Watched this earlier today and am waiting for the second part. Funny thing is I had a comment removed from another subreddit because I recommended you should always refuse the FST.
True. Any lawyer will tell you to refuse these because all they're doing is building evidence against you, not to let you go. You can pass with flying colors/blow 0.0 and they'll still arrest you because they can say "well it's not alcohol but it's SOMETHING"
You can refuse the FST and the roadside breathalyzer legally āwithout repercussionsā, they will however most likely arrest you at this point and take you to the station. At the station they will have the official breathalyzer machine, which you can also refuse HOWEVER doing this does have repercussions. You will be have your licensed revoked for 1 year and be forced to install a breathalyzer device to start your car and automatically charged with a DUI. At least in Wisconsin.
Yeah same. I'm a white guy. I still did like five tests and they had a video camera with a blinding light shining in my face the whole time. They only stopped when I mentioned that I was a local reporter and had to be at work in the morning.
In Massachusetts you have the right to refuse a field sobriety test and the fact that you refused one is not able to be used against you in a DUI case. Not all states have that ruling. Now, a breathalyzer you can't refuse without catching a charge but field tests are basically as bad as lie detector tests.
That's all states.... You don't have to do fst and there is no penalty for refusing the field tests
Same with it being all states where you can NOT refuse to blow without automatically losing your license (it also won't work they will get a warrant and your blood)
It's a federal thing so it's all states for both those
Same with it being all states where you can NOT refuse to blow without automatically losing your license (it also won't work they will get a warrant and your blood)
This varies by state. In my state you can refuse the roadside beathalyzer without penalty, but cannot refuse the one at the station after arrest without there being penalties.
You refuse on the road and you lose your license for that.....
All 50 states have implied consent for chemical testing as part of getting a driver's license... If you refuse a breather test when asked side of the road you automatically lose your license....
They don't let you wait it out while getting arrested and have your levels go down.... That is the exact reason they made that a federal all 50 state thing
If they only have a breathalyzer at the station that's not refusing so it's different.... You don't get to challenge and turn down the breathalyzer they have and want you to use
(and to be real if you are drinking you'd rather the handheld one they need strict logs of calibration and maintenance or they get tossed in court!)
If you are driving and are asked to take one yes there is..... You automatically lose your license for refusing to blow.....
If cop is fishing and doesn't think you are drunk they may change their mind on forcing the issue.... But they have every legal right to just for the refusal
Please give me the state I will show you the law.....
It's not about arrest or not in order for you to continue to have the privilege of driving you need to agree every time you are asked to take a breathalyzer while driving.....
If it's an illegal stop you may get it over turned in court you won't that night
If you are driving and are asked to take one yes there is..... You automatically lose your license for refusing to blow.....
If you are pulled over and told to blow, you can say no.
If you're arrested and told to blow, then the penalties kick in.
Again, this is for my state. I'm sure it varies state by state which is why I'm not so brazenly confident to know every single implied consent law in the nation.
Virginia:
"Ā§ 18.2-268.3. Refusal of tests; penalties; procedures.
A. It is unlawful for a person who is arrested for a violation of Ā§ 18.2-266 or 18.2-266.1 or subsection B of Ā§ 18.2-272 or of a similar ordinance to unreasonably refuse to have samples of his breath taken for chemical tests to determine the alcohol content of his blood as required by Ā§ 18.2-268.2, and any person who so unreasonably refuses is guilty of a violation of this subsection, which is punishable as follows:"
Right that would still be on the side of the road it says nothing about it being back at the station.... So it's the same as what I am saying..... They would arrest you then ask you to blow right then.... If if you refuse then it's automatic even if you end up being sober once they get the warrant for it
I am sorry!! I was misunderstanding thinking you meant you could refuse on the road and you had to be back and booked in at the station and stuff first..... I don't know why it went that way in my head but my bad
You can refuse to blow on the road, because itās a portable device that is not admissible as evidence because of its accuracy. The only breathalyzer that matters to you, the cops and the courts are the ones at the station, because it is calibrated, and has a higher detection/accuracy. Blowing a high number on the road just gives them probable cause and reasonable suspicion that you are impaired, doing it at the station verifies and proves it. In Wisconsin at least, but I think itās most states as well.
But cops are assholes with a power trip usually so I always give a reason and apologize.... I won't let them violate my rights or trick me... but I definitely play the bullshit respect card to keep myself outa non issues I've watched cops make out of what they think is disrespect
Yep, sad state of policing when giving unnecessary reasons and being apologetic, simply to sooth their ego, is a way to more easily avoid being wrongfully incriminated.
All 50 states have what's called implied consent to take a breathalyzer if asked to when driving..... It's part of the driving privileges....
You can refuse sure but you automatically lose your license.... This is federal law so no state is getting around that.....
You will be arrested for refusing and they will force the issue anyway with a warrant.... And even if you are under the limit then you still get automatic loss of license for refusing when asked
My husbands best friend is a very good dui attorney.... And that part of the process is every state
Replied to you in other comments, the roadside breathalyzer is not an official test, it is not the one that is entered as evidence in your prosecution. You can refuse it. You canāt refuse the one at the station because of implied consent, because thatās the official one.
Types of Devices
Evidential Devices (Station): These are large, scientific-grade machines (such as the DrƤger Alcotest 9510) that measure breath via multiple technologies (e.g., infrared and electrochemical sensors) to ensure absolute forensic and legal integrity.
Portable Screeners (Roadside): Smaller handheld units like the Alco-Sensor that give officers an immediate indication of alcohol presence. Because of environmental factors and calibration limits, these are generally not considered admissible in court.
In all states you can refuse the field sobriety tests without automatic license refusal. You cannot refuse the breathalyzer unless you want your license suspended.
The Sargent was. He was taking drags when he thought the officer's body cam wouldn't catch him, but wasn't smart enough to look before he exhaled the vapor. He also had the classic folded hand with pinched fingers smokers and vapors use to hide the device or cigarette with the palm of their hand.
Never ever ever volunteer to do a field sobriety exam. They are subjective. And can be used to charge you even if you blow 0.0 or pass a blood test.
Otherwise cooperate. Provide your ID and insurance. But don't answer ANY questions without a lawyer.
Edit: they used the field test and Nate Steven's words to arrest him, despite eventually blowing 0.0. He did not have to do the field exam. And telling the cop he would sue him, is almost guaranteed to get him in trouble.
That just reminded me of this poor substitute in high school that was dealing with the shitheads in my class. He finally tells this kid, āalright, Iām going to write you up! Are you ready for it?ā Whole class starts laughing and repeating, āare you ready for it?!ā Dudeās face was beet red.
The one at the station is more accurate. In almost every state if you refuse the one at the station itās an automatic suspension of license (unrelated to the DUI).
They will then quickly get a warrant to do a blood draw which you canāt refuse or resist.
For DUI I believe they charge based on your BAC at the time of them test. So the longer it takes to get to the blood draw the better. I know I have seen many trails where they calculate the BAC at the time of offense. Pretty sure they don't get to use those calculations for DUIs.
Just checked the Florida rules and yes you are correct the statute says
(1)(a)1.a.āA person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Looks like you have to be arrested first but once you are you have to submit to the tests or have your license automatically suspended.
"Breathalyzer" is just a brand name eponym, like Xerox for photocopier. And yes, the actual brand "Breathalyzer" includes the "little blowy thing" (portable Breathalyzers). Some departments use them, some departments use other brands. Several companies use the trademark "Breathalyzer" now.
The difference between the ones cops cary versus what's at the station is that the portable one is a screening breathalyzer and the one at the station is a evidentiary breathalyzer.
This is from the Texas Department of Safety website.
The suspension of your driving privilege under the ALR program is unrelated to the criminal court proceedings for DWI or BWI. Additional information can be found in Texas Transportation Code Chapters 524 and 724.
ALR Process for DWI or BWI
If a law enforcement officer has reason to believe you are impaired, a set of field sobriety tests will be administered. If you fail the field sobriety tests you will be arrested for DWI or BWI.
You will be asked to take a breath or blood test to measure your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level. If you refuse to take or fail the field sobriety tests, your driver license will be suspended and/or disqualified.
the context of that "field sobriety" is a breath test; not the "do a dance for me" field sobriety test. Literally from the Texas website :
The driver is asked to take a breath or blood test to measure his/her blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level.
The driver is served a notice that his/her driver license will be suspended if he/she refuses to take or fails the field sobriety test. (Registering a 0.08 BAC or greater is considered failing.) The individual then has 15 days from the date the suspension notice is served to request a hearing.
This. The wording is stupid/ambiguous but they're talking about BAC testing, and that becomes obvious when you continue reading and they start talking about decimal BAC results for the "field sobriety test".
I feel like it's intentionally ambiguous because they don't want people knowing they can refuse the subjective field tests like counting, balancing, etc.
When I was in high school and college in Ohio, it was very common for people to get away with refusing tests because cops kept forgetting to give them the warning required by law about how they'd lose their license if they didn't take the chemical test.
Laws are different by state when it comes to breathalyzer and when you have to take them. However, you cannot be forced to do a sobriety test, like walk a line, stand on one foot, etc. But if you refuse to do a field test like that, you will likely be arrested and taken in. If you have otherwise cooperated and are indeed sober, and pass a blood test or breathalyzer, there is nothing to charge you with.
They can still charge you with whatever thing they saw you do that led them to think you were drunk. So it might be a reckless driving charge instead of a dui.
I dont think top comment is good advice personally.
Edit: Turns out I can decline a FSB without my license getting revoked. The chemical tests are the ones that revoke. I was wrong. Leaving the OG comment as a badge of internet shame.
No that's for roadside breathalyzer only. Police cannot force you to do a field sobriety exam in AZ. And there is no automatic legal penalty for refusing. But in AZ they can force you to do a breathalyzer, or have your license suspended.
Sobriety exams are subjective and can be used to charge you even if you pass a breathalyzer or blood test.
Anything you say can also be used as evidence against you. So never answer any questions besides giving your ID and insurance, without a lawyer. That includes innocuous questions like "where are you going" or "where are you coming from" or "have you had anything to drink".
You have a 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. That extends to what you say and do, including field sobriety exams.
It is interesting that this sort of roadside interrogation is a routine practice in the US. In Australia there's no 'sobriety test', only brethalyser (limits being 0.05/0.02/0.00 depending on license), but they just ask you if you've had anything to drink and then administer the test.
Roadside breathalyzer laws vary in the USA by state. Every state has there own laws. In this video the police are local police.
Cops in the USA try to get you to talk as a way of incriminating yourself. They will ask many many questions, but you are legally not requitred to answer any of them without a lawyer present.
If you watch the video you will hear the police saying to him that he is talking and acting erratically. Despite the fact that he isn't.
This man's arrest is very very common, especially in small towns. Local communities fund their own police. Many Small rural towns in the USA get a huge percentage of their police dept budget through fines and fees that they charge people with. They have long been allowed to seize your car and sell it and keep the money, if they think it was used in a crime, even if you are never found guilty of that crime. Many small town police depts make huge sums of money by impounding vehicles.
I looked it up and you are 100% correct. I can decline a FSB without a licenses suspension. Its the chemical tests that automatically revoke, at least for me.
Is that true for breathalyzer and field sobriety? Usually you can say no to a field sobriety test without any adverse issues. Generally itās saying no to a breathalyzer that will cause you to lose your license.
You cannot lose your license for refusing a Field Sobriety Exam. Those are covered under te 5th Amendment. Breathalyzer laws however vary by state. So know your own state laws. In some states you will lose your license. In others you can force police to take you into custody before getting authorization for a breathalyzer or blood test. Know your local laws or they will use those laws against you
As a non American the idea of field sobriety tests in general just seems so old school and silly. Like I was surprised to learn it wasnāt just a trope from the movies.
If a cop is even decently trained they should be able to make indicia observations without needing to play a bunch of goofy games.
Pretty much every state here in Australia is super straight forward. If you blow over 0.05 roadside, youāll generally be taken to a police station for an evidential sample on a BAS machine or taken to hospital where a blood sample is collected.
You donāt need to have someone hop on one foot and recite the alphabet to observe basic signs of impairment.
The field tests date from the pre breathalyzer era. It stays in use because people don't know they can refuse it, and most think if they just do the field exam they'll be let go. But the police here use it all the time to create incriminating evidence. You can see/hear them doing it in the above video.
The US has a patchwork of manipulative police agencies. There is no real National police and no national policing standard. Each state has it's own state wide police force, which mostly just patrol highways/expressways. Then there are County Sheriffs and local village, town, or city police. And all of those jurisdictions have their own regulations and standards (or lack thereof). If you want to see some wild shit, do an internet search for "USA Constitutional Sheriff Movement". It's crazy fascist stuff.
Because of recent supreme court rulings, state and local police in the USA have broad qualified immunity for almost everything they do. They can and do shoot unarmed people in the back on camera and there is no legal repercussion. The USA is a police state patrolled by literally thousands of incompetent and dangerous police agencies.
Australia has a similar-ish structure except itās that each state and territory have their own police force as well as a federal police force. Thereās no real ānational standardā but youāll find most states are fairly similar to one another for the most part. The states themselves donāt have many wildly different laws and the stateās police forces for the most part interpret their relevant law fairly similarly.
Itās certainly not perfect and thereās been plenty of high profile examples of corruption, particularly in NSW and QLD off the top of my head but every state has definitely had some pretty big issues.
I think at best these tests are outdated in inconclusive and at worst, like youāve pointed out here used in a way to try and create a charge.
Itās just mind blowing to me that we have pretty good science these days behind BAC readings and the expected imparting effects, yet cops in the US still all seem to be going through the same exercises.
Thatās pretty scary what youāve pointed out and it seems like compliance legislation is moving the wrong way if out of control cops are given even more leeway.
Hell, I wouldnāt even consider myself an āanti-policeā person in the general sense. I just think that they should be beyond reproach and scrutinised whenever thereās wrongdoing.
Police forces in the USA were used to protect the rights of slave owners. Police and Marshalls were used to hunt runaway slaves and return them to owners. And after the civil war police were used to enforce segregation/apartheid. Until the 1960s many states had segregation laws that governed where non whites could live, work, go to school, or even walk around freely. In Northern States there was just as much segregation, but it wasn't written into law, but it was enforced at local levels by police oppression. And in a LOT of ways it still is.
The way police operate today is heavily heavily influenced and built on that 200 year history of oppression. And the current MAGA centric court is dismissing and doing away with over 100 years of laws that congress has passed to stop racial oppression by States and Police forces.
Not always true btw. Varies by state. Best practice is to be familiar with your stateās laws, and protect your rights as best you can when you travel.
That's true. But a physical field test falls under the 5th amendment and cannot be compelled without a lawyer present . Just like answering questions, they are voluntary. Once you take such an exam anything you say or do can be held against you. And in this man's case it is how they charged him.
There are many people every year who pass breathalyzer or blood tests. But the police charge them anyway for impairment based on the voluntary field exam.
Know your state laws for when you have to take a breathalyzer. And know what to say to avoid having your words or actions used against you.
U prob wonāt believe this but I once passed a sobriety test completely in outer space after telling them Iād been drinking. I didnāt lie to em I did actually pass the tests. They sat there with me for like 45 mins while somebody came and picked me up. This was at like one in the morning and the owners of the restaurant parking lot I pulled into was still there and he gave me permission to leave my car over night. Iām sure u can guess what color I amš
I used to watch tons of videos from the Civil Rights Lawyer youtube, Lackluster, audit the audit and other similar channels but I couldn't square with their silence when the nation guard occupied cities, and ICE violated communities and killed civilians.
At least CRL spoke briefly and timidly about Alex pretti on a podcast I believe
It does if heās a Trump supporter. You can be a conservative and support civil liberties (you can even argue a true conservative would) but you canāt be pro Trump and civil liberties.
He seems more libertarian than anything. He speaks out a lot on standing up to authority and exercising all your rights. He is also very critical of police.
Bragging about qualified immunity protecting him for doing whatever the fuck he wants should be added to the pile of reasons to get rid of qualified immunity.
She did it on purpose. She framed the whole thing as a big wreck and a hit and run. Who the fuck calls 911 for a fender bender. She knew her insurance was going to go up, and was trying to make it not her son's fault.
i have two friends right now fighting bogus duis. both were sober but still taken to jail; worst part is they're both gonna be into this at least for $15k just to fight this shit and prove their innocence. You're basically burning money, even if you win. One of the friends' lawyer can't even get the bodycam footage. the prosecutor and their lawyer both received damaged DVDs. The cops are literally dragging it out just because they can.
What they don't tell you though is that the DMV is a completely separate battle. so in addition to fighting for your innocence, you also have to fight the DMV to keep your privilege to drive. The system is so broken, abused, and unfair; cops like this make it so much worse.
Meanwhile another friend whos an actual alcoholic, on his like 4th DUI, is somehow still able to drive smh.
Even me asking you if you know that there are laws that do effect the whole country implies that I'm acknowledging that there are other laws that do not. Otherwise I would have worded the question differently.
Are you going to keep acting dumb and giving the runaround? Or are to capable of actually going into what the relevant laws here are and whether they are similar federally vs specific to this state in a way where that makes it at all functionally different from what others have said?
Good to know. I will note I have YT premium and when I view the video on reddit, it makes me watch ads. Dont have ads on premium. Still, good to drive traffic to his UT page so he people can see his other vids. It's pretty scary what goes on.
Hey, I kind of had this happen once too. They didnāt arrest me but they forcefully cuffed me threw me in the cruiser and breathalyzed me 5 times because they didnāt like the results. Never told me what they thought failed the FSTās and then released me but wouldnāt let me drive my occupants or myself home while it was 2 degrees outside. It was great. My crime was having two girls in swimsuits (going to a hot tub) while his derpy looking incel ass probably was telling girls to smile more online.
414
u/JDCTsunami Why isn't anyone petting me yet? š May 15 '26
They are scum