The one where Tdarcos finds a handheld breathalyzer

[Tdarcos]

So, I got a DUI last June (no accident, just got pulled over as I exited the expressway).

I've gotten pulled over twice for suspicion of drunk driving. The first was about 20, 25 years ago in Stafford County near Fredericksburg, Virginia. I had been out on a date with my girlfriend Geannie, her brother Shane and possibly someone else, I'm not sure. I'm driving, she's in the seat next to me and everyone else is in back. As we're coming back from wherever we went, Geannie tells me that she's feeling sick and is going to throw up. I don't remember if she drank anything alcoholic or if we even went anywhere that sold alcohol, but I've been a lifelong teetotaler so I was totally sober. I did not relish the idea of having to clean vomit out of my car so I asked her to try to hold on for a few seconds. There was nobody next to me so I immediately pulled over; I'm not sure if I signaled and in fact I think it was while completing a left turn.

I never saw him, but a cop saw me swerve to the side of the road and came over, lights and siren. He said he saw me swerve and asked if I had been drinking. I, dewey-eyed innocent I was, told him the truth. "No, officer, my girlfriend told me she was feeling sick aand was going to puke so I pulled over." I figured that he saw the pool of vomit on the ground outside her door convinced him because he let me go without even a warning, but later, Shane told me that he had used a hand-held breath testing tool near me, and I never saw it.

If anyone is interested I can recount the real reason I was worried the cop was going to catch me for something else entirely (that I was guilty of), or what happened on the other suspected DUI stop.

Oddly and luckily, it happened on a night where I was way less drunk than I've been sometimes driving home... It's completely changed aspects of my life due to having an ignition interlock device on my car for the next 6 months and having a weekly DUI class requirement (upcoming 2 days community service will be fun i'm sure).

Nope, an associate of mine got one of those, they aren't really set up to use people's actual talents. Since roadside trash clearing is usually reserved for prisoners, they have people clean trash from public parks, or other such important services.

One of the things my lawyer worked out with the judge before trial was that to get off easily, I would need to go to 16 AA meetings and get signatures that I did.

And one guy's lawyer got him out of AA meetings. I'm not sure of the complete details but a guy was required to go to AA meetings. His lawyer argued that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious-based treatment program (which it is) since the alcoholic is supposed to admit they need help from a higher power, i.e. God. As the man was a non-believer, it was illegal to either mandate he go to a religious-based program or face mere severe punishment. Not sure wherher the court agreed and ordered an alternative (and the state appealed) or the judge disagreed (and he appealed). On appeal, the appellate court agreed AA is religious-based, and if someone objects on religious grounds the state must either find them a secular (non-sectarian, non-religious) alternative or waive their participation.

Wow, what an experience that was. There are literally hundreds of AA groups in this area...
I found that the folks like me who were required to be there were largely silent, just trying to get through it but the folks who WANTED to be there are absolutely freaky fanatics of AA. It's very much like a cult,

AA fits L. Sprague DeCamp's definition of a cult: A religious-based society having only members who joined as adults, and none who became members by being born into it and raised as part of it.

with much of the meetings taken up by people gushing about how wonderful it is that they have this program or else they would surely be dead on the side of the road or in jail. I thought the religion aspect would be the worst part but no, it's the fact that at the end of the meeting everyone stands in a circle and holds hands, does the "lords prayer" and then gestate their arms up and down as if kids playing the parachute game at school while chanting "keep coming back it works".

Two things:
(1) I have heard (possibly apocryphal) reports of guys (who do not have drinking problems) trolling AA meetings to find easy women they can pick up for casual flings. Plus if you take her out, you don't have to buy her a drink!
(2) I think it was in The Peter Principle that AA depends on recruiting new members, and some chapters that failed to do so ended up collapsing and the members resumed drinking.

I will say that the only good thing I got out of the AA meetings is a better understanding of myself and why I've been drinking as much as I have. Lots of the stories people told were embarrassingly familiar which helped with self reflection.

Someone told me that companies that have a drug testing policy really don't need random drug testing and the embarassment of an innocent person having someone else watching them pee. Instead, hire an ex-addict, have them work with the employees for a while, then they can come back and tell you exactly who's using, and you then confront those people with an offer: they can resign immediately, no consequences, or they can immediately take a drug test right away, if they test positive they get fired for cause, if they test negative they get an apology and a (substantial) cash payment, anywhere from $100 to $500, depending on the company size. You'd probably have most people resigning quietly and probably almost never get a negative result.

[pinback]

Is this thread still about Hidden Resolution #2 or is it now the corporate drug-testing policy thread?

[Flack]

The cop held a handheld breathalyzer... near him?

[AArdvark]

I want to hear about the date with Commander's girfriend and her brother!

But in a separate thread, not here. This is about Hidden Resolution #2 (which would make a great name for a beer, just sayin')

THE
DAMMIT!
STILL ENABLING
AARDVARK

[Tdarcos]

The cop held a handheld breathalyzer... near him?

Shane told me the cop had one of those small, hand-held devices and had it such a position to allow it to catch my breath. As I said, I didn't see it. I t wold have been trivial for him to be leaning on my window, holding the device just below my jaw where I would not have seen it. If I understand them, these small, portable devices help to do a detection but isn't accurate enough to be admissible, but I suppose if it does register it would give him a reason to do something, like try to get someone to submit to a field sobriety test, something that is designed to make people fail, to which you can legally refuse and should.

[Casual Observer]

Shane told me the cop had one of those small, hand-held devices and had it such a position to allow it to catch my breath. As I said, I didn't see it. I t wold have been trivial for him to be leaning on my window, holding the device just below my jaw where I would not have seen it. If I understand them, these small, portable devices help to do a detection but isn't accurate enough to be admissible,

There is no such thing as a proximity breathalizer. Any device would require you to breathe directly into it for a period of time. This is currently and you're talking about something that happened like 20 years ago so there was certainly nothing of this kind in existence.

but I suppose if it does register it would give him a reason to do something, like try to get someone to submit to a field sobriety test, something that is designed to make people fail, to which you can legally refuse and should.

Refusing either a field sobriety test or the handheld breathalizer will 1) get you arrested for common law DUI and 2) in California comes with a semi-mandatory 1 year licence suspension. Semi-mandatory because whatever the court decides overwrites whatever the DMV says so I only got 6 months even though I refused the test. Interestingly, in my case the cops bothered a judge at 3am Saturday morning for a warrent to draw my blood and then I was told that they would take a sample whether I agreed or had to be held down so I agreed.

[Flack]

The cop held a handheld breathalyzer... near him?

Shane told me the cop had one of those small, hand-held devices and had it such a position to allow it to catch my breath. As I said, I didn't see it. I t wold have been trivial for him to be leaning on my window, holding the device just below my jaw where I would not have seen it. If I understand them, these small, portable devices help to do a detection but isn't accurate enough to be admissible, but I suppose if it does register it would give him a reason to do something, like try to get someone to submit to a field sobriety test, something that is designed to make people fail, to which you can legally refuse and should.

Out of respect for Pinback's thread I'm going to drop my line of questioning, but unless you got pulled over by a space alien or cop from the future, this didn't happen.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

I will split the thread so all of your questions get answered. The new thread won't have the "Respect" component installed.

[Jizaboz]

I will split the thread so all of your questions get answered. The new thread won't have the "Respect" component installed.

"Your work is greatly appreciated."

[Billy Mays]

a field sobriety test, something that is designed to make people fail,

It's designed to make drunk people fail, that's what makes it a good test.

[Jizaboz]

a field sobriety test, something that is designed to make people fail,

It's designed to make drunk people fail, that's what makes it a good test.

I think there is a little argument to be made there. For instance, walking a line forwards and backwards I could probably do half wasted due to balance practice. But if he asked me to say my ABCs backwards or even perhaps starting at a random letter, I would probably sound like a drunk idiot even if I was sober.

Breathalyzers obviously work but as far field tests the only one I’m a fan of is the one from Police Quest and Life & Death. If the cop tells you to follow his fingers or a small light with your eyes and your eyes keep swimming then Oh JAIL YEAH

[Billy Mays]

The FST is not some subjective test where cops are going around nailing fat people with sprained ankles.

I like having the police determine what is the best system because they're the ones who have to keep these fucking animals off the roadway.

The type of person that'll get fast food delivered to their house but when it comes to calling a cab they say fuck society and its rules, I'm gonna do what I want even if it kills someone. They're shitty people and that's why it makes me feel good inside, really good in my heart of hearts, when I'm driving somewhere and I see somebody getting pulled over for whatever the reason.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

So you feel good when it's not just people pulled over for DUI, which is a little douchey but understandable and 90% of America agrees with you, but for ANY reason?

I guess it's moot since we never know the reason.

(Or ... or do you?)

[Tdarcos]

Shane told me the cop had one of those small, hand-held devices and had it such a position to allow it to catch my breath. As I said, I didn't see it. j

There is no such thing as a proximity breathalizer.

Fine. As I said, Shane told me and it is possible he was kidding, and the cop accepted the fact I didn't slur my words and the pool of vomit on the passenger side to accept I wasn't driving intoxicated.

but I suppose if it does register it would give him a reason to do something, like try to get someone to submit to a field sobriety test, something that is designed to make people fail, to which you can legally refuse and should.

Refusing either a field sobriety test or the handheld breathalizer will 1) get you arrested for common law DUI and 2) in California comes with a semi-mandatory 1 year licence suspension.

Wrong on a number of points.
1. There is a requirement ("implied consent") to submit to a test for intoxication as a condition of obtaining and to keep a driver's license. But this isn't a requirement of California, it's a requirement of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. But so many people were refusing tests that every state made refusing the test a separate offense from the suspected DUI.
2. The requirement to submit to a test for intoxicants can be by breath, blood, or (if a blood test is unavailable) urine, at the option of the person being tested, and only the breathalyser at the station is counted or mandatory. Blood test must be done at a "medical facility." California Vehicle Code §23612, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... nNum=23612
3. A field sobriety test is optional and may be refused. From Shouse Law Group, "Drivers do not have to take California field sobriety tests. In California, field sobriety tests are completely optional. Drivers can decline to take them without any penalty whatsoever. This is important because even sober drivers can fail FSTs for reasons having nothing to do with their blood alcohol content (“BAC”)." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... heMBokoZb5

Before I even looked up the above I was aware of a man who was arrested for refusing to take a field sobriety test won a big settlement from the police for false arrest. And I found the link "City settles with man arrested for refusing field sobriety test." https://www.newjerseydwiattorneyblog.co ... leged-dwi/

Semi-mandatory because whatever the court decides overwrites whatever the DMV says so I only got 6 months even though I refused the test.

That's a suspension for refusing to take a breathalyser or blood test, not for refusing a field sobriety test. It is not "mandatory," unless they get a court order. Which they are not going to do unless you refuse and they have a very strong probable cause suspicion of DUI.

Interestingly, in my case the cops bothered a judge at 3am Saturday morning for a warrent to draw my blood and then I was told that they would take a sample whether I agreed or had to be held down so I agreed.

Exactly in what fashion was this a "field sobriety test?"

[Billy Mays]

So you feel good when it's not just people pulled over for DUI, which is a little douchey but understandable and 90% of America agrees with you, but for ANY reason?

Yes, it makes my day. What's a little douchey is people who think that they're more important than the safety of everyone else on the road. We can all come up with daily stories of the asshole driver they came across but as soon as that asshole gets pulled over then that person becomes the victim somehow? Fuck them, for that one moment the roads become a little safer and maybe people can make it home ok to their families.

I guess it's moot since we never know the reason.

(Or ... or do you?)

No.

[pinback]

What about if they're pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt?

[Billy Mays]

What about if they're pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt?

There are billboards, signs, and ads everywhere telling people to wear a seat belt or get ticketed. What kind of monster sees them and says these laws don't apply to me?

It's not unreasonable to demand that motorists wear a seat belt and it doesn't come close to infringing on any of their rights. Seat belts save lives. On top of that, the driver usually sets the safety precedent for everyone else riding in the car including children who may not know any better. The initial seat belt violation stop commonly leads to criminals getting taken into custody. People who don't wear a seat belt dramatically increase injuries received in a car accident which blocks up traffic for miles and inconveniences countless numbers of other drivers as well as using up essential city resources. Plus the responsibility you have to your family and friends to not do something irresponsible and get yourself hurt of killed.

[Tdarcos]

a field sobriety test, something that is designed to make people fail,

It's designed to make drunk people fail, that's what makes it a good test.

I stand by my original words, the FST will make people who are not impaired fail. It is designed for that purpose.

The FST is not some subjective test

Full stop. It is designed for the person to fail.

I have no problem with accurate, objective tests being used to get drunk or stoned drivers off the road. I do not want subjective or error-prone tests, because then they can be challenged in court. Which means wealthy pricks err I mean drunk drivers can hire good lawyers to get DUI arrests result in acquittals.

The police of the '50s and '60s were incompetent, brutal, or often dishonest. Supreme Court decisions like Gideon, Escobedo, Miranda, Mapp, and others, put restrictions on police and the methods they could use to collect evidence to secure a conviction and how an accused was treated in a trial. These were not roadblocks to hamper the police, they were limits on police power.

Back then, it was complained these restrictions would cripple the police. But they didn't. The police stopped using illegal methods, and became more professional. When police officers do their jobs and a person goes on trial, a conviction as a result of fair and impartial evidence collection, using a fair trial were the accused has adequate rights and resources to obtain a fair trial, means we can be proud of our system of justice. Otherwise the proceeding is in one way or another, in various degrees, a kangaroo court.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

So you feel good when it's not just people pulled over for DUI, which is a little douchey but understandable and 90% of America agrees with you, but for ANY reason?

Yes, it makes my day. What's a little douchey is people who think that they're more important than the safety of everyone else on the road. We can all come up with daily stories of the asshole driver they came across but as soon as that asshole gets pulled over then that person becomes the victim somehow? Fuck them, for that one moment the roads become a little safer and maybe people can make it home ok to their families.

Isn't it worse for traffic and society that every time you see someone pulled over both of your hands come off the wheel to rub your own erect nipples?

[Billy Mays]

I stand by my original words, the FST will make people who are not impaired fail. It is designed for that purpose.

What part of it specifically?

Supreme Court decisions like Gideon, Escobedo, Miranda, Mapp, and others, put restrictions on police and the methods they could use to collect evidence to secure a conviction and how an accused was treated in a trial.

What do they have to say about the FST?