Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lawyer question - Why???

I never heard of that. I do remember when the Florida cops got in trouble for using tube wax on the headlights of the vehicles that were at the bars.

Dink

There are no laws that I know of which require or mandate anyone to perform any field tests or field alka-sensors.

It's gonna be different state to state and different locales within a state . In Texas , if there was no accident , and if you have the bucks , you can count on beating the first one , so you want to be sure that you are ALWAYS being charged with the first one . It doesn't look as bad for the prosecuter if he shows leniency on a first-timer .

It actually works to your advantage if the cop charges you with something else - unlawful carrying of a weapon for instance - since it gives your lawyer a bargaining chip .Plead guilty to it and skate on the DUI .

Videos are rough but prescription drugs can explain it to a jury sometimes . The video also means the arresting officer doesn't have to remember a lot of details .

Absent a video , a good lawyer will tell you to write down every small detail such as what color shirt you have on etc. He is banking that the cop will have no memory of small stuff like that two years after the event .When you " remember " all those little details [ how many cars went by while you were stopped ] and he doesn't , you become more believable .

The bucks allow you to get a good DWI atty and allow him to give you his best effort which means dragging it out as long as possible .

I ain't a lawyer or a cop so I'll leave it to you to figure out how I know so much !

Issac if your talking to me about testifying on the fields. Your right there are no laws requiring anyone to take fields.

If the drunk did perform fields though they want that surpressed so you can't testify that the drunk fell over on the one leg stand. If they argue that you should not have given the field sobriety test in the first place and the judge agrees he will not let me testify to it.

Dink

Why do cops and lawyers refuse to take a test when busted for DUI? What is the advantage to refusing?

Nah, they go in with the sundown. Kinda like chickens going to roost.

ALWAYS tell the pros & def that they ran off the road or crossed the center line, that was my PC for the stop!

Because there will be no evidence at all if they don't take the test. If a cop asks you to take the tests, generally he has already made up his mind to arrest you for DWI. He isn't looking to see if you "pass" the tests. He is looking for evidence to convict you of DWI. If you don't do any of the tests, then the only evidence that he has is that he smelled alcohol or something like that as long as you weren't driving eratically.

Now, most states will administratively suspend your license if you refuse the tests, but an administrative suspension beats a DWI for all kinds of reasons.

In my experience the video is key. If a guy looks and acts drunk on the video, he is going down. If he doesn't, then there is a decent chance to beat the DWI no matter what the machine said.

I got one reduced yesterday by the prosecution. Of course, the cop said that the guy failed all the tests and he blew just over the legal limit. The actual video was a joke. He passed all the tests and looked completely fine doing it. So, I watched the video and told the prosecutor he really needed to look at it. After he did, he called me back and dropped the case.

In Florida you are not required to but it is prima facie (SP) evidence in court you were and a guaranteed conviction.

The bottom of our license states: "The operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."

"required by law" I'd love to see any law which mandated a driver to perform field tests.

There isn't of course. But most states will administratively suspend your license if you don't.

Now if you refuse the breathalyzer we get a search warrant to draw blood.

Dink

For one week here but that's instituted upon arrest.

I hear stuff like this all the time. Usually from cops that don't like their arrest questioned at all. They don't believe they should have to explain themselves. They talk about how the defense attorneys ask this, that, and the other. When you press these officers you find out they rarely lose a case based on that stuff, they just don't like being questioned about it. They made the arrest, it's good, so all these questions are BS, but since the lawyer is asking them, they must be "making hay" with them.

Or it could be that your judges are liberal, I don't know. At any rate, a good DUI can be made off a stop that doesn't involve "observed impaired driving".

Here the officers all believe that they can't admit to having a belief prior to contact that the driver is drunk, or the attorney will make it out like they decided to make the arrest before they ever performed any FSTs, or even talked to the driver. So they have to develope some benign "non-impaired driving violation" for PC. Once had a DUI I defended...had a suppression hearing...the stop had been made because the driver was "driving suspiciously slow" and "weaving" though the officer admitted she never left her lane of travel. Charge was DUI (combined influence alcohol/drugs with a .04 BAC and no blood test for drugs) and Reckless Driving . At the suppression hearing the officer admitted that he witnessed no citable violations of any kind before the stop, though he later charged her with Reckless Driving. I moved to suppress the stop, and the judge ruled against me stating that "I know that you defense attorneys want to get an officer to admit they thought the driver was drunk before they stopped them, and I'm not going to make this officer say that. I know why he stopped your client." The jury saw it more my way and I got a not guilty on the DUI, but I was forced to it because of one of these pre-conceived notions. Oh, even at trial the officer admitted that he witnessed no traffic violations prior to the stop, but the jury still found her guilty of Reckless Driving even though they found her not guilty of DUI. ROFLMFAO!

I believe that is the case in UT as well, T.

refusing the test is about the same as pleading guilty.

I tell my clients to refuse each and every field test request during the stop and then,after arrest, I don't care if they take the station test or not.

There's no requirement in AL that you perform any FSTs. And you can't have your license suspened for refusing to.

============

You're confusing field tests with the breathalyzer or blood testing after arrest.

I'm, of course, not familiar with every state's DUI laws, but in AL, FSTs aren't required under implied consent, and thus you can refuse them without penalty, including hand-held alco-sensors, and the fact you refused to take them, isn't admissible in court as they're not required in the first place. The breath test (the implied consent test covered by the DUI law) is another story.

Same here, FL supposedly has the toughest DUI laws in the nation. I remember when I first moved it here is WAS NOT against the law to drink & drive, just DUI.