Better Safe Than Sorry

[jotoole]

Husker Boxster- appreciate it

Re: DUI test

Do as police officers and other public officials do when asked to take DUI test.
Refuse.

You hand over your license for a time, but no DUI on your record.

[jmatta]

Was stopped several years back on a two lane highway heading out of Road America after a day of races (and beverages..many beverages). Police woman stated I was clocked at 76 in a 55...whoops. When asked for my license, I politely asked if I could exit the vehicle and get it out of my bag in the trunk (next to the cooler).

She came back after what seemed like an eternity and gave me a warning since I had an impeccable driving record.

Thank goodness I was driving my Grand Cherokee instead of the 911...I'd probably been toast. Buddy was stopped this past ALMS weekend...same stretch of road, clocked 82mph in a 55 zone in his 997 Carrera Aero...got a nice fat ticket, but he hadn't been drinking, which was fortunate.

[johnsimion]

Originally Posted by jotoole

Husker Boxster- appreciate it

Re: DUI test

Do as police officers and other public officials do when asked to take DUI test.
Refuse.

You hand over your license for a time, but no DUI on your record.

+++++++
Sorry to burst your bubble, but what you suggest is a very, very bad idea. It results in immediate and automatic loss of license and does NOT preclude a prosecution.

I am an attorney and used to work as an administrative DUI hearing officer as well as defense counsel. People don't realize it, but "Driving Under the Influence" can be prosecuted by the officer's observations of the way you were driving together with the odor of alcohol on the driver's breath. Although the drunk test and blood alcohol tests certainly make an easy prosecution, they are not required.

In my experience, typically the cops follow the suspect for a distance and observe the way he/she drives (crossed the center line; rolled through a stop; failed to stop at the stop line; drove excessively slow; etc.). The driver usually admits to drinking and sometimes even say how much. The cops also carefully observe the driver's "innocent" behavior. For example, did he/she get all fumble-fingered when pulling out the driver's license? When they asked him/her to come sit with them in the cruiser, was the driver unsteady? Circumstancial evidence but you can be convicted on circumstancial evidence ... contrary to lore and TV.

Okay, so now you go to trial and the officer then testifies that you did all this and "Oh yes, your honor, he also refused the drunk test and breath test." Judges aren't stupid, they know darned well why you refused. So now you get convicted of DUI and ALSO you pissed off the judge. You just ran up $$$ in attorneys' fees, got convicted, a harsh sentence, AND you lost your license.

As with most traffic stops, your best bet is to cooperate with the cops, don't run your mouth, and get a good attorney to get you a good plea deal. In MO, first offense DUI is often reduced to C&I driving. I would rather take a C&I than spend a bunch more attorneys' fees to take my chances in a trial where I might be convicted outright of DUI and have them throw the book at me. But then, I don't ever drive after having even one beer.

[jotoole]

And you made several.

I did not mention alcohol. DUI includes any substance that can impair your ability to drive and there's a bunch of them out there. I don't drink and drive period.


"The cops carefully observe the driver's innocent behavior." As a teenager I was arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct. I was innocent and pled not guilty. At trial, the two arresting officers "got all fumble fingered" with the hats they were holding when they saw who my attorney was. He asked each officer what they witnessed and they told two different stories. When the first officer finished his sworn testimony, the judge asked the second to tell his "story." The judge obviously felt I was more credible than the police. He banged his gavel with a "case dismissed."

"Judges aren't stupid, they darned well why you refused." You assume to know the judges thoughts. The judge knows darn well people can have good reason to refuse the test, that being charged does not prove guilt. Otherwise, who needs the judge?

"So now you get convicted."

"ALSO you pissed off the judge."

My bubble is intact. Try not to pay so much attention to tv and "lore."

Do you also assume all your clients are guilty?

[Brucelee]

Lets not get testy boys. Nothing to gain by arguing here.

[eightsandaces]

Originally Posted by husker boxster

Jotoole, thank you for your service to our country.

I was telling my story to my buddies after golf tonight. One of them said the police make the test so ridiculously difficult so you'll incriminate yourself by saying you couldn't do it if you were sober. Interesting take. The "I couldn't do it if I was sober" thought has been a recurring theme throughout this thread. If you ever get pulled over, better resist the temptation to say it.

Also, someone else said the police are required to wait 15 min after they stop you before they can administer the breathalizer. Not sure if that's true or not, but the officers I dealt with did take about that long before they had me give it a whirl. So mayber there is some truth to that.

Just thought I'd pass these tidbits along.

This works against you, in fact if you're breathalyzed at the roadside then again at the station it will likely be higher at the station. There's a factor for how long after drinks the alcohol peaks, I just don't remember what my cous told me..

[Frodo]

Yeah, that can be true. Depends what the time line on your drinking was. If you had just bolted down a few shortly before driving and getting stopped, it sure could work against you if they delay the test for awhile.

OTOH, if you were legally under the influence when you were driving but it had been awhile since you had last had a drink, your blood alcohol level could well be on its way down, and a delay in testing could work to your advantage.

Blood alcohol level is not a static thing. The results of the test, if it was delayed significantly, is not particularly indicative of what your level was when you were cruisin' down the road. And whether the delay helps you or hurts you is a function of whether your level was on the way up or on the way down when you were stopped.

I've heard of cases (it may be commonplace, I don't know) where defense attorneys have tried to use unreasonable delays in testing as all or part of the defense.

[stephen wilson]

Well, just another opinion, but my Brother-in-law is a public defender, and recommends politely refusing any sobriety tests ( if you know you're over the limit). The tests do help build a case against you, and their absence can help in your defense. Also, don't even admit you've had a drink, in some states that forces the officer to perform sobriety a test. They expect you to lie, even if it's just saying you had one or two, instead of a dozen!
If you're going to drink, buy a cheap breathilizer (sp?) to check yourself before driving.

Oh yeah, some states can compel blood testing, so in that case, you're screwed.