Hell,wellfed wrote:I'll let centermass 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. :?
I completely missed this one. Several points have been made. I'll make my first. IF YOU DRINK, DO IT AT HOME. STAY OFF THE ROADS AND STAY IN YOUR LIVING ROOM.
Now, with that said, if everyone did that, there would be no need for checkpoints, Interdiction Teams, DWI/DUI Task Force, Officers Checklist indicators for drivers possibly intoxicated or impaired, SFST's (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests) or intoxilyzer equipment.
Each state has laws or statutes which may vary to some degree, but in essence are similar and written into legislation for one reason: past tragedies.
Wellfed is essentially correct, except preliminary factors are usually considered as reasonable suspicion as Lawdog stated, to justify a vehicle stop. This is not a factor at lawful checkpoints.
Once a stop has been made, there may be variables and indicators utilized in what is considered probable cause (follow up from reasonable suspicion) to effect an arrest. And in most states, it is still considered belief until several litmus tests have been performed to establish impairment.
I'm not going into intricate detail so someone will have knowledge aforethought to mount a defense, but some I will address. Everyone sees it performed, but no one really understands it. Lawdog hit on it as well. This is one that I have an ax to grind with.
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagnus (HGN) most of you have seen on COPS or other shows is generally performed poorly or incorrectly. Nystagmus is an involuntary jerking or bouncing of the eyeball that occurs when there is a disturbance of the vestibular (inner ear) system or the oculomotor control of the eye.
Horizontal jerking occurs when the eye gazes to the side. In the impaired driving context, alcohol consumption or consumption of certain other central nervous system depressants which hinders the ability of the brain to correctly control eye muscles, therefore causing the jerk or bounce associated with HGN.
As the degree of impairment becomes greater, the jerking or bouncing, i.e. the nystagmus, becomes more pronounced. The subject is usually unaware when their pupil begins to bounce once it reaches its outer periphery, but the officer will see it. He is looking for several things:
lack of smooth pursuit, obvious and distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation (this is also referred to as "end-point" nystagmus) along with the angle of onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees.
It is only an indicator and does not stand by itself to convict someone, let alone arrest someone. And yes Thursday, there are always exceptions. But, like Lawdog, I have yet to arrest anyone who had this condition, let alone could use this as part of their defense.
SFST's or FST's are also used to gauge and establish any impairment or level of impairment in conjunction with all that has been established so far.
There are also handheld field testing units that an officer may have you blow in while out during the stop. Most courts have established that the results from these devices are not admissible as stand alone evidence to convict.
But they have also been shown to be admissible as another indicator in an officers ability to show and determine impairment.
Put all these things together along with others (asleep at the wheel and in control of a motor vehicle at an intersection while traffic light cycles several times) open containers, events video recorded, and then maybe, you get to take the ride.
In this state, the Intoxilyzer 5000 is used and admissible as establishing a persons blood alcohol content (BAC). Keep in mind these machines require an operator who is trained extensively on it's use and proper employment. It must be maintained and calibrated in accordance with established procedures and standards.
This is not the only one used in this country, it is only one of several. Regardless of where you're at and what's used, it's a safe bet if it is used and accepted, it is because it has been challenged and proven to be reliable and accurate, and upheld in the courts as such.
What happens to you if you refuse depends on what state you live in. I'm not even going to get into that.
VAK hit the nail on the head when it comes down to what officers in the real world have to deal with constantly. It sucks.
Lawyers have their place. But, for the most part, they are the reason officer training is so extensive and repetitive as to the competency of an officers ability to evaluate, administer or conduct any of the above, coupled with their ability to testify in court and articulate the totality of all the circumstances and weight of the evidence involved.
It's a bitch when I sit there in court, knowing full well one of my other brothers has a defendant about to get off the hook on a technicality or a loophole. Yeah, it happens and unfortunately, when it does, statistics show this individual will probably be out there again doing the same.
But it's even more of a bitch knowing that this person has the potential to make someone a widow, widower, fatherless, motherless, childless etc. later on down the road.
The final 2 points I'll make is it all boils down to an officers training. It's their competency, understanding of the laws, committment to fairness, upholding the law and caring about what they're doing.
As VAK stated, recertification as become a way of life in Law Enforcement. As tedious or repetitive as it gets, this is for your benefit so the officer that some of ya'll love and respect so much
gets it right. And when they do, it will uphold itself in a court of law and will become adjudicated in the dockets of who gets their just due when all is said and done.
The last is "it depends." These 2 little words make for what is known as the infinite variable when asking a "simple question" pertaining to the law.
So,
You want to be a COP, do ya?
I was bored. I'll shut up now.
