Sobriety tests

[Southern_Brit]

Just a quick question -I know I could trawl through another site to find the answer, but I'm here and I'm sure you are all fountains of knowledge

Was watching 'Cops' or 'Craziest Rednecks crashes 8' and keep seeing these 'sobriety tests'. What are they all about??!!
Is that the only way of testing for alcohol consumption? Does it stand up (100%) in court? In the UK we have 'breathalisers'... get a green light and you are under the limit, get a red and you're over and they will give a reading in mg - showing exactly how smashed you are and will be used in evidence.

I just keep seeing these tests and they're great for laughs... trying to get a drunk to perform! Just saw one woman doing the splits and another guy dancing and then just keeled over into a ditch; out cold.

Any ideas?

[wellfed]

I'll let centermast answer the majority and mostly correct answer, but here's my version. The police intial have to have probable cause to pull you over i.e. swerving, failure to stay right of line (for you it would be left) Once pulled over, The police have to have probable cause to arrest you and charge you with driving while intoxicated. They perform these series of test to get probable cause to conduct the arrest. Once arrested they give the breatherlizer and the results are similar to yours. I hope I explained it easy enough, and most of all correctly. I'm sure if I'm not right someone will let me know. :?

[Towedjmpr]

You can get a DWI by failing the sobriety test but not the breatalyzer.

[AmyDoll]

In the US there are two types of BAC machines used (Breath alcohol content) One is the intoxilyzer and The other is the DataMaster 2000. Right now the validity of the Datamaster 2000 is being challenged in the Sixth Circuit Courts b/c it has been p[roven to give false readings Ie if you are a diabetic you could be sober and give a reading over the legal limit. This happens b/c as well as measuring for ethanol theses machines pick up other chemicals in the blood like insulin and register it as alcohol hence the test giving false positives.

[Kilted Heathen]

In the US there are two types of BAC machines used (Breath alcohol content) One is the intoxilyzer and The other is the DataMaster 2000. Right now the validity of the Datamaster 2000 is being challenged in the Sixth Circuit Courts b/c it has been p[roven to give false readings Ie if you are a diabetic you could be sober and give a reading over the legal limit. This happens b/c as well as measuring for ethanol theses machines pick up other chemicals in the blood like insulin and register it as alcohol hence the test giving false positives.

Daddy's a lawyer! :D

[Darksaga]

Was watching 'Cops' or 'Craziest Rednecks crashes 8' and keep seeing these 'sobriety tests'. What are they all about??!!
Is that the only way of testing for alcohol consumption? Does it stand up (100%) in court? In the UK we have 'breathalisers'... get a green light and you are under the limit, get a red and you're over and they will give a reading in mg - showing exactly how smashed you are and will be used in evidence.

Any ideas?

In my one of my prior positions I was a Substance Abuse Evaluator. A sobriety test looks to see if there is any physical impairment. If there is some physical impairment then the police can administer a breathalyzer to find out what level of intoxication a person has. Bear in mind the laws vary from state to state. The reading will come up with a percentage of alcohol inthe person for instance .1 means the persons Blood Alcohol Level is .1% or 1/10 of a percent. In most states operate a vehicle with a BAC of .08 or greater means they are over the legal limit.

If for some reason a person is uncoperative about using the Breathalyzer then they are automatically considered over the legal limit for not being cooperative. If the person has to go to the hospital then the police wqill go off the toxicology report. There are emerging ways to measure a person intoxication such as an oral swab but usually oral swab and "patches" are used to monitor illicit drugs.

[lawdog]

Anyone care if I take a shot at this one?

Couple things weren't quite right. First the police only need "reasonable suspicion" to pull someone over for suspected DWUI. They do need probably cause for the arrest but not for the traffic stop. Second, in my state, the refusal to take a "breathalizer" on the scene is not grounds for arrest. That technology has not been around for all that long, in comparisons to people driving, and there are other ways to detect impairment. We have two types of machines that test the breath, one is a "PBT" which is used in the field and the other is the Intoximeter EC/IR, which is used after the arrest. It also happens to be more accurate and accepted by the courts. I'm sure there are several other machines out there but that is what we use. We do not have to have a breath sample in the field to make and arrest.

The "tests" you are referring to are Standardized Field Sobriety Maneuvers. They evaluate several things like manual dexterity, divided attention, balance, ability to follow directions, and some I probably forgot...all things that detect impairment of alcohol or controlled substances. Of those things, a person's tolerance to alcohol can have affects. One test that tolerance has no affect on is Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. Nystagmus is the involuntary bouncing of the eyes as they track horizontally. Nystagmus is also present at "maximum deviation", that is the furthest the eye can look to one side, and for those highly intoxicated, at 45 degrees. Breath tests in the field are considered additional maneuvers to be weighed with the other maneuvers.

All this information is for my home state and there are likely other laws in other states. Also, please don't believe everything you see on Cops as the gospel. Television really ruins people's perceptions. If I had a dollar for every asshole that thought he knows the law because he's seen a couple episodes of "Law and Order" or one of the other jackass, Hollywood versions of law enforcement, I'd be a rich man.

[Thursday]

One test that tolerance has no affect on is Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. Nystagmus is the involuntary bouncing of the eyes as they track horizontally. Nystagmus is also present at "maximum deviation", that is the furthest the eye can look to one side, and for those highly intoxicated, at 45 degrees.

Lawdog, while in paramedic class we talked about this, and studies have shown that between 10 -15% of the population is born with or develops a form of nystagmus, be it lateral or vertical. It stems from a defect with the extraocular muscles of the eye, and can be present with out the presence of alcohol in the blood stream.

While it has been proven to be highly successfull with convicting people of DUI or DWIs, it needs other tests to along side of it to show, such as the breathalizer, that someone is infact intoxicated, as you stated above.

[Latewatch]

Check the below link for a demonstration of a sure fire sobrriety test.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/duitest.html

[AmyDoll]

Daddy's a lawyer! :D[/quote]

Ranger Kilted Heathen, did someone squeal or did you deduce that conclusion? B/c all he is right.

[Southern_Brit]

Cheers guys (n' gals)... I did wonder if you had additional testing after the sobriety test and if you did use any form of breathalisers.
The point about it's use for overall testing of dexterity, balance and the ability to follow commands that could point to the misuse of other substances is quite valid - the police here are trying to speed this area up (excuse the pun! ) and have no current method to detect drug use etc... Something that has been on the increase here over the last 15 years or so - they have to have reasonal suspicion to arrest them and then get a doctor to get a blood sample.

But thanks for the replies and no I don't believe all I see on TV - otherwise after last nights viewing of 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' I'd want to give Hawaii a wide berth!

[Bell]

But thanks for the replies and no I don't believe all I see on TV - otherwise after last nights viewing of 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' I'd want to give Hawaii a wide berth!

RLTW
Bell

[VAK]

I am actually stunned by the liberal stint you took on this one especially since your dad's a lawyer Amy. While I realize that he without doubt makes a portion of his money attempting to get drunks off, he no doubt knows that he is sending his daughter out with half truths here and you are going to get stomped on with them here. Where a large portion of the members have a tremendous amount of law enforcement experience. You might even guess that members of the site were in on the first case in the US where a drunk was convicted of Murder for a DWI related vehiclular homicide. (3rd DWI thus a felony and in my State and others any death resulting from a felony is a Murder 2nd degree. And there is now case law and it's been upheld in now two State Supreme Courts as it's a growing trend.) Further, your contention that there are only two type machines that can detect alcohol content in the blood stream is incredibly erroneous. I can think of far more than that used by Departments in the Metro here alone. Now, just think how many are used nationwide.

Follow that with your contention that these machines are so incredibly erroneous and I would take that issue to task as well. Before using these machines and even after, Officers go through a rigorous training course and each year are required to recertify on their use. Not just within their Agency, but in most cases a State Re-Cert. This on top of their incredibly mounting training requirements. Keeping in mind that we expect our Officers to be trained to deal with everything from every social problem, crime, poverty, truancy, poor parenting on the part of every parent in their and neighboring communities, terrorism, drugs, gangs, missing persons-fuck we expect them not just to keep the streets safe, we expect them to respond, fix it, prevent it, know all of the answers, be correct 110% of the time and never, never, never in the face of liberal minded bullshit like that you posted get mad. (I am so fucking happy I retired so I can say whatever I want now!!!)

I would offer this, I've knocked on too many doors at 3am to let some family know that their Mom, their Dad, their Son's or Daughter's would not be coming home. I've had to pick up the pieces of too many little kid's, too many people who hadn't even been drinking. Too many issues come to mind here to even begin to attempt to try to explain this to you in one sitting. So, you just go pat your Daddy on the back and let him know how very proud you are that he got one off and I will go pat my Officer's on the back and let them know how proud of them I am that they locked a few more up and we'll stay on our respective sides of the fence.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I sincerely do believe that we need to have the most liberal minded, outspoken, fight for lowest pieces of shit lawyers out there. I never, ever want my Officer's to get sloppy, lazy or take for granted that their cases need to be anything less than perfect, nor do I want them violating anyone's rights or due process. In that same spirit, I'd hate to see these half truth's being spread by lawyers who are so eager for a win that they too forget that justice and what is right are not so far apart. Why spread half truths about an effective tool? Why not talk about the tools weaknesses and also talk about what it took to get the fucking drunk to that point in the first place? Reason (Reasonable suspision or probable cause as in most cases they are going to be all over the road or some other blatant violation) for the stop, probable cause for the sobriety tests (proper training and certification to become an Officer, training and experience to recognize a drunk driving in front of you, training and experience to recognize that he's failed to answer your questions properly, training and experience to perform the sobriety tests, the arrest, the training and experience to have the operator of the Alcohol detecting device whatever type it might be give it), now that's just that part. We still have to decide whether or not he passes or fails, if he passes, there is still the determination to be made if he's on something else and if a blood test is in order. So, from there how much times elapsed? We're also taking up precious patrol time from how many Officers and in most cases dealing with someone who is a complete fucking prick.

See how much fun this all is Amy? Your Dad just get's to make his money on the tail end. Now, that's not the best part. The best part is that in most cases your working dogwatch and you get to come in with two other Officer's, taking up the cities money and resources, usually on a day off, ALWAYS during your sleep time as there is no Night Court for us in the Mid-West, so you get your preliminary hearing, maybe a reset date, at times folks like your Dad will pull a supression hearing knowing full well they'll lose but it makes the client feel better when you put on a show, especially if they have the money. Then the court date itself where you get to show up, only for the hallway deal to be made and it to get pled out at the last possible minute as your Dad being I am sure a great lawyer wants his client to avoid his 30, 60 or 90 days for that first or second offense as long as possible. If it's a good second or third then it's a mandatory prison "Shock" treatment time, so really he's just putting off the inevitable, but what's the cop's time. Right?

I am not bitter, I just want both sides out there. Instead of this bullshit mantra of the 'puffy' my daddy's a lawyer and he say's "blah, blah, blah..." which is only the half truth that he uses to sway a jury. He needs to be telling at least you the entire truth so that you can form a complete opinion. I honestly am not smoking him for not telling the complete story to the jury as it's all his job to tell only his side to them. (Not like the police who don't pick sides and just tell the complete truth.) One wonder's in who's favor are the odd's stacked against really?

[Ardent Lady]

One wonder's in who's favor are the odd's stacked against really?

In all the factors, TAC-P VAK, this is the one I wish was always considered, by all parties involved. So many factors come to play - who's making the money, who's right or wrong, what are the consequences that are reasonable for stupid choices, what is truly just, why do people want so badly to escape their own unpleasant consequences? It's huge.

It would be great if there were impartial, perfect ways to execute the tests for sobriety, and administer them, but then we would probably be looking at a monolithic, authoritarian state that would have to be so overbearing in its authority as to rival Stalin's, or else posess god-like qualities of omniscience and omnipresence.

Instead, the process toward what I hope is truth and true justice is left in the hands of flawed humans, with mixed motives and imperfect knowledge. I just hope we're making progress toward this actual justice with all the ways we push the limits of our technology and understanding of science.

Does that answer the heart cry of my friend whose son was killed by a weaving drunk one afternoon? Not completely, but it sure seems like justice to me if the consequences of the law are allowed to fall hard on that drunken person.

Does what we have meet the needs of the drunk person to protect his right to a fair trial, for even he is due that? I hope so, but I have to say, I hope to God nothing happens to get him off scot free. Actions have consequences.

It will be a constant struggle as the forces face off in our courts and streets. Officers and lawyers both sometimes work toward their own ends without regard to justice, and they shouldn't. We as people need to always be watching for how the odds may be stacking up in a way that is unfair or unjust, regardless of what that may cost us in pride or money, because that's what is right in the bigger picture.

[lawdog]

Lawdog, while in paramedic class we talked about this, and studies have shown that between 10 -15% of the population is born with or develops a form of nystagmus, be it lateral or vertical. It stems from a defect with the extraocular muscles of the eye, and can be present with out the presence of alcohol in the blood stream.

While it has been proven to be highly successfull with convicting people of DUI or DWIs, it needs other tests to along side of it to show, such as the breathalizer, that someone is infact intoxicated, as you stated above.

Thursday,

It's actually approximately 4% that have a natural nystagmus. That's information I have received and that is also why officers don't only have people perform a single maneuver. I am well aware of the reasons why sobriety maneuvers are used in combinations with other maneuvers and have been trained, refreshed, and again refreshed on administration of the maneuvers and their effects. I have yet to arrest a single drunk that has a natural nystagmus. I've probably arrested 200 - 250 drunks. 10% to 15% of 200 is 20 to 30 that should have had it according to your calculations.

The only reason that I get a little pissy is that your information is obtained from a paramedic course. How many people die in the United States from doctors who thought they knew what they were doing and didn't. Something like over 100,000. That's way more than the police kill unfortunately.