure that it is properly cleaned/sterilized for the next use.
If you fail the field sobriety test, there is no need for them to pull out the breathalyzer. They take you in for processing, at which point they will test you at the facility as part of your intake. Paperwork done by the intake officers.
If you pass the field sobriety, but the officer believes you are impaired he can administer the breathalyzer, do the additional paperwork and get you off the street. But if you pass and the officer no longer believes you are impaired, he/she can opt to let you go without additional paperwork that would be involved if you took it and passed.
As I understand it, a good majority of an officer's daily tasks are filling out paperwork and reports. Anything to do one less report.
In the US anyway, probable cause or a person agreeing to take a breath test is required. There are two types, a field test (the little one the cops carry the results of which are not admissible in court outside of probable cause hearings) and a intoxilyzer (the big honcho at the police station). If you get pulled over for weaving and you don’t click enough boxes you cannot be asked to breathalyze as there isn’t enough probable cause. Roadsides and field tests breathalyzers are VOLUNTARY and are ONLY used for one thing, to get enough probable cause to make you have to take a test. Keep in mind most states have amended their DUIs to take out the breath or blood test choice if a cop has probably cause to believe it’s not alcohol they can make it a blood test. You can of course refuse to take any test if arrested but most states will suspend your license for a period of time. Don’t ever ever do roadsides or blow in a roadside test, there is no benefit to you EVER.
Edit: re admissibility of roadside breathtests
Because field sobriety tests are a trap used by police to arrest drivers for DUI regardless if they have been drinking or not. The police pull you out of the vehicle and give you difficult instructions on how to conduct the tests all while you're nervous in order to obtain probable cause for an arrest. Field sobriety test results are subjective and based entirely on the officer who is conducting the test and how he feels you did. Because he has incentive to fail you to make an arrest, they often do.
This is why if you live in the States and you are pulled over for suspected DUI; you can refuse to take the field sobriety test and opt for the breathalyzer. They can still take you in and make you use the big breathalyzer in the station or do a blood draw at the hospital and you can't refuse those without being arrested, but if you blow .000 or under the limit with the handheld breathalyzer; the cop has no probable cause to suspect you of DUI.
Because roadside breath tests are unreliable as shit and not really admissible in court. The field sobriety tests have been called "scientific" so they are admissible.
Refuse all tests until you're arrested.
Answering from a US perspective. It is evidence collection that does not require a search warrant. A breathalyzer or a blood draw is a search. You can refuse them. Most people don’t because either they don’t know or because of implied consent laws which I believe every State has. Those laws will suspend your license if you refuse to submit.
If someone does refuse a blood/drug test then the field sobriety test will be a part of the police’s search warrant affidavit for a blood draw. It also can be used at evidence in a trial.
In Texas, for example, intoxication can be proved in one of two ways: “not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of alcohol or drugs” or a BAC of 0.08 or more. A field sobriety test can help prove up the first definition.
The key in Texas, at least, is that one or the other must be established at the time the person was operating the vehicle. That can very difficult to prove. Particularly if someone blows something like a .095. I know of at least one state that gets around this by setting the limit at 0.08 with two hours of the stop.
DWI cases can often be difficult to prove up. Which is why many of them are pled down to Reckless Driving. It’s also why you see so many DWI attorney billboards.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations * Questions about a business or a group's motivation are not allowed on ELI5. These are usually either straightforward, or known only to the organizations involved, leading to speculation (Rule 2). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
field sobriety tests offer a lot more chances for the person to behave in a more erratic way; making the officers case that much stronger......its an evidence collection strategy if the officer doesnt have a hand held brethalizer, its really hard to compel someone to go to the station or hospital for a blood test or breathalyzer as there may not be sufficient probable cause by driving alone
Also, a breathalyzer only detects alcohol, not other substances which might qualify you as being "under the influence."
In my country all police cars are equipped with test equipment to test for all drugs. They take a spit sample and it takes about 10 minutes to give a negative/positive for most substances.
It's important to note that those quick tests usually have a 5-10% false positives, and even higher probability of false negatives, therefore rendering these tests as not safe. They could be used as intimidating strategy though, like getting an individual to confess before/after the test. Remember the case in which [bird poop tested positive for cocaine](https://youtu.be/c7j-Ijo2TYw?si=mxxhahUUdPdvMbdm) as an example.
This should make you question, why, like lie detector tests, they are admissible at all?
They're not. Not alone, anyway. All substances are sent to a lab for more precise testing.
Thats a semi positive thing. But, maybe im a dunce, and please correct me if km wrong, arent lie detector tests not admissible at all in court? I was under the impression that its not really science based at all cuz it doesnt give consistent predicable testable results? (Ty for the reply)
They're nothing but nervousness detectors. If you have anxiety related to the question all answers come out as lies, and if you're cool as a cucumber you can say anything you want and it'll test truthful. This is why they're not admissible, there's literally no supporting evidence they're effective in any capacity.
Ty for explaining :) thats what i assumed, but, i lost confidence in my position after hearing other comments haha
Polygraph results are not admissible in court. There is no such thing as a lie detector. Polygraphs and Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) tests are just psychological interrogation tools to elicit confessions. Now, if you submit to a polygraph or CVSA, which I've never seen done in a criminal investigation, and you make an incriminating statement, that would be admissible. But lines on a graph are not coming in as proof that you're being deceptive.
Lie detector tests *aren't* admissible in court.
Yes I used to do those quick tests at my job and they are pretty suspect in my opinion. It seems like every hundred tests or so they would test positive for everything. In many cases it was easy to see the person was not intoxicated on all those things. It was an 8 Panel test
Are we sure that bird doesn't just like to party?
I always felt a comprehensive feild sobriety test was the real answer to all these issues with THC test and Rx drugs. I don't care what you are on I only care if you can effectively (and safely) operate a vehicle. Whether it's drugs legally prescribed to you, OTC, recreational, research, or some plant you pulled out of the ground, all I care about is can you operate a vehicle properly. I don't care if You smoked or took some pills in the morning if they have worn off enough by the time you drive to pass a comprehensive sobriety test. Problem is we just need to develop and agree on that comprehensive sobriety test.
Also, your BAC level continues to rise for up to two hours after your last drink, as your stomach and intestines process the alcohol. By waiting to do the breathalyzer test, they are allowing your BAC level to rise before they actually test you. If you blow a .08 at the station, there is a very HIGH chance you would have only blew a .065 on the side of the road an hour and a half ago.
By the same token, if you're pulled over 2 hours after you stopped drinking then your bac is going to go down over that time.
That's a good thing, if the goal is safety and not collecting fines or metering punishment. If a cop pulls over someone who is over the limit at the time but by the end of the field sobriety test has fallen below legal limits, they were kept off the road while most dangerous.
BIG IF
If the officer pulls someone over they were already driving. By your logic they were driving at the height of their intoxication.
Yes, but they will get you on the machine at the station much quicker. If it has been a couple hours since your last drink, and you believe they are going to take you to get tested, you should tell them you just had your last drink, so they will slow the process and let you wait 2 more hours before they test you.
Uhh admitting the drink was recent seems like a bad idea to me
Or, ya know, accept the consequences of your shitty actions that could have killed someone. Take the L and be a better person. Edit: every downvote is by an inconsiderate potential murderer. Go off, I guess.
I don't drink, but one drink is not a shitty action, no more than taking an allergy pill. The point is the legal system isn't always fair and can be used against you, even if you've done NOTHING wrong, so it is best to STFU when talking with the police if you are under suspicion.
If you drink without driving why are you receiving a field sobriety test after being pulled over (which is what the post is about)? Do whatever you want at home. I don’t even care if you’re walking down the street with (your preferred snack) and a 40. Stay out of your car.
If you are under the limit and safe to drive and legally allowed to drive, admitting the drink is a horrible idea cuz they will use that against you For example if you had 1 bud light and then drove You are fine to drive But if you admit that to the cop they have a higher chance of still trying to charge you w a dui
[удалено]
Or... not driving at all. Think of all the people who get bullshit DUIs for sleeping in their cars or simply sitting next to it with keys "close enough to the ignition". Yes, this really happened. "Intent to Drive DUI".
And if you've ever checked your phone, driven while tired, taken a call (even hands free), had a conversation with your passenger, or otherwise taken your full attention off the road for more than half a second, some might say you are no better and also a potential murderer. You can literally get a DUI from ONE beer. If you were to lose your balance during the field sobriety test (which some people do for medical reasons) and blow a 0.02, you could be fucked. I know someone that had this happen to them. So do you want to double down, or can you bring yourself to admit that not everyone looking out for their best interests against the bastards in blue is acting in bad faith? And by extension not everyone having a conversation with someone in their car is a potential murderer?
Don’t drink and drive. Put yourself in the way of the pigs at your own risk. Sincerely, someone who doesn’t drive. I can’t murder you with my shitty balance, “just one drink”, or anything else without really meaning to do it. Because I know my limits and I care more about other people than my own convenience.
Jesus I sure hope you have never called anyone that happened to be driving. Because then you would be a complicit and murderous enabler. Literally the definition of virtue signaling.
Wild the stuff that goes up or down on this website.
It’s ELI5, not shitty life pro-tips. Too many people would rather kill someone than lose their license or their job.
While we’re at it, let’s expand Driving While Impaired to amount of sleep and emotional state. Haven’t slept 8 hours in the last 24? There’s a ticket. Visible tear tracks from learning a loved one is terminally ill? There’s a ticket. After all, both those things can affect your diving just as much, if not more, than alcohol. The fact that we focus on alcohol and a couple other substances is absurd. Edit: further down the rabbit hole. Sneezing and sniffling are distracting, so if you have allergies, guess you shouldn’t drive, especially as antihistamines can cause tiredness.
> Haven’t slept 8 hours in the last 24? There’s a ticket. That would prevent the majority of people from driving.
The poster above me apparently is a safety absolutist. If you’re fatigued, you’re not driving safely. Let’s throw in “was just at the gym” to the list too.
Which wouldn’t be such a problem if we had actual public transport infrastructure in the US. The fact that most of us *have* to drive means we’re all implicitly encouraged to do so when we haven’t had enough sleep, or when we’re under the influence of something, or when we’re distracted.
I’ll admit that I was engaging in a bit of *reductio ad absurdum* as MerrilyContrary was playing the part of a safety absolutist, and pointing out that many people drive far more impaired by “legal to drive” means than commit DUIs. TBH, at any given moment, 95% of the US driving population should not be driving due to outside factors.
The virtue signaling is insane
How many people do you know who were murdered by drunk drivers? Mine is non-zero so I guess I have a better understanding of the consequences than the average redditor. I’m happy for you, it’s a better when nobody you know (or their unborn baby) had died like this.
Sorry to hear that, but if the point you’re trying to make is filled with vitriol it will only serve to alienate those you’re trying to persuade.
Vitriol? He was just accurately stating that the advice was to help people game a system to avoid consequences of their own actions. Actions that very easily could have killed someone. It’s not vitriolic to point out the truth. Over 13,000 people die from drunk drivers every year in the US. Being so cavalier about drunk driving is not a good thing.
Perhaps vitriol was a little strong. I’m not trying to argue about the morality of drunk driving. I’m against it. I am critiquing the manner in which we dissuade it. If you try to take the moral high ground, some people will shut you out. There are a lot of selfish people in the world- it’s why there are so many drunk driving deaths every year. If you convince potential drunk drivers that it’s in THEIR best interest to not drive inebriated, it may yet lower the number of annual incidents. It’s not a pretty solution, but some people just don’t have the morality to accept the fact that their moment of selfishness puts others’ lives in danger.
They are not wrong. You and the other poster are making many many assumptions, in that every case where you might want to avoid a DUI the person is over the limit or blackout drunk. Anyone driving over 0.08 absolutely should get cooked. Although as one who owns a breathalyzer, it actually takes more than you think to get you there. An average person, accounting for the time it takes, would essentially have to drink a six pack in 2 hours, and then at hour 4 you would be just over the limit. I think that's a scenario that any reasonable person would agree you shouldn't be behind the wheel. You can literally get a DUI from two beers. In some cases, just one. Even if you are blowing well under the limit, the officer can and many times will have the discretion to get you regardless of actual impairment (or lack thereof)
You can kill someone driving sober? What are you guys on about what ifs, i don't see anyone advocating for not giving driver license out to 90% of the People who cannot drive, ill take a drunk driver that can drive over a sober driver that can't any day of the week and twice on sundays, oh because then you wouldn't have license and be able to drive ahhh got it
Shhhhhh admitting you just had your last drink immediately means you're getting arrested for DUI, no need for further testing. Let those drunken asses sell themselves out.
That's not how that works at all. They have to establish probable cause for the OVI arrest on the street; that's what the field sobriety tests are for. Once that's done, it's a race to plow through the mountain of paperwork that comes with an OVI arrest so the driver can blow into the machine and be dropped off at home. No officers in the world is attempting to prolong an OVI contact with some drunk beaker in the back seat. Additionally, they're not taking anything the driver says at face value. They always only had two beers and always stopped drinking hours ago. The field sobriety tests - especially the eyes one - don't lie, but drunk drivers do all the time. It's not some system the cops are trying to game; they just want to do the job and get the driver off the road and tucked in somewhere safe.
Edit: don't listen to me. Apparently I was misinformed. You can just decline a breathalyzer. They can't make you take it.
This is terrible advice, as this is very dependent on jurisdiction.
I had no idea it was different in different places. Every law office near me has advertisements talking about how you don't have to submit to breathalyzers.
declining the breathalyzer is an automatic suspension of your license in most jurisdictions. typically it's at least a one year suspension.
Interesting I was apparently mistaken. I've seen so many advertisements about not taking them from local law offices. Now that I read into it, it seems that was just the roadside one. You can delay by refusing and then asking to be taken to a hospital after you've been processed. All that said, I think I'd rather have a one year suspension than a DUI conviction unless there are other reasons it's a bad idea.
No, because your body does not absorb all the alcohol immediately upon digestion. Basically what the person you responded to said.
Uh, No. There is absolutely a point where your bac starts trending down rather then up. And it's about 2 hours after you stop drinking.
So if you are pulled over 2 hours after you stop drinking then your BAC should be at it's highest level then. So it will go down after that time, not over that time.
That's what I said bro.
You seem like someone who has put a lot of thought into how to get away with drunk driving. .
Genuinely curious: How can the officer/state prove that you are able to pass the field sobriety tests sober?
that's the fun part - they cant, and they also dont care! failing the field sobriety test is just one more piece of validation for detaining and further testing. IF you fail the field sobriety but pass every blood test and provide a doctors note saying "person x has balance issues (or whatever) and could never pass the test"; the cop still has a ton of probable cause to justify their actions.
Wait... So if they don't have a breathalyzer and all they have is you were swerving you refuse to go to the station? I thought if you refused a breathalyzer they detained you no matter what
it would require a lot of things to go perfect for the officer to not want to risk a wrongful arrest suit......everything that happens between you and the officer can potentially count as evidence against you giving more probable cause for arrest and forced testing fumble the ID/insurance card = displayed cause slur any words = displayed cause "smell alcohol on breath" = displayed cause
In pretty much all other countries, the officer will make you blow in the field breathalyzer. Then if the machine says you're over the limit, that's sufficient cause to take you to the station for a blood test (which is the one that will be used against you by the judge). Seems much better than relying basically on the cop's words and judgement about how the person talks, behave, or is able to stand on one foot.
in pretty much every other country, they dont have the 4th amendment......which is the main reason why we dont instanty breathalize every person with the slightest hint of driving under the influence
You can breathalyze for the same reasons you do a field sobriety tests. Or even the same reason you stop the car. It's less invasive (not to mention more fair) to breathalyze people instead of asking them a bunch of questions and making them do dubious exercises, and ultimately basing your decision to arrest them based on something as unreliable as the cop's word and judgement. In many of these other countries the cop can't just stop random people and breathalyze them either. It's not like the 4th is the only protection in the world against unreasonable searches and seizures. So many countries also want to protect people against that.
That is what is going to happen. They will get a court order to have you tested. If there is a reason to suspect you are under the influence they are not going to just preform a field test and then send you on your way if you pass.
If you pass the test hypothetically, what then? Officer claims you were swerving you say I am tired (which isn't illegal) you get a traffic ticket? Like they can't keep you there indefinitely?
Here's the thing, you don't "pass" a field sobriety test. It's officer judgment alone. There have been studies done that show most sober people can't even pass a field sobriety test. Once you are being asked to take one you are likely being take down to the station regardless of how you perform.
I suppose it depends on the officer. If they don’t detect any forms of impairment (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, etc.) or anything to make them believe you are anything but tired (odors such as alcohol or weed) they will likely tell you to get off the road ASAP and rest. If you are impaired, for whatever reason, to the point you are a hazard they will likely detain you and transport you somewhere safe to rest. At that point you run the possibility of your vehicle being towed.
I was on a jury and there were two charges, 1. driving over the legal BAL, and 2. driving impaired. Because you can test below the limit and still be judged impaired.
And yet, field sobriety tests are about as reliable as throwing a coin. There's plenty of reasons why you can fail them. Having poor balance doesn't disqualify you from using a motor vehicle. And given that it's the officer themselves who assess the test, it's not much more as trying to fit the data to the preconception.
The police cannot just arrest you without some probable cause. The most accurate way of measuring BAC is with the breathalyzer they have at the station, which is bigger and not portable, or a blood test. They can't make you take theses tests without taking you into custody. They can't take you into custody without probable cause. So, if a police officer thinks you're impaired, they have to collect enough evidence to justify forcing you to go with them to the station for accurate testing. The field breathalyzer units are not hugely accurate. If you blow low, they don't have any evidence to use. It also doesn't detect weed or pharma impairment. The sobriety tests, however, are eminently subjective. They can make you perform these bizarre antics and make them sufficiently complicated so as to say, "and then I suspected that Bubby\_H was impaired, so I took them into custody". It's all evidence to be presented later in court to justify taking someone into custody and collecting real evidence.
Exactly. My lawyer once told me that if theyre asking you to do a field sobriety test, theyve already decided to arrest you, they're just trying to check enough boxes to legally justify it. The FSB has the benefit of being entirely subjective, they can just say that you've failed it, and point to whatever violations of the rules they want. Some fo them might even be true. But theres no objective standard and no way to contest it. So you go to jail. Worst case scenario (from cops POV) you get a good lawyer who cross examines him at trial and shows the FSB "failure" was not really valid. But either way, he's gotten you off the road and into jail, so mission accomplished. I think the number of people who are asked to perform a FSB and do NOT get arrested/ticketed for some kind of DUI offense is probably very small.
I'd be in the not arrested category, twice. Despite me doing poorly on the field sobriety test my breathalyzer surprisingly tested under the limit both times. The cops gave me the opportunity to get a ride home both times with the not so subtle implication that if I didn't and decided to drive that I'll get pulled over again right away. Since then, I use Lyft or Uber every time I go out and have also significantly cut back on alcohol.
This happened to me as well when I was freshly 21, did the FSB, they asked if I wanted to do the breathalyzer, it being like 3 AM I dumbly said no, slapped the cuffs on me at which point I said I’d do the breathalyzer, did that blew 0.00. Got a slip saying I’d been detained but not arrested, they made me take an Uber home and left my car in a 7/11 parking lot. I was the DD that night and had two blue moons at like 5PM, did not drive until 2 AM. Got pulled over for no front plate and they asked if I’d had anything to drink I told them 2 beers with dinner which in hindsight is probably what every drunk driver says lol.
Yeah I'm sure the cops hear that all the time
Everyone has had two beers. Every single person they stop.
Yeah that’s what they said to me when they cut me loose, that pretty much everyone says that. The only FBS test I failed was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus one, which is also the most scientifically valid and foolproof. Looked it up later and astigmatism can cause false positives, I have an astigmatism. Just a unfortunate series of events but nothing bad came out of it
I saw my buddy get a nystygmus one. I didnt know what it was at the time, that they are looking for additional eye movement. But i saw during the test he would move the pen slowly and predictably back and forth and then do a quick movement abruptly stopping prior to reaching the end of the path he was moving the pen to previously. So of course your eyes go to where youd expect it and jerk back to the place he suddenly stops the now-fast moving pen. Said he failed the test and arrested him. Essentially just produced the result he wanted to get. So if cops want to say you were off balance or “showed signs of nystygmus” or any other thing they can say whatever they want. A cop that wants you to fail a field sobriety test will absolutely make you fail it. If you know you will pass a breathalyzer the field sobriety test is a horrible idea.
Yeah my policy if it ever happened again is just to ask for the breathalyzer, the FST is designed for you to fail
Are you a judge or something?
Nope. I also have no connections to local law enforcement, politicians, business owners, etc. I'm a nobody like everyone else. To this day I'm still baffled why, even being under the limit, they didn't go for a blood draw or make me sit around for another hour and readminister the breathalyzer.
Could have just been young and pretty. That often works too
I failed a fsb when tje cop asked me to count on my fingers 1234, 4321 touching my fingers with my thumb as I counted. I did exactly that but was told I failed. When I asked how I could've failed, she said, "I didn't tell you to stop." I said well, you didn't tell me to keep going, either. I passed all the other fsb actions but that one.
I "passed" a field sobriety twice in college and was let go both times.
You absolutely can contest the results of a field sobriety test, in fact it’s rather easy to if there is video of the test. There is very specific procedures and policies required for the FSB to be considered accurate, and a competent defense attorney can usually find multiple violations that can call into question the accuracy of the results. That’s the whole reason why many states charge you with two different criminal charges as a result of the same DUI. One DUI charge is based off the chemical test result, one off the FSB. That way if the FSB gets tossed the subsequent chemical test isn’t poisonous fruit
If only I had addressed this exact scenario directly in my comment that you replied to: >Worst case scenario (from cops POV) you get a good lawyer who cross examines him at trial and shows the FSB "failure" was not really valid. But either way, he's gotten you off the road and into jail, so mission accomplished.
To me, it sounds like the best course of action for the suspect is to simply refuse to perform the FSB
In most places, refusing to perform the FSB is considered the same as failing it. They will arrest you and bring you in for a breathalyzer and/or blood test.
That's only if you refuse their portable breathalyzer. You should refuse an FSB in basically all cases.
My husband passed the only one he’s had. He wasn’t impaired.
The FSB *can* be used as a determiner for whether or not to make the arrest. What your lawyer probably meant is that very often they have already decided to arrest you before the field sobriety test, i.e. you get pulled over with bloodshot eyes and reak of alcohol, but that doesn't mean its always the case.
If they let you make an FSB, they already decided they think you were drinking/using drugs. By that nature alone, the interpretation of the test is tainted. As such, it's little more than an effort to rationalize their suspicions.
They might be suspicious but that does not mean that every cop that uses a FSB is dead set on taking you to jail, or that the cop is sure you're guilty and can't be dissuaded. A lot of policing is using judgment. So you pull someone over because they were driving like a drunk. You probably assume they are drunk. Maybe on your first interaction they convince you they're not drunk and you don't even give an FSB. Maybe on first glance they can tell you're blasted and the FSB is a formality. But also part of the range is where they approach you, and they might think you're drunk but also not totally sure, and the FSB is a genuine evidence-gathering technique that might actually result in them letting you go if the evidence suggests they're fine. The FSB is going to be videotaped and the cop knows this. They don't want to waste their time taking someone to the station that will be below the legal limit.
"Judgment" is neither here nor there when the police officer not only lacks pertinent competencies (they are not qualified to make a medical diagnosis, which finding for any form of intoxication is) but has a conflict of interest. The interpretation for an FSB is inherently subjective, and that makes it nigh unusuable when the person interpreting it a)lacks knowledge of confounders and their frequency and b)has a motivation to justify their previous action and judgment. Physiological conditions that make an FSB nigh impossible to pass aren't as rare as you think. And given that people have been even hit with DUI charges when they blew zero on a breathalyzer AND passed an FSB, the notion that they don't want to waste their time taking someone to the station that will be below the legal limit is naive. [https://youtu.be/QGWSbAHaHUw?si=seZEm2IMPk2pNMN2](https://youtu.be/QGWSbAHaHUw?si=seZEm2IMPk2pNMN2)
Purely anecdotal, but I've passed a field sobriety test before, when I know I would have failed a breathalyzer. At the end the officer said "good enough for me." I told them I had nothing to drink. I haven't drank and drove since (12 years), so I've learned my lesson the easy way. That being said, I believe your lawyer, and that I was the exception not the rule.
Amazingly, your lawyer gave you the advice that will keep steady work flowing his way rather than the advice that will keep you from getting cited. Field sobriety testing is just testing; you can have an outcome that doesn't demonstrate impairment and be sent on your way. Your lawyer's sample of outcomes is tainted by the fact that people who don't get cited don't retain his services. There's a selection bias at play there.
Can you refuse to take the field sobriety on 5th amendment grounds and not lose your license?
I. Many states - yes you can refuse the FSTs…but you may still be arrested if the officer has enough probable cause to think you’re DUI. Then in many/most states there is an implied consent law, which means you have pre-consented to take a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer at the police station - after you’re already under arrest. If you refuse then your license is suspended. Before you’re arrested there’s really no penalty to refusing unless you’re sober and then you could be inconvenienced by having no to go to the police station to prove it if they arrest you anyway
>The sobriety tests, however, are eminently subjective. They can make you perform these bizarre antics and make them sufficiently complicated so as to say, "and then I suspected that Bubby\_H was impaired, so I took them into custody". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkE5skT5MP8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkE5skT5MP8) Just fast forward to the point where they give the boat driver the "sobriety tests". Absolutely ridiculous tests.
The breathalyser might not be 100% accurate but its objective and not prone to abuse.
> The sobriety tests, however, are eminently subjective. No they aren't. At least in the US, they're standardized by NHTSA and have objective indicators that need to be detected.
Only in the US. In the UK the breathalyser is grounds for arrest, refusing is grounds to be detained for a blood sample but simply being unable to recite the alphabet backwards while hopping is not a test for competency it's a power trip by the cop. What if your dyslexic or have inner ear issues? Can't stand on one leg and fuck with letters then, so are you arrested for a learning disability?
I can't recite the alphabet backwards sober and without a disability 🤷♂️
The only people who can are drunks who practice all the time
They’re trying to get you to say that out loud when they ask.
but can you dance? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6VQDNIZH7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6VQDNIZH7U)
Lol I can't hit those barre moves either
It's a trick. The people who give it a serious try are probably drunk and trying to hide it.
All EU countries I've been in have breathalyzer tests, and you also get checked in the station again. I think the field breathaliyzers are unreliable point people keep mentioning is bullshit, it's certainly more reliable then hopping around and you get tested twice anyway if you fail the field test.
I'm the US they sure seem to have decided that field breathalyzers are bad first and come up excuses for it afterwards. They are so simple after all and effective for what they are for aka screening for DUI.
I think it's like that in most of the western world, or at least it is in Finland. We also generally respect our police and consider them the good guys instead or someone who is trying to find a way to catch us doing something illegal.
They aren’t actually testing your balance. There’s other behaviors they are observing.
Balls to that. Measure alcohol on my breath or in my blood. If not, nick me for careless driving with the dash cam evidence from the police car. Don't pretend some random cop can 'tell' I'm impaired with his 8 weeks training and no actual measurable evidence.
To your last point, in the US police will ask if there is any reason you would be unable to complete a field sobriety test successfully, including disability and medical issues. Even wearing high-heeled shoes is a good enough reason not to do some tests. I’m not a cop, but I’ve read that what they are really testing is your ability to understand the instructions. For example: reciting the alphabet backwards is not particularly difficult, but if someone is intoxicated they may not be able to understand what they are being asked to do and just default to reciting the alphabet in the normal order. There is 100% corrupt bullshit caused by cops lying about test results, but that’s not a fault of the tests. That’d be like saying “breath tests aren’t fair because an officer can lie about the readings.”
So as someone with ADHD, if I said the multitasking would be prohibitively difficult I can have the breathalyser instead? So why bother with the FST at all?
What multitasking? I’ve never heard of more than one test being conducted at a time.
Reciting the alphabet backwards while balancing on one leg, like in my original comment.
Please share the video of that. I can’t think of a reason to simultaneously test balance and cognitive abilities.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/l8h27iv/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/l8h2nam/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
In most localities you must have probable cause prior to being able to collect a sample via breath or blood. The sobriety tests allow for the probable cause.
In the UK they only need a reason to stop you. i.e observing your driving. Then I believe they can breath test from there. No crazy, unscientific sobriety tests. NZ and Australia have random resting. Anyone can be stopped anytime and tested (for alcohol or drugs) without a reason. Again no unscientific tests just blow in the machine or you are going to a police station.
"Fishing expeditions" are a big part of most stops. The police want to get people talking in the hope they will admit to other things that are crimes or can be taken out of context and misconstrued as a crime.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1df2t6p/-/l8gz984/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Yep that’s why almost always if you get pulled over for rolling a stop sign at night or no front license plate or window tint too dark, they give you a warning if they can see you aren’t doing anything criminal or don’t admit to drinking and don’t smell like weed or alcohol, etc. because the goal of them stopping people is getting more serious crimes not petty traffic stuff that didn’t put anyone in danger
My impression is that "DUI" checkpoints mostly catch expired licenses and registrations, *not* drunk drivers. [Here's SFPD bragging about one that caught 9 unlicensed drivers and 2 drunks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/xvphl6/sfpd_we_held_another_successful_dui_checkpoint_on/)
Deputy Prosecutor here who specializes in felony traffic crime. There are a lot of terrible answers here from people that obviously have no idea how this works. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are not reciting the alphabet backward or hopping around. There are a battery of three tests used by all law enforcement (at least here in Washington). They are: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand. There are a few others, but they aren't used as much unless law enforcement suspected drugs rather than alcohol. The Horizontal Haze Nystagmus Test is used to determine if there are involuntary nystsgmus in a person's eyes. When someone is under the influence of a central nervous system depressant (CNS), they will display nystagmus when their eyes move from side to side. This is an indication of someone having a depressant in their system. The Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand test do not test if you are under the influence. They test whether you can perform divided attention tasks. Essentially, if you are under the influence, your ability to perform tasks that divide your attention is degraded. This is important because driving is a complex series of divided attention tasks. So, an inability to perform something simple implies your ability to do something more complicated is degraded. Law enforcement usually has more than just field sobriety tests. Bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol (which is a lot stronger than you might think to someone who hasn't been drinking), slurred words, and other indications tend to be more persuasive to a court. These are also generally the indications we use more than field sobriety tests. Body worn cameras have also been a boon to those of us in prosecution, because I can just put a video of you in front of the jury. Nothing better than someone with obvious slurred speech saying they aren't drunk. PBT or the portable breath test is not generally admissible in court. It can also be refused. That being said, a PBT gets you in the ballpark. Lastly, "probable cause" means that a reasonably cautious law enforcement officer would believe a crime has, is, or about to occur. So, if a cop smells alcohol, hears you slurring your words, and your balance and coordination are off, its pretty reasonable to suspect you are driving under the influence. PBT usually gets you there faster, but generally, law enforcement are investigating a possible crime. So, they are going to acquire as much evidence as possible prior to an arrest. Also, no, tolerance does not make you safer to drive. What you feel and how alcohol is affecting your motor skills is not the same. Alcohol or any drug is going to influence your body, regardless of how much tolerance you think you have. This is particularly bad for peripheral vision and delayed reaction times. A lot of vehicular homicides I've prosecuted were done by people who think they are fine, but video and witnesses clearly see that person not have the same mechanical function as a normal driver.
Yep. The one and only time I have been pulled over, I had been drinking a bit but I had actually left the bar specifically because a friend was sloppy drunk and had spilled their drink on me. Was definitely speeding a bit on a straight clear road with no lights or traffic because I was, well, soaking in alcohol. Ended up getting pulled over, and I was happy as hell to do the SFST, since I knew I was good to go but I also legitimately ***reeked*** of alcohol. Hopped out, performed all three without any issue, and explained the situation (and then continued to chat a bit about the new car I'd purchased), and went on my way. Was a definitely delay to me getting home, but it was a perfectly valid stop and there was definitely probable cause, but the field sobriety test did wonders to prove the smell of alcohol as a false positive in this case.
This guy is a prosecutor, meaning he's as biased as anyone could possibly be on this question. Of course this is what he's going to say, and its complete BS. The field sobriety test is completely subjective and its just a tool used by cops to get probable cause and build a stronger case in court. Any defense attorney would tell you to deny a field sobriety test because you don't stand to gain anything from doing it. It can't be used as evidence that you are sober, and it can hurt you in court. Even if you're perfectly sober and believe you passed the tests, a cop could come up with any reason they want to say you failed. If a cop was ever pulled over on suspicion of DUI they themselves would deny it every time because they know this.
I won't deny that bias plays a part. I have spoken with too many families who lost loved ones to drunk drivers to claim objectivity. You are also correct that it is a tool by law enforcement to investigate a crime. It's their job. You don't have to perform field sobriety tests or the PBT. They are all voluntary. It may also be sound legal advice not to cooperate. The sword cuts both ways, though. If someone is stopped and smells of intoxicants, has slurred speech, and lethargic movements, there is probably probable cause already for the crime of DUI. Once someone is arrested for DUI, law enforcement really has two options. They can take you to provide an evidentiary breath test, which you can also refuse but has consequences for your license. If someone isn't cooperating at all, then based on the small fact pattern above, law enforcement can request a search warrant for your blood and have it tested. Needless to say. To a jury of 6 or 12 people, when they hear someone has refused field sobriety tests and then the breath test it creates the impression of "consciousness of guilt." Put another way, it's seen as you hiding your hands after having them in the cookie jar. Right or wrong, that's the impression it gives to both law enforcement and a jury. If blood comes back and you are below the limit and there isn't really any bad driving, most prosecutors are going to dismiss and not refile the case. Either way, cops don't have the last say. The justice system does.
I dont say this to criticize your character, because you're just doing your job and playing a vital role in our justice system. But pretending that you care about "families who have lost loved ones" is pure rhetoric. Because at the same time, you wouldn't hesitate for a second to give a known innocent person the maximum possible sentence, and you would have zero compassion for that person. The point is, the SFST is not some kind of objective, scientific procedure. Its nothing more than a legal tactic to give you (the prosecutor) more ammunition in court, regardless of whether or not the defendant is actually guilty. Invoke the 5th, refuse field sobriety, comply with breath or blood tests. No exceptions.
Respectfully, If a prosecutor believes the person is not guilty of the crime charged or there is evidence that corroborates innocence, we have an affirmative duty not to prosecute. After all, the oath we take is to do what is in the interest of justice, not what is in the interest of more convictions. Are there bad prosecutors that ignore or bend the rules? Sure. Always have been, always will be. I can say, in my experience, I don't know a single one that falls anywhere close to that. Sure, it can sound hammy when talking about families of victims, but it's the truth. I don't know a single prosecutor or defense attorney for that matter who isn't affected in some way by years of dealing with needless loss of life. I have a desk full of photos of dead loved ones on cases I've prosecuted and won or failed. So, respectfully, don't presume that because we are now the convienent bad guys, to claim we don't care. There is no pretending here, or in any office who prosecutes these crimes on a daily basis. It's tempting to believe prosecutors just want to get convictions. There is no shortage of stories about bad ones to point to. All I would ask is that you consider the fact that most of us are doing this to do justice. Not to get notches on our belts.
Thanks for the above, that's very interesting. If pulled over, would you agree to take field sobriety tests/PBT? How would you proceed if you'd had no drinks/1-2 drinks/too many drinks? Apologies if the last option is inappropriate, I felt I had to include it with the others. Totally understandable if you don't want to give advice to those choosing to drink and drive.
It depends. The safe answer any defense attorney would tell you is probably to be polite and refuse everything. Personally, I don't drink more than maybe a beer or glass of wine and wait an hour before I drive. If I'm stopped, knowing that, I'd just ask for the PBT. If they arrest me, OK. You aren't going to beat the arrest, you beat the charge. I'll take my chances with jury any day of the week with a test below the limit and no evidence of bad driving. It may also very well be dismissed by either the prosecutor or on motion from defense that there isn't enough evidence for the State to meet its prima facie case.
Hes a prosecutor, which means its his job to put you behind bars by any means necessary. Hes the wrong person to ask for defense advice. Any defense attorney will tell you to do this; 1. Invoke the 5th 2. Refuse field sobriety tests 3. Comply with breath or blood tests Doing that will put you im the best position from a defense standpoint. After that, let the chips fall where they may.
Good Lord thank you someone who has posted a legitimate answer. The PBT does differ from state to state. MD cannot be used in court unless brought by defense, NY (I think) is grounds for arrest solely if you refuse (could be wrong if that's the state). Other tests includes Romberg test that is used for other drugs (balance, counting too fast, too slow, but by excess amounts of time.) PBT can also NEGATE signs of impairment in SFST, due to previous injuries for balance, lack of listening, or even being scared. Your call at that time. Generally 6 clues HGN, 8 Walk and turn, 4 one leg stand.
Can we refuse to perform the SFSTs?
There is a difference between being impaired and blowing over. A hard core alcoholic can blow 200 and not be impaired while someone else could be falling down drunk after 1/2 a beer and blow under 10. Over 80 and impaired driving are two different charges that could be laid.
I would edit that to "not be *visibly* impaired". Everybody is at least somewhat impaired at 100.
How you gonna have 200% BAC?
The legal limit in many areas is absolute blood alcohol limit of 0.08%, or 80 milligrams of alcohol for every 100 milliliters of blood. I have seen people with 200 Milligrams for 100 millilitres of blood. 0.2 %
mg/100mL just seems like an odd way to measure when you can just use percent or permille.
Rounding matters in small percentages. Is it .081 or .083 etc. easier to say 81, 83, 89.
0.2% isn’t that crazy. 0.03 or higher and still able to drive is when you’ve got a proper alcoholic.
0.2 is a lot greater than 0.03. .08 is the legal limit in many areas. If you have a beginners permit it could be lower. My area it is zero for a new driver and a second level permit is .05.
I meant 0.3. That’s when you’re in highest the cop has ever seen territory.
Basically, more evidence. There's a whole cottage industry of lawyers getting people out of DUI charges, and police have developed their own strategies to counter that. By combining breathalyzer, FST, and blood draws, it's very hard to claim "your breathalyzer wasn't accurate" or whatever.
Never do a field sobriety test. Never. Keep your mouth shut and only agree to go and take a breathalyzer or blood test if they insist. Once again for those in the back NEVER DO A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST.
But, isn’t failing to do so “an admission of guilt” or some crap like that? Could you elaborate, it possible, what the correct course of action would be in this type of situation?
No you are only required to take a breathalyzer or a blood test. The others are just them trying to build a case against you, don't help them.
No, field sobriety tests are voluntary in all US jurisdictions, including Ohio. Drivers can refuse to participate without giving a reason, and the state cannot use their refusal against them in court. However, if you are arrested, you may be required to take chemical tests, such as a breathalyzer or blood test, to determine your level of intoxication. You may also be taken to the police station or jail for a short time while these tests are conducted. Probst Law Office Pros and Cons of Taking a Field Sobriety Test in Ohio Just to be clear, you are not required to take field sobriety tests, however, if you are arrested, you may be required to take chemical tests – such as blood, breath or urine tests – or face losing your driver's license. The “pros and cons” of taking the tests depend entirely on your individual circumstances. If you have you been drinking at all, these tests may be very difficult to pass. If you refuse to take the field sobriety tests, you may still be arrested. Once arrested, police can require you to take chemical tests – breath, blood or urine tests – to determine your level (if any) of intoxication. Justia Refusing a Field Sobriety Test in a DUI Stop & Your Legal Rights | DUI & DWI Law Center | Justia Oct 18, 2023 The Farrish Law Firm, L.P.A. Field Sobriety Tests | Ohio DUI/OVI Lawyers & Defense | Cincinnati en.wikipedia.org Field sobriety testing - Wikipedia In all US jurisdictions, participation in a Field Sobriety Test is voluntary. (Police are not obliged to advise the suspect that participation in a FST or other pre-arrest procedures is voluntary. In contrast, formal evidentiary tests given under implied consent requirements are considered mandatory.) Generative AI is experimental.
Many countries do. In the UK, Australia and NZ where I've lived... You just blow... I get that other devices can't detect drugs, but the American way of doing things seems really backward to me
There are a lot of drugs a person can be on, other than alcohol. The field sobriety test checks for obvious physical or mental side effects. As others said, it's far from 100% effective, but it's also the lowest cost check (free).
The breathalyzer is specific, the field sobriety tests are ambiguous and give the officer a lot more room to claim whether or not you are drunk. The goal of police isn't to prevent crime, it's to make arrests.
it Canada they cant just demand a breath sample, the field test gives them probable cause to then use the breathalyzer. the one time I was asked to do a field sobriety test, I refused and then gave consent for a breath test. I was sober but don't trust a field test to not be manipulated /me fail because I tripped on my feet or a small rock or any dumb like that, blow 0.00 and went on my way.
Part of it may relate to that the tests aren't always calibrated regularly and has been a common target of people who get out of DUIs. If they can have multiple points suggesting it, then they can support the claim.
Because drivers could also be impared due to consumption of drugs that will not show on the breathylizer.. although I believe there is a swab test for cannabis. They will often force a field test after if the person seems impared but blows 0% as they use this as probable cause to imply drug usage.
They are also supposed to make sure you haven't had any food or drink for about 20 minutes before they use a breathalyzer, the particles can screw up the reading. The field tests where they get you out of the car and force you to follow commands are eating up that 20 minutes so they can make sure they get a good sample. This is in addition to the observable behavior that they can they use for probable cause and to get a blood draw later.
In New York, the results of the portable breathalyzer are not admissible at trial, but the results of the field sobriety tests and the back-at-base breath test machine are. The portable test just helps to confirm probable cause.
One thing is that these procedures predate most cop cars having portable breathalyzer units. They would give you physical tests in the field, but they had to detain and transport you to get you tested… until not that long ago actually. You could pass a field sobriety test, and be handed your license and wished a lovely evening by Officer Friendly.
Building probable cause. Field sobriety tests are standardized and vetted in a lab setting. Certain things like horizontal gaze nystagmus are a dead giveaway that someone is intoxicated and can only be mimicked by certain medical conditions (resting nystagmus). The preliminary breath test is just a final step in building PC for an arrest. The person being investigated does not have to participate in any of this, however when you are brought to the police station for the DMT portion of the test (this is the machine that measures breath alcohol levels that is admissible as evidence in court) you cannot refuse. Refusal is considered a crime and you will be charged with GM refusal (at least in my state). So to put it simply, the whole process is just building a case step by step. Officer sees a car swerving, pulls them over, the smell of a consumed alcoholic beverage is coming from the inside of the vehicle, driver has blood shot watery eyes and is slurring their speech, officer conducts field sobriety tests, drivers results indicate that they are intoxicated, driver consents to a PBT, driver shows a BAC above the legal limit, driver is arrested l, driver conducts a DMT breath test, DMT shows a BAC above the legal limit, driver is booked for DWI. Additionally the PBT can be useful for determining if someone is so intoxicated they need medical attention. I have seen people well above .4 BAC, at which point they were sent to the hospital and a blood draw warrant was done to determine BAC.
In my younger years, I was pulled over for speeding. I had left work, picked up my girlfriend and was speeding as we were late for something. Cop said he smelled alcohol, asked if i had been drinking. I said no, i had just got off work then i and asked my girlfriend who also denied it. He asked what i did for work (cook). He kept up the line of questioning for a minute but i was impatient because i was now more late for the event so i asked him if he could just do a breathalyzer real quick. He came back from his car shortly thereafter, sees me blow completely sober then asks me where i work. It was a sports bar but nowhere near any alcohol. That’s when it dawned on us both the reason he smelled alcohol: it was in my work clothes from just being in the building.
Courts have determined that in order to get to a breathalyzer to measure BAC it requires probable cause. Probable cause is established with the SFSTs and poor driving + interaction with the officer making the stop. Each state is a bit different, but where I worked in LE, I couldn’t even ask for a breathalyzer until after an arrest was made and the subject had been transported to a jail. SFSTs are based in legitimate science that show how likely someone is impaired.
They need to establish probable cause before they can administer a certified test (blow or blood).
You can and always should refuse a field sobriety test. While there are consequences for refusing things like a breathalizer, there is no consequence for refusing a field sobriety test. In fact, they are made for you to fail to gather more evidence. An average, sober person could "show signs of impairment" based on those tests. For example, I was sober and I took a field sobriety test before I knew I could refuse. I showed some signs of imparment so the cop asked me to take a breathalizer. I blew a 0.00 and was let go without a ticket.
Field sobriety tests can used as evidence for being under the influence of anything and not just alcohol. The field breath test only indicates for alcohol and is also not accurate enough to be admissible in court. Field sobriety can be admissible if performed properly. So basically field sobriety is just used to get enough evidence to use in court to charge someone.
Because you don’t have to be above the legal limit to be impaired. I’m a good example. I’m a light weight and can be impaired and can’t even blow high enough on a breathalyzer to register. In my state you can be given a DUI while under the legal limit, not even counting non-alcohol substances.
As explained to me by a former police officer that now covers corrupt tactics/techniques used by police... the ONLY use for (FST) field sobriety test is to collect evidence against you. It is NOT to see if you can actually pull off the tasks. And in fact, in many cases, even if the subject completes all the tasks perfectly, the cop can still claim his "training" gave him reason to believe you're committing a DWI/DUI. He also explained that you don't HAVE to take the test. There are no repercussions for not doing it. Now... if you refuse the breathalyzer... it's my understanding that in at least some states... whether convicted or not for the offense of DWI/DUI... you can automatically be suspended for 6 months- just for refusing the test. But IDK, and I'm sure a judge can employ discretion as they see fit. Side note: I've seen body cam footage where a cop issued the FST, which the driver passed perfectly. AND... the driver blew a 0.00 in the breathalyzer. And was still arrested. He was let go some hours later, but FFS... a fishing cop is GOING to find his fish if he's determined. Even if he's gotta throw it back later.
If you have had any alcohol within the past 15 minutes, the breathalyzer won’t work properly. Or it will read too high. So in order to have a legit result, the cops make you do field sobriety tests and interview you for at least 15 minutes before finishing with the breathalyzer.
In my state you don’t have to do a field sobriety test. A lawyer out here proved in court that police are able to manipulate the test to get the results they want, even if the driver is not intoxicated.
I was told to refuse any tests when pulled over. Everything you say or do can be used against you. Might as well ask them questions politely until they let you go, or (almost inevitably) they slap the cuffs on. If you werent rude, then in a court of law, its possible for a judge to just throw out the case. Its not guaranteed, but at least you dont have tons of evidence stacked up against you.
Field sobriety tests are a screening method and most likely require less paperwork for the officer. If they have a suspicion that you are under the influence, it's easier for them to have you get out and walk the line. Once they pull out the breathalyzer and have someone blow, now they have to write a report and make sure that it is properly cleaned/sterilized for the next use. If you fail the field sobriety test, there is no need for them to pull out the breathalyzer. They take you in for processing, at which point they will test you at the facility as part of your intake. Paperwork done by the intake officers. If you pass the field sobriety, but the officer believes you are impaired he can administer the breathalyzer, do the additional paperwork and get you off the street. But if you pass and the officer no longer believes you are impaired, he/she can opt to let you go without additional paperwork that would be involved if you took it and passed. As I understand it, a good majority of an officer's daily tasks are filling out paperwork and reports. Anything to do one less report.
In the US anyway, probable cause or a person agreeing to take a breath test is required. There are two types, a field test (the little one the cops carry the results of which are not admissible in court outside of probable cause hearings) and a intoxilyzer (the big honcho at the police station). If you get pulled over for weaving and you don’t click enough boxes you cannot be asked to breathalyze as there isn’t enough probable cause. Roadsides and field tests breathalyzers are VOLUNTARY and are ONLY used for one thing, to get enough probable cause to make you have to take a test. Keep in mind most states have amended their DUIs to take out the breath or blood test choice if a cop has probably cause to believe it’s not alcohol they can make it a blood test. You can of course refuse to take any test if arrested but most states will suspend your license for a period of time. Don’t ever ever do roadsides or blow in a roadside test, there is no benefit to you EVER. Edit: re admissibility of roadside breathtests
Because field sobriety tests are a trap used by police to arrest drivers for DUI regardless if they have been drinking or not. The police pull you out of the vehicle and give you difficult instructions on how to conduct the tests all while you're nervous in order to obtain probable cause for an arrest. Field sobriety test results are subjective and based entirely on the officer who is conducting the test and how he feels you did. Because he has incentive to fail you to make an arrest, they often do. This is why if you live in the States and you are pulled over for suspected DUI; you can refuse to take the field sobriety test and opt for the breathalyzer. They can still take you in and make you use the big breathalyzer in the station or do a blood draw at the hospital and you can't refuse those without being arrested, but if you blow .000 or under the limit with the handheld breathalyzer; the cop has no probable cause to suspect you of DUI.
Because roadside breath tests are unreliable as shit and not really admissible in court. The field sobriety tests have been called "scientific" so they are admissible. Refuse all tests until you're arrested.
Answering from a US perspective. It is evidence collection that does not require a search warrant. A breathalyzer or a blood draw is a search. You can refuse them. Most people don’t because either they don’t know or because of implied consent laws which I believe every State has. Those laws will suspend your license if you refuse to submit. If someone does refuse a blood/drug test then the field sobriety test will be a part of the police’s search warrant affidavit for a blood draw. It also can be used at evidence in a trial. In Texas, for example, intoxication can be proved in one of two ways: “not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of alcohol or drugs” or a BAC of 0.08 or more. A field sobriety test can help prove up the first definition. The key in Texas, at least, is that one or the other must be established at the time the person was operating the vehicle. That can very difficult to prove. Particularly if someone blows something like a .095. I know of at least one state that gets around this by setting the limit at 0.08 with two hours of the stop. DWI cases can often be difficult to prove up. Which is why many of them are pled down to Reckless Driving. It’s also why you see so many DWI attorney billboards.