The one where Tdarcos finds a handheld breathalyzer

[Casual Observer]

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?

Here's the problem. The FST assumes that officers are honest, which is an idiotic thing to think since cops' personality tests skew dangerously close to criminals. The FST is always done off dashcam and is entirely dependent on the cops' word which ain't worth shit. Touch your nose? Ok, I did it but what did he think? Stand in one leg? Ik, what did he say about that? The eye thing? Fick you I just told you I have lazy eye so that's tough for me to do.

It's all SUBJECTIVE.

You're an idiot and think cops care about anything more than what gets them a bit more money which they don't.

[Tdarcos]

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?

I said the Field Sobriety Test is designed to make people fail. Someone else said it was designed to make drunk drivers fail. I corrected him in that it is designed to make everyone fail. I saw a video - it was probably an episode of Cops - where a police officer was showing a DUI suspect who they needed to perform one of the Field Sobriety Tests, and the cop messed it up! If the cop himself had been taking it, he would have failed it.

Again, I stand by my statement: The FST is designed to fail everyone, regardless of actual impairment.

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?

You are not required to take it, but, if you do, the same rules apply as in the Miranda warning: You have the right to remain silent [and sit on your ass in the car]. If you give up that right to remain silent [or perform the Field Sobriety Test] anything you say [or do] can and will be used against you in a court of law." The FST cannot be used to help you, only to hurt you. Same thing for talking to the police. Here's ProF. James Duane explaining why you should not talk to the police. At the end of his speech, he agrees to give equal time to a local detective to tell if anything he said was wrong. And the first thing the police officer said was, "Everything he said was right."

If you think talking to the police can't hurt you even if you're innocent, you need to watch this video. Because nothing you say to the police can help you.

[Billy Mays]

Here's the problem. The FST assumes that officers are honest, which is an idiotic thing to think since cops' personality tests skew dangerously close to criminals. The FST is always done off dashcam and is entirely dependent on the cops' word which ain't worth shit. Touch your nose? Ok, I did it but what did he think? Stand in one leg? Ik, what did he say about that? The eye thing? Fick you I just told you I have lazy eye so that's tough for me to do.

It's all SUBJECTIVE.

You're an idiot and think cops care about anything more than what gets them a bit more money which they don't.

I don't think the fact that you're the one solid data point in this conversation so far helps your argument here.

[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?

it was probably an episode of Cops

Could it possibly have been an episode of Hunter? I ask because you appear to be basing your entire opinion on something over one incident from a show you're not entirely sure it came from?

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?

You are not required to take it, but, if you do, the same rules apply as in the Miranda warning...

Can you cite the Supreme Court case where they say you are not required to take the field sobriety test?

I'll save you a little work here, there is no such case. And don't you think it a little odd that if cops have been targeting tens of millions of completely sober and disabled Americans and throwing them in jail for no reason whatsoever over some crap test that the Supreme Court would at least take a peek at it?

[pinback]

What part of it specifically?

it was probably an episode of Cops

Could it possibly have been an episode of Hunter? I ask because you appear to be basing your entire opinion on something over one incident from a show you're not entirely sure it came from?

Maybe it was Reno 911!

[Tdarcos]

I don't know what this message is up to, but something is wrong. Twice I have tried to post replies and in both cases the system crashed without allowing me to respond. One time a while ago I had a longish post here and I think my computer crashed.

The other time, today, I was posting a reply when while I was trying to type an asterisk *, the keyboard would produce garbage, first a [ then a letter like c, then something else, each on a different press of the shift-8 key. And it was consistent in producing the same keystrokes each time. Then Firefox did a "silent close" as if I had clicked the close box on every window, then when it exited, Screen Magnifier switched to "lens mode" where there is a giant magnifying lens, about 2-3 inches tall, on the screen. Interesting thing is I never use lens mode.

I'd say either my computer was having a stroke, or if it was a person, it would have failed a field sobriety test!

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

I don't know what this message is up to, but something is wrong. Twice I have tried to post replies and in both cases the system crashed without allowing me to respond. One time a while ago I had a longish post here and I think my computer crashed.

The other time, today, I was posting a reply when while I was trying to type an asterisk *, the keyboard would produce garbage, first a [ then a letter like c, then something else, each on a different press of the shift-8 key. And it was consistent in producing the same keystrokes each time. Then Firefox did a "silent close" as if I had clicked the close box on every window, then when it exited, Screen Magnifier switched to "lens mode" where there is a giant magnifying lens, about 2-3 inches tall, on the screen. Interesting thing is I never use lens mode.

I'd say either my computer was having a stroke, or if it was a person, it would have failed a field sobriety test!

Man, and it only took you a month to notice it!

[Tdarcos]

What part of it specifically?

it was probably an episode of Cops

Could it possibly have been an episode of Hunter?

1. I don't watch Hunter other than having seen brief scenes while channel surfing.
2. Hunter is a filmed program, it does not show dash-cam video of a cop at the side of the road, talking to a woman pulled over at night.

I ask because you appear to be basing your entire opinion on something over one incident from a show you're not entirely sure it came from?

I meant it was probably Cops as opposed to one of those other police procedurals that either send a camera crew out to videotape stops and/or use Dash-Cam footage.

What do they have to say about the FST?

You are not required to take it, but, if you do, the same rules apply as in the Miranda warning...

Can you cite the Supreme Court case where they say you are not required to take the field sobriety test?

City of Wichita v. Molitor, 341 P.3d 1275 (2015), 301 Kan. 251. The Supreme Court of Kansas overturned the DUI conviction of William J. Molitor because the subsequent evidence collected after his arrest was based on his failing a Field Sobriety Test. The court said that at least one of the tests - horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test - does not have adequate scientific consensus to consider it valid evidence, "And at this point in the state of Kansas, the HGN test has no more credibility than a Ouija Board or a Magic 8 Ball." 341 P.3d 1275,1283.

I'll save you a little work here, there is no such case. And don't you think it a little odd that if cops have been targeting tens of millions of completely sober and disabled Americans and throwing them in jail for no reason whatsoever over some crap test that the Supreme Court would at least take a peek at it?

Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court receives about 7,000 petitions for certiorari, and hears about 1% of those petitions.

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?

All of it.

upreme 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?

I don't know if the USSC ever decided a case over the issue. State Supreme Courts are mixed:
* I mentioned Kansas Supreme Court above
* Washington's Supreme Court gave a weird decision, the FST is not a “search” but it does constitute a “seisure” for the purposes of the 4th Amerndment and the State equivalent, and while the test is voluntary, prosecutors can mention a test refusal to the jury. (Prosecutors cannot comment to the jury, nor may any prosecution witness mention if an accused invokes a constitutional right, such as invoking the right to remain silent or asking for a lawyer.)
* The Montana Supreme Court: Hulse v. State of Montana, Dep't of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division, 289 Mont. 1, 19, 961 P.2d 75 (1998): For these reasons, we hold that field sobriety tests are not "merely observations" of a person's physical behavior, but, rather, constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, independently of the federal constitution, under Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution because an individual's constitutionally protected privacy interests are implicated in both the process of conducting the field sobriety tests and in the information disclosed by the tests.
* Maryland's highest court came to the opposite conclusion, that an FST is not a search for 4th Amendment purposes.

[Tdarcos]

I accidentally saved the previous item. I would have finished by saying that, as far as I have been able to detertmine, no state requires you to take an FST.

The question is whether the US Supreme Court would find an FST to be either a "search" or a "seizure" under the 4th Amendment. If it is, you cannot be required to take it, nor can proseutors tell the jury you refused. The issue isn't clear because there is no guidance as to whether or not you have a constitutional right not to take the test, similar to the way you have a constitutional right not to answer a police officer's queestions.

However, any part of the test requiring you to speak is refusable, and prosecutors can't tell the jury if you did. If they are recording it, that part of the video where, for example, you refused to read the alphabet backwards, must be excluded.

[Billy Mays]

State Supreme Courts are mixed

It's not mixed, it's one state. That makes them overwhelmingly in favor of the FST. You just proved my own point for me. Thank you.

[Tdarcos]

State Supreme Courts are mixed

It's not mixed, it's one state. That makes them overwhelmingly in favor of the FST. You just proved my own point for me. Thank you.

No, I gave you two cases, Kansas and Montana. But you want all of them, fine. Here are the states where the FST has been declared to be a "search" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment (or also under the equivalent provision of that state's constitution) meaning that you not only have a right to refuse to perform it, and that your refusal cannot be used against you.

Arizona: State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 718 P.2d 171, 176 (1986);
Colorado: People v. Carlson, 677 P.2d 310, 316–17 (1984)
Connecticut: State v. Lamme, 19 Conn.App. 594, 563 A.2d 1372, 1374 (1989), aff'd, 216 Conn. 172, 579 A.2d 484 (1990);
Florida: State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701, 703 (1995);
Hawaii: State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 687 P.2d 544, 550–54 (1984);
Idaho: State v. Ferreira, 988 P.2d 700, 705 (1999);
Illinois: People v. Walter, 374 Ill. App.3d 763, 771 (2007);
Indiana: Ackerman v. State, 774 N.E.2d 970, 980 (Ind. App. 2002):
Iowa: State v. Stevens, 394 N.W.2d 388, 390–91 (1986)
Maine: State v. Little, 468 A.2d 615, 617 (1983);
Massachusetts: Commonwealth v. Blais, 428 Mass. 294, 701 N.E.2d 314, 316–17 (1998);
Nevada: Dixon v. State, 103 Nev. 272, 737 P.2d 1162, 1163–64 (1987);
New York: People v. Califano, 255 A.D.2d 701, 680 N.Y.S.2d 700, 701 (1998);
Vermont: State v. Gray, 150 Vt. 184, 552 A.2d 1190, 1193–95 (1988);

[Billy Mays]

Arizona

You get arrested for refusing a FST in Arizona, I just googled it. I have no doubt the rest of your examples suck as well. You have so few examples and the examples you do have are crap.

The one thing you could do to convince me you are right here would be to produce an image, or even a drawing based on your speculation, of the hand-held breath testing tool that was used to conduct a test on you via proximity to the device. Or create a youtube video regaling the events of the traffic stop.

A youtube video or drawing would really put me in my place right not.

[Billy Mays]

^edit: right now.

[Billy Mays]

Sorry, that was harsh. I was just thinking about your condition and you reading those harsh words and I choked up a bit inside.

You're right, Paul. The FST is a bad test and there are probably situations where your lawyer may advise you to refuse taking it.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

The Doomsday Clock for posting editing has clicked once to 11:55PM.

[Jizaboz]

Everybody just calm the hell down.

Also, yes NEVER submit to a field test UNLESS it's:

1. "Walk the line one foot in front of the other." and you have very good balance (I could do this one easily even at 4 drinks but beyond you shouldn't be in that situation at all in the first place) and both feet for that matter.

2. "Follow my finger with your eyes without moving your head." I've played enough Police Quest games to know this is effective. If you've only had 1-2 drinks this should be easy. If you've had more or you either have eye problems then you will probably get dizzy trying to focus on his finger; which makes it look like you are not in full control of your facilities.

3. "Count down from X" If you can't do this, WTF are you doing on the road?

And JUST NEVER if it's:

1. Say your ABCs backwards. "I can't even attempt to do that sober, officer."

2. Any other question you have to think about for more than 2 seconds.

3. "Walk the line" when you can't even do the same on a curb for fun once in a while for whatever reason.

[Billy Mays]

1. Say your ABCs backwards. "I can't even attempt to do that sober, officer."

I'm pretty sure with this they are testing lucidity. An intoxicated person will just start rambling off letters where a sober individual can concentrate and think quickly (relatively speaking) to give the correct letter in the sequence? I don't think you are on a timer so much as they are trying to determine if you can mentally crunch the numbers so to say?

[Casual Observer]

Everybody just calm the hell down.

Also, yes NEVER submit to a field test UNLESS it's:

1. "Walk the line one foot in front of the other." and you have very good balance (I could do this one easily even at 4 drinks but beyond you shouldn't be in that situation at all in the first place) and both feet for that matter.

2. "Follow my finger with your eyes without moving your head." I've played enough Police Quest games to know this is effective. If you've only had 1-2 drinks this should be easy. If you've had more or you either have eye problems then you will probably get dizzy trying to focus on his finger; which makes it look like you are not in full control of your facilities.

3. "Count down from X" If you can't do this, WTF are you doing on the road?

And JUST NEVER if it's:

1. Say your ABCs backwards. "I can't even attempt to do that sober, officer."

2. Any other question you have to think about for more than 2 seconds.

3. "Walk the line" when you can't even do the same on a curb for fun once in a while for whatever reason.

Having done this last June here's my advice: don't do the field sobriety test (I did) because its off camera and completely subjective and they can say anything about it that they want. Don't consent to the field breath test because it's not entirely accurate and they've already decided to arrest you so it doesn't matter. Do consent to the in office breath test or blood test or otherwise they will get a warrant and do it anyway (they did). Do get a good lawyer who knows the prosecutor.

[Jizaboz]

Hm yeah I didn't think of it that way. But both of you make good points. Ideally, all of these tests should be refused. I am completely sober and just tried to say my ABCs backwards. Got to W and got completely stuck. My brain just can't do it.

I've never had to take any of these tests and probably never will so my opinion is probably about as helpful as TDarco's on the matter.

[AArdvark]

Just don't drink and drive