When other countries (notably Europe) use roadside ‘Breathalyzer’ test machines? It seems a high-functioning drunk could get away with DUI in the US, when they wouldn’t in France or the UK?
In: Other
Field sobriety tests are an evidence-gathering procedure. District attorneys realize that it is easier to secure confessions and convictions when they have multiple pieces of evidence, even if just one piece of evidence seems to be convincing enough to succeed. Cops realize this too. Law enforcement officers also realize that if the biological tests that DUI suspects are inevitably subjected to are shown to be faulty (for instance, there was a clerical error at the lab and your sample was lost), then they can still fall back on other forms of evidence (the results of the field sobriety test) to probably secure your conviction anyway.
For the same reason cops in the UK might do a “Field impairment test”. Cops in both countries can do a breathalyzer, but drivers could be impaired for non alcohol reasons.
Police do field sobriety tests so that they can have more evidence against you when you fail them. I say when you fail them and not “if you fail them” because they are completely subjective, they are elective which means you don’t have to do them nor should refusing them count against you, and they are designed for you to fail. Police need as much evidence as possible to convict you of driving while impaired or under the influence so they will try to administer these BS field sobriety tests to help their case. When you fail any part of it, they will use it against you in court. They will not say “well he passed 90% of it so he was sober”, instead he will say “he failed this part and therefore this is evidence that he was impaired”. Ultimately what is admisable in court as hard evidence will be the station breathalyzer or the hospital blood test they use to convict you however the field sobriety test will be brought up in court and will be used to try to sway a jury. If you refuse the sobriety test they will blackmail you. They will say they will arrest you, take you to jail, and tow your car if you refuse but mind you that they will do all those things anyway if they suspect you of being impaired. Stick to your guns, deny everything, and buy as much time as possible so you can sober up before finally being subjected to the sobriety test at the station. If you’re lucky, you will sober up and blow 0.00 by the time they’ve gotten you to the station and you will be ok. Otherwise, you will blow below the limit and hopefully earn a lesser sentence than if you failed all the FST’s and blew a million over the limit in the field blower when you were at your drunkest.
In the US, field sobriety tests are used as a preliminary screening to indicate possible intoxication. They’re not as accurate as breathalyzers, but they can help officers determine whether further testing is warranted. Breathalyzers, on the other hand, provide a more precise blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reading but may not be available or practical in all situations.
Simply to gain more “evidence” to use against the driver in order to arrest them and later make the charges stick. They do use breathalyzers but usually ask the driver to perform FST’s first to gain more leverage as the police need two different “reasons” to assume someone is under the influence of alcohol (I.e. the traffic violation AND failing one of the tests). IIRC they cannot ask you to take a breathalyzer if you simply made a small traffic violation, so instead they will use these tests to rationalize using a breathalyzer as the tests are really hard for even a completely sober person to “pass”. These tests are also NOT MANDATORY, and you should ALWAYS refuse to take any tests.
I have never thought about this before, and I am not sure if what I am about to say would be totally fair, but it is possible using vague methodologies can help them to establish vague standards, which in terms just become “we feel like the people we like are sober, and the people don’t like aren’t”
Because the field test is subjective and the cop can claim whatever he wants after the fact. You weren’t 100% on a straight line, your nose was too high, you couldn’t read the alphabet backwards fast enough (I can’t do it even sober). Typically they can do a breathalyzer after the test but if you failed it they can claim that you did drugs instead of alcohol and still arrest or fine you
Sobriety field tests in the US are used as a preliminary assessment to determine if a driver is under the influence of alcohol. These tests, such as the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand, are less precise than breathalyzers but can provide additional evidence of impairment. They may also be used when breathalyzers are unavailable or when the driver refuses to submit to a breath test.
Always decline field sobriety tests as they’re all open to interpretation and often setup to be “failed” by a slight wobble
In my state, at least, you can opt for the breathalyzer immediately and decline the field sobriety tests.
Former Prosecutor here. So we do both. Roadside breath tests are not admissible in court and are voluntary as are roadside tests. For the most part the field sobriety tests are used to build probable cause to request an admissible test and most people do not understand that they are voluntary and you can refuse. Since the roadside breathalyzer is not admissible in court, most cops lead with the roadsides to build probable cause to arrest for DUI and the roadsides are designed to test for impairment of any kind, not just alcohol. Although their efficacy for other substances is questionable, especially the nystagmus test. Since roadside breathalyzers are not admissible in court, its very possible for someone to argue that no roadsides showed impairment and the officer had no other reason to believe they were impaired where someone refuses an actual admissible test (blood test or intoxylizer test). There are very few circumstances where an admissible blood test can be taken without your consent, but there are ramifications for doing so where probable cause has been found. Also I’m drunk while writing this but I’m not driving.
Moral of the story is don’t drive drunk…but if you do, do not do roadsides or blow, you are not required to.
Latest Answers