"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:45:29 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



That WAS funny!

now I'm waiting for the analysts to show up...
HA!

OK, I'll give it a try. Good story but in most states, if not all,
the cops do not have to wait for you to start the car and drive off.
If you are sitting in it and have the keys that is sufficient for a
DUI/DWI bust.

So, if I get into my car at the bar after delivering some peanuts, I can be
busted for a DUI? Or, I'm waiting to pick up my kid at school?

Wouldn't there have to be a breath, field sobriety, or blood test, or sumpin
like that?

Last year, I had a medical reaction to new heart medications. I got
lightheaded, ran off the road, and struck a tree at 10 mph. Woke up
somewhat to an officer questioning me and having me do field sobriety tests,
although my head was all bloody from head injuries, and one eye swollen
shut. I blew two 0.00 breathalyzer tests, but was booked for DUI for
failing the field sobriety tests. Hard to stand on one foot when you have
had both knees operated on, and a broken back two years ago. Two blood
samples were taken, which came back showing NO drugs. I spent three days in
the hospital for head wounds and observation. I went to court, and the case
was dismissed. From what I heard, the cop was severely reamed, and I was
asked to sign a waiver of false arrest. Being the good citizen I am, and
wanting to harmoniously continue living in a very small town, I obliged, but
first stated my feelings to the judge, and the prosecutor who asked me to
sign the release.

Yes, as you say, cops can arrest you for most any reason. But charging a
person who exhibits "uncommon behavior" by summarily judging them to be
under the influence can be a career breaker. Especially with no
corroborating evidence. Would a person who walks a little erratically
because of balance problems, an artificial limb or who uses a cane qualify
for arrest for DUI?

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:08:29 -0800, Eddie
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:43:48 -0500, wrote:


The real problem is they can **** quiz you and you never know how your
meds will show up on one of these crude field tests. We had a 72 y/o
guy here who was arrested for failing a **** quiz and in the end he
was totally innocent. The gas spectrometer test came back negative 3
weeks later. In the mean time his car was towed and he had to arrange
for a ride home., Even the cops suspected he was OK , at least to he
point that they didn't hook him up, they just gave him a DUI ticket.
Don't count on that. You probably go in the tank.

I've never heard of a "DUI ticket" Well, at least in the three
departments I worked for.
Ok, here's something to ponder.

I suppose it was really released ROR but the effect was basically the
same as a ticket, he wasn't hooked up and taken in.
He was still charged with DUI and his car was impounded.

http://www.news-press.com/article200991102020

Most places you can get a DUI for drug impaired driving. So taking a
prescription drug, or over the counter drug can get you arrested also. What
the field sobriety tests are for.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:14:02 -0500, wrote:

The problem with field sobriety tests are they are very subjective. It
is really just what the cop says it is and there is absolutely no
baseline for how the person performs sober.
I have some pretty nasty osteoarthritis in the big toe joints of both
feet, Standing on one foot is not easy for me at any time. The older a
person is, the more likely it is they will have a natural problem with
some of the agility tests the cops put you through.
This guy was in his 70s. Lets hope we are all agile enough to pass a
field sobriety test in our 70s, cold sober.
The other problem is the field urine test. It is far from accurate and
who knows how common meds (non-narcotic) will show up with a test
strip.

It's my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that some attorneys are
advising clients to refuse all field testing.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:14:02 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


The problem with field sobriety tests are they are very subjective. It
is really just what the cop says it is and there is absolutely no
baseline for how the person performs sober.

Just look where field sobriety tests are taken, along side the road, on
uneven pavement, cars flying by, and generally in the dark. The setup is
not conducive to anything but failure. I don't know if his run is still
intact, but there was a lawyer in Florida, who had never lost a DUI case,
mostly by blowing holes in the field sobriety tests. Still, win or lose
in court, it still costs $$$.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:34:46 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


It's my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that some attorneys are
advising clients to refuse all field testing.

IANAL, but it's my understanding field sobriety tests are voluntary, at
least in most states. Also understand, by the time you are asked to take
a field sobriety test, the officer already suspects you are under the
influence. The tests only allow the officer to build up enough of a case
to arrest you.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:14:02 -0500, wrote:

The problem with field sobriety tests are they are very subjective. It
is really just what the cop says it is and there is absolutely no
baseline for how the person performs sober.
I have some pretty nasty osteoarthritis in the big toe joints of both
feet, Standing on one foot is not easy for me at any time. The older a
person is, the more likely it is they will have a natural problem with
some of the agility tests the cops put you through.
This guy was in his 70s. Lets hope we are all agile enough to pass a
field sobriety test in our 70s, cold sober.
The other problem is the field urine test. It is far from accurate and
who knows how common meds (non-narcotic) will show up with a test
strip.

It's my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that some attorneys are
advising clients to refuse all field testing.


In California, you lose your license for a year for refusing a breathalyser
or BAC test. They say you agree to the tests when you apply for your
license.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:34:46 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


It's my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that some attorneys are
advising clients to refuse all field testing.

IANAL, but it's my understanding field sobriety tests are voluntary, at
least in most states. Also understand, by the time you are asked to take
a field sobriety test, the officer already suspects you are under the
influence. The tests only allow the officer to build up enough of a case
to arrest you.

I think in CT if you turn down a field test, you are admitting guilt in
the eyes of the CT law. You are automatically guilty iirc.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:12:45 -0800, Bill McKee wrote:


In California, you lose your license for a year for refusing a
breathalyser or BAC test. They say you agree to the tests when you
apply for your license.

Yeah, but, not *field* tests.

"Any handheld breath alcohol test administered at roadside prior to
arrest is completely voluntary and should be politely declined."

From:

http://sandiegodwi.com/mandatory-dui...voluntary.html

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:12:45 -0800, Bill McKee wrote:


In California, you lose your license for a year for refusing a
breathalyser or BAC test. They say you agree to the tests when you
apply for your license.

Yeah, but, not *field* tests.

"Any handheld breath alcohol test administered at roadside prior to
arrest is completely voluntary and should be politely declined."

From:

http://sandiegodwi.com/mandatory-dui...voluntary.html

Interesting.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:42:46 -0500, wrote:

Don't answer any
questions, don't say anything else and don't try any of the tests.
It still amounts to a $2500-3000 fine tho, since that is about the
minimum a decent lawyer will charge.
That makes cab fare sound like a bargain doesn't it?

That's still reasonable compared to the life time cost of a DUI
conviction.