can a canadian with a dui under his/her belt venture across the canadian/usa border with no problems? a us citizen can not go into canada with a dui on their record (this includes simple marijuana possession) although i have heard of the canadian government wiping the slate clean of the american's for a nice little fee plus a waiting game
can a canadian with a dui under his/her belt venture across the canadian/usa border with no problems? a us citizen can not go into canada with a dui on their record (this includes simple marijuana possession) although i have heard of the canadian government wiping the slate clean of the american's for a nice little fee plus a waiting game
If your a Canadian and have ever been arrested it can be problematic crossing the border into the USA ... now mind you they can deny us entry at any time for any reason.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
This violates my rights on so many fronts. Self incrimination. Control of my body. Unreasonable search. Agree good to get drunks off the road but this is not how to do it. Don't give the government this power. Not good. What's next. Mandatory blood draws for people with PJ stickers to check presence of the THC? All subjective.
can we the people demand certain tests like this of our senators, governors & other political folks? bam we want you to breathe in the tube, pee in the cup & have blood drawn. these tests will be done monthly & at random - it could be 3am on a sunday & it's time
this is what i want out of them beings they wanna play
as of now the courts have deemed this legal and within consitutional limits. they are giving breathalyzer to those suspected of drunk driving, you refuse they are on the phone with a judge standing by to sign a warrant which is then transmitted electronically. so the suspect can read the warrant. taken off site so a medical professional or one trained in proper procedure for blood draws can take the sample.
The people of the state of tennessee have voted these people in who enacted this no refusal law. if they dont want it , they can vote in those that would repeal it.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
To me, it's on the interest of public safety and law enforcement. It's no different than something like airport security.
You can get pissy and call it a violation of your rights if you wish, but the intent of it is to make the roads safer for everyone. MADD is probably thrilled for the measure.
It's an inconvenience, not anything at all to set your hair on fire over.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
To me, it's on the interest of public safety and law enforcement. It's no different than something like airport security.
You can get pissy and call it a violation of your rights if you wish, but the intent of it is to make the roads safer for everyone. MADD is probably thrilled for the measure.
It's an inconvenience, not anything at all to set your hair on fire over.
That whole giving up liberty for security speech again. I'll pass, thanks.
if ppl just stayed where they are & didn't drive or got a ride to where they had to go, there would be no need for such road block check points
if only ppl thought this through, citizens could shut this fucking shit down as there would be no need
I tell ya, man...these holiday weekends (and New Year's Eve especially), we just hang out at home or in the general area. Not that we're driving around fucked up, but others are - or at least tipsy and texting or otherwise wrapped in their bubble. Not worth it.
unsung, it doesn't sound like these are arbitrary testings based on the whim of an officer. If there are valid displays of someone driving who shouldn't be, hell yeah I want them off the road.
Almost every weekend here on the morning news are scenes of mangled cars and lives lost, because some idiot thought it would be a great idea to get wasted, get in the car, and hope he doesn't go 80 mph on the freeway, the wrong way.
To me, it's on the interest of public safety and law enforcement. It's no different than something like airport security.
You can get pissy and call it a violation of your rights if you wish, but the intent of it is to make the roads safer for everyone. MADD is probably thrilled for the measure.
It's an inconvenience, not anything at all to set your hair on fire over.
That whole giving up liberty for security speech again. I'll pass, thanks.
You're comfortable flying with everyone unscreened and their unchecked baggage?
as of now the courts have deemed this legal and within consitutional limits. they are giving breathalyzer to those suspected of drunk driving, you refuse they are on the phone with a judge standing by to sign a warrant which is then transmitted electronically. so the suspect can read the warrant. taken off site so a medical professional or one trained in proper procedure for blood draws can take the sample.
The people of the state of tennessee have voted these people in who enacted this no refusal law. if they dont want it , they can vote in those that would repeal it.
And slavery was once legal and supported by majority. Doesn't legitimize or make it right.
It is flat out wrong to allow a human to make a subjective decision that allows another human being to be forcibly strapped to a gurney and have a needle stuck in their arm to wit bra blood. It's nuts to think this is fine.
Breathalyzers aren't always accurate and one should never submit to one.
let's watch the reaching hand of tennessee & there are many pages just like this link from all over the country. this is a illegal driver's license check point. what the frig?
Breathalyzers aren't always accurate and one should never submit to one.
Just chiming in here on this small point: I would strongly urge anyone reading this bit of "advice" to consult with a criminal lawyer in the state they're in before making this decision. In many states, there are significantly harsher penalties for refusing a breath test - from additional charges to longer periods of driver's license revocation. In Minnesota, depending on the result, failing a breath test can revoke your license for 90 days. Refusing one? 365 days.
It's fine to disagree with the law or think the tests are flawed. But blanket advice to just refuse? Trust me - this isn't good advice, especially with drastically different "Refusal" laws around the country. You'll likely end up with a worse situation than if you had just taken the test. If you find yourself faced with that decision, please talk to a lawyer first before deciding to "never submit to one."
Sorry callen, but that's dangerous advice.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
An attorney friend of mine said to never give one because if you did they'd have a number to use against you. This was a few years ago so laws may have changed.
An attorney friend of mine said to never give one because if you did they'd have a number to use against you. This was a few years ago so laws may have changed.
Well I guess I should clarify: there are typically two breath tests offered in a standard DWI investigation: the one on the side of the road during field sobriety tests (sometimes called a preliminary/portable breath test or PBT), and the one after you've been arrested.
In many states, you can refuse the first test (the PBT) without additional penalty for that refusal. These tests are definitely less accurate than the second tests. However, in virtually every state, if you refuse the second test (after you've already been arrested), there are additional/harsher penalties (sometimes criminal, sometimes related to licenses) for that refusal. Although it's still hotly debated, the Supreme Court has upheld the statutory schemes for harsher penalties for several decades now.
I don't necessarily disagree with your friend, but the way I look at refusing the first test (PBT) is that if they're asking you take one, they already have to have a reason to ask you. In other words, if they think you've been drinking, they'll ask you to take a PBT. And if they have a reason to think you've been drinking, they likely already have enough to arrest you anyway. So...long story short, advising someone to refuse a PBT is fine, but it's not likely to spare you an arrest or charge for DWI.
Now, advising someone to refuse the second test, as a blanket policy, is just bad advice, given the state of the law for refusal in most places. Doing so will not only cost you your license for a lot longer, but will again probably not spare you a charge of DWI (for the same reasons as why refusing a PBT probably doesn't hurt or help you). I think it's probably a better and more ethical approach for a lawyer (who can't technically advise you to violate the law, mind you) to not advise you to refuse, and then challenge the basis for the cop stopping you in the first place etc.
But that's just me. Again: please talk to a lawyer before you decide whether to refuse to take that second test or not.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
To me, it's on the interest of public safety and law enforcement. It's no different than something like airport security.
You can get pissy and call it a violation of your rights if you wish, but the intent of it is to make the roads safer for everyone. MADD is probably thrilled for the measure.
It's an inconvenience, not anything at all to set your hair on fire over.
That whole giving up liberty for security speech again. I'll pass, thanks.
You're comfortable flying with everyone unscreened and their unchecked baggage?
Breathalyzers aren't always accurate and one should never submit to one.
Just chiming in here on this small point: I would strongly urge anyone reading this bit of "advice" to consult with a criminal lawyer in the state they're in before making this decision. In many states, there are significantly harsher penalties for refusing a breath test - from additional charges to longer periods of driver's license revocation. In Minnesota, depending on the result, failing a breath test can revoke your license for 90 days. Refusing one? 365 days.
It's fine to disagree with the law or think the tests are flawed. But blanket advice to just refuse? Trust me - this isn't good advice, especially with drastically different "Refusal" laws around the country. You'll likely end up with a worse situation than if you had just taken the test. If you find yourself faced with that decision, please talk to a lawyer first before deciding to "never submit to one."
Sorry callen, but that's dangerous advice.
Fair enough. Do appreciate nudge for disclaimer.
From the attorneys I've spoken to all have been unanimous in advice but do please seek advice from your own attorney rather than that from post on fan club message board. I am not an attorney just play one on boards. >:)
I would rather loose my license from driving a year than be falsely convicted. And reason for these refusal laws is to scare you into taking them as it's harder to convict without.
And please ignore thirties quote in this post. Would try to erase but then may screw this post up.
a time or fourteen state troopers or sheriff deputies or cops have enjoyed my good nature & loveliness, therefore i have been good to go over here. now let me tell you whose gears i grind... moderators
Good advice from vant0037 regarding refusal. You can definitely catch more heat that way. But I did want to quickly comment on this:
the way I look at refusing the first test (PBT) is that if they're asking you take one, they already have to have a reason to ask you. In other words, if they think you've been drinking, they'll ask you to take a PBT. And if they have a reason to think you've been drinking, they likely already have enough to arrest you anyway. So...long story short, advising someone to refuse a PBT is fine, but it's not likely to spare you an arrest or charge for DWI.
Sometimes they have a reason to ask you, sometimes it is just because they're assholes and they can.
I've been pulled over and given a field sobriety test only once in my life. I was in an unfamiliar town and had just been out to dinner with my family. I had 1 glass of wine with dinner. I was not intoxicated by any stretch of the imagination. But I got pulled over because the cop thought I was driving funny (I was just trying to find my turn, it was dark, and the signage was poor). He asked if I had been drinking. Told him I had 1 glass of wine. He asked me to step out, and performed a field sobriety test which was great fun in front of my kids. I did a number of tests, passed them with flying colors, but he was still being a prick. He then asked me to take a breathalizer. My first reaction was to tell him to fuck himself, but because I believe vant0037 hit the nail on the head, I didn't need the extra heat, and just wanted to get the fuck out of there. So I told him he was an idiot, but that I'd submit to one. I blew a 0.02, thanked him for wasting my time, and that was that. That took the wind out of his sails. If I had refused I'm sure I'd have been further detained, eventually driven to the station, and exhonerated anyway.
The bottom line is that cops have all the power in these situations, and even though you have "rights" you are not in control. They get to determine how the stop goes for you, so it is probably best to just cooperate. This was reason #6,345 that I dispise most cops. Not all cops. I'm sure there are a few that are interested in serving and protecting and fighting crime. But most cops, as I've said before, are nothing but armed revenue agents. The guys who stopped me sure were.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Good advice from vant0037 regarding refusal. You can definitely catch more heat that way. But I did want to quickly comment on this:
the way I look at refusing the first test (PBT) is that if they're asking you take one, they already have to have a reason to ask you. In other words, if they think you've been drinking, they'll ask you to take a PBT. And if they have a reason to think you've been drinking, they likely already have enough to arrest you anyway. So...long story short, advising someone to refuse a PBT is fine, but it's not likely to spare you an arrest or charge for DWI.
Sometimes they have a reason to ask you, sometimes it is just because they're assholes and they can.
I've been pulled over and given a field sobriety test only once in my life. I was in an unfamiliar town and had just been out to dinner with my family. I had 1 glass of wine with dinner. I was not intoxicated by any stretch of the imagination. But I got pulled over because the cop thought I was driving funny (I was just trying to find my turn, it was dark, and the signage was poor). He asked if I had been drinking. Told him I had 1 glass of wine. He asked me to step out, and performed a field sobriety test which was great fun in front of my kids. I did a number of tests, passed them with flying colors, but he was still being a prick. He then asked me to take a breathalizer. My first reaction was to tell him to fuck himself, but because I believe vant0037 hit the nail on the head, I didn't need the extra heat, and just wanted to get the fuck out of there. So I told him he was an idiot, but that I'd submit to one. I blew a 0.02, thanked him for wasting my time, and that was that. That took the wind out of his sails. If I had refused I'm sure I'd have been further detained, eventually driven to the station, and exhonerated anyway.
The bottom line is that cops have all the power in these situations, and even though you have "rights" you are not in control. They get to determine how the stop goes for you, so it is probably best to just cooperate. This was reason #6,345 that I dispise most cops. Not all cops. I'm sure there are a few that are interested in serving and protecting and fighting crime. But most cops, as I've said before, are nothing but armed revenue agents. The guys who stopped me sure were.
Interesting story, Jeff. What I meant by the section you quoted above was that cops are legally required to possess a reasonable belief that you might have been drinking prior to asking you for a PBT (again, this is the roadside test). In other words, a cop can't just ask you to take one. In your case, he asked you if you've been drinking; you said one glass of wine. That probably gave the officer enough to legally ask you to take a PBT. If you had refused, he might have thought you were hiding something etc and arrested you anyway etc. There are lots of ways an officer can formulate a basis to ask you to take a PBT. Things like driving conduct, admissions of drinking, smell of alcohol, wristbands from bars, bloodshot eyes, watery eyes, suspicious/nervous behavior etc, all can lead to an officer suspecting you of drinking and thus giving them a basis to ask you for a PBT. Again, this is all determined after the fact, usually by a judge in a court of law, but the rule is that if an officer can point to some reasonable basis for believing you to be drinking and driving, they can ask you for a PBT.
My only point is a practical one: blanket advice to refuse EITHER breath test is just bad advice. Refusing the first test might not spare you any trouble; refusing the second might cause you a lot more.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Good advice from vant0037 regarding refusal. You can definitely catch more heat that way. But I did want to quickly comment on this:
the way I look at refusing the first test (PBT) is that if they're asking you take one, they already have to have a reason to ask you. In other words, if they think you've been drinking, they'll ask you to take a PBT. And if they have a reason to think you've been drinking, they likely already have enough to arrest you anyway. So...long story short, advising someone to refuse a PBT is fine, but it's not likely to spare you an arrest or charge for DWI.
Sometimes they have a reason to ask you, sometimes it is just because they're assholes and they can.
I've been pulled over and given a field sobriety test only once in my life. I was in an unfamiliar town and had just been out to dinner with my family. I had 1 glass of wine with dinner. I was not intoxicated by any stretch of the imagination. But I got pulled over because the cop thought I was driving funny (I was just trying to find my turn, it was dark, and the signage was poor). He asked if I had been drinking. Told him I had 1 glass of wine. He asked me to step out, and performed a field sobriety test which was great fun in front of my kids. I did a number of tests, passed them with flying colors, but he was still being a prick. He then asked me to take a breathalizer. My first reaction was to tell him to fuck himself, but because I believe vant0037 hit the nail on the head, I didn't need the extra heat, and just wanted to get the fuck out of there. So I told him he was an idiot, but that I'd submit to one. I blew a 0.02, thanked him for wasting my time, and that was that. That took the wind out of his sails. If I had refused I'm sure I'd have been further detained, eventually driven to the station, and exhonerated anyway.
The bottom line is that cops have all the power in these situations, and even though you have "rights" you are not in control. They get to determine how the stop goes for you, so it is probably best to just cooperate. This was reason #6,345 that I dispise most cops. Not all cops. I'm sure there are a few that are interested in serving and protecting and fighting crime. But most cops, as I've said before, are nothing but armed revenue agents. The guys who stopped me sure were.
And thank goodness the test was accurate or calibrated correctly.
I was told by a buddy that got a DUI that his attorney told him that the best way around a DUI is to always be equipped with a bottle of whiskey/gin/vodka, etc. If you get pulled over get out of the car and be seen on camera drinking from the bottle. Then refuse a breathalyzer. When they test you the argument can be that you weren't drunk when they pulled you over....
no idea if that works....
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I recall seeing something similar on an old episode of LA Law. Thought the tactic was slimy then, and still do. Unless someone was legitimately NOT drunk when they got pulled over, there shouldn't be "ways around".
Curious if the bottle is kept in the car - open container charge? - or in the trunk.
As the theme song of Baretta goes (oh, the irony!) - "don't do the crime if you can't do the time (don't do it!)"
I was told by a buddy that got a DUI that his attorney told him that the best way around a DUI is to always be equipped with a bottle of whiskey/gin/vodka, etc. If you get pulled over get out of the car and be seen on camera drinking from the bottle. Then refuse a breathalyzer. When they test you the argument can be that you weren't drunk when they pulled you over....
no idea if that works....
Whoa...lot going on there...
1. What your buddy is probably thinking would happen is creating what's called a "post-driving consumption" defense (e.g. you drank AFTER driving, no during or before).
2. Why it won't work: lots of reasons.
First, you can be guilty for DWI in most states by either have a blood alcohol content over a certain point (usually .08 or more) OR for being under the influence. Both are DWIs, just different types. By drinking after the stop, you're not only NOT creating a post-consumption defense, you're creating an additional charge of Possession of Open Bottle.
A good prosecution can find you guilty of the first type of DWI (being over a certain BAC limit) by incorporating what's called extrapolation testimony which can - assuming you take a test - prove with fairly precise scientific certainty what your BAC would have been at during the time of the stop. For example, if you took a test and it came back at a certain point, it can be proven fairly accurately what your BAC would've been at the time of stop, independent of any additional alcohol consumed. This is in part based on metabolization rates etc. So chugging one during the stop would likely have little effect on your BAC, at least for purposes of proving you guilty of DWI.
Now if you refused the test and had just finished drinking from a bottle of alcohol on camera, the state can still go after you for being under the influence while driving. By chugging a bottle during the stop, you just helped convict yourself without a test, if only because no jury is going to buy that ultra-fine legal argument. "I wasn't drunk when they pulled me over, it was after. See when I hammered that bottle there? THAT's when I got drunk..." The state would likely have testimony that you were drinking when stopped, had a bottle in hand, smelled like alcohol etc. Pretty easy case to prove actually.
Lastly, please please please stay in your car. Traffic stops can be chaotic enough. The last thing an officer needs is someone they believe may be drinking with a bottle coming at them on the side of a highway. There are enough shootings happening as it is; we don't need more because someone believes they've finally found the DWI Loophole.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking, any answer you give is only inviting trouble on yourself and you never tell him you were.
The correct response is to ask if you are being detained, if not then ask if you are free to leave. The police are not your friends, anything you say can and will be used against you. You are not required to answer any of their questions.
Cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking, any answer you give is only inviting trouble on yourself and you never tell him you were.
The correct response is to ask if you are being detained, if not then ask if you are free to leave. The police are not your friends, anything you say can and will be used against you. You are not required to answer any of their questions.
That's fine but remember that the law empowers officers to conduct traffic stops. So, when you ask if you are being detained, they will say "yes." And when you ask "am I free to leave?" they will say "no."
Then, it just comes down to whether you want to answer questions or not. I don't see how admitting to drinking could ever help you, but that's beside the point.
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't answer an officer's questions, but I think there's a lot of faulty advice out there that makes people believe there's a loophole that will get them out of a stop.
The law has developed in a way that allows cops a lot of latitude to do their jobs and yet not overly restrict a person's individual liberties (no commentary; that's what Courts say they're doing when they assess these cases). Just keep that in mind; the law is going to allow an officer to stop you and ask you a question or two, so long as the officer can - after the fact - point a valid reason for doing so. At that point, refusing to answer questions may or may not help you. If you've been drinking, answering the question "have you been drinking?" may not help you; but remember, if the cop is asking you that, he probably has already observed something to make him think that (in which case, your answer is irrelevant). If you haven't been drinking and he asks you something benign like "where are you going tonight?" I don't see how refusing to answer any questions will help you. It will probably just prolong the traffic stop and perhaps make them wonder a bit more about why you won't answer.
Again...my ultimate point is that there is no such thing as blanket advice that will work. Refusing to answer questions would be a good plan in a lot of situations (e.g. if you're being questioned about a crime at the station, you don't have an attorney present etc). That would be a great time to not answer questions. On the side of the road when you haven't been drinking? Not sure that's a great strategy. It will likely only prolong the stop unnecessarily. There's a difference between refusing to answer questions and refusing to make admissions.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I figured I'd be honest and let him know I had a drink (since if I said I didn't,and they smelled it on me I thought it would create more issues). The best approach may well be to admit to nothing. I still would have been subjected to a field sobriety test, but perhaps not a breathalizer (since I had no trouble with any of the tests). But because I went with honesty as the best policy it likely jammed me up more than I should have been. The cops are absolutely not your friends.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't answer an officer's questions, but I think there's a lot of faulty advice out there that makes people believe there's a loophole that will get them out of a stop.
Refusing to self incriminate is not a loop hole it's your right as a free human.
Do realize the cop has you by the Juevos so playing it cool and polite reaps it's rewards. But sticking to thread topic it's dead wrong to force someone to submit to withdraw blood. And surely most DWI lawyers would prefer that you not blow.
* Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Check with your legal council for professional legal advice.
Comments
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
bam we want you to breathe in the tube, pee in the cup & have blood drawn. these tests will be done monthly & at random - it could be 3am on a sunday & it's time
this is what i want out of them beings they wanna play
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
The people of the state of tennessee have voted these people in who enacted this no refusal law. if they dont want it , they can vote in those that would repeal it.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You can get pissy and call it a violation of your rights if you wish, but the intent of it is to make the roads safer for everyone. MADD is probably thrilled for the measure.
It's an inconvenience, not anything at all to set your hair on fire over.
if only ppl thought this through, citizens could shut this fucking shit down as there would be no need
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
That whole giving up liberty for security speech again. I'll pass, thanks.
unsung, it doesn't sound like these are arbitrary testings based on the whim of an officer. If there are valid displays of someone driving who shouldn't be, hell yeah I want them off the road.
Almost every weekend here on the morning news are scenes of mangled cars and lives lost, because some idiot thought it would be a great idea to get wasted, get in the car, and hope he doesn't go 80 mph on the freeway, the wrong way.
It is flat out wrong to allow a human to make a subjective decision that allows another human being to be forcibly strapped to a gurney and have a needle stuck in their arm to wit bra blood. It's nuts to think this is fine.
Breathalyzers aren't always accurate and one should never submit to one.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It's fine to disagree with the law or think the tests are flawed. But blanket advice to just refuse? Trust me - this isn't good advice, especially with drastically different "Refusal" laws around the country. You'll likely end up with a worse situation than if you had just taken the test. If you find yourself faced with that decision, please talk to a lawyer first before deciding to "never submit to one."
Sorry callen, but that's dangerous advice.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
In many states, you can refuse the first test (the PBT) without additional penalty for that refusal. These tests are definitely less accurate than the second tests. However, in virtually every state, if you refuse the second test (after you've already been arrested), there are additional/harsher penalties (sometimes criminal, sometimes related to licenses) for that refusal. Although it's still hotly debated, the Supreme Court has upheld the statutory schemes for harsher penalties for several decades now.
I don't necessarily disagree with your friend, but the way I look at refusing the first test (PBT) is that if they're asking you take one, they already have to have a reason to ask you. In other words, if they think you've been drinking, they'll ask you to take a PBT. And if they have a reason to think you've been drinking, they likely already have enough to arrest you anyway. So...long story short, advising someone to refuse a PBT is fine, but it's not likely to spare you an arrest or charge for DWI.
Now, advising someone to refuse the second test, as a blanket policy, is just bad advice, given the state of the law for refusal in most places. Doing so will not only cost you your license for a lot longer, but will again probably not spare you a charge of DWI (for the same reasons as why refusing a PBT probably doesn't hurt or help you). I think it's probably a better and more ethical approach for a lawyer (who can't technically advise you to violate the law, mind you) to not advise you to refuse, and then challenge the basis for the cop stopping you in the first place etc.
But that's just me. Again: please talk to a lawyer before you decide whether to refuse to take that second test or not.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
From the attorneys I've spoken to all have been unanimous in advice but do please seek advice from your own attorney rather than that from post on fan club message board. I am not an attorney just play one on boards. >:)
I would rather loose my license from driving a year than be falsely convicted. And reason for these refusal laws is to scare you into taking them as it's harder to convict without.
And please ignore thirties quote in this post. Would try to erase but then may screw this post up.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I've been pulled over and given a field sobriety test only once in my life. I was in an unfamiliar town and had just been out to dinner with my family. I had 1 glass of wine with dinner. I was not intoxicated by any stretch of the imagination. But I got pulled over because the cop thought I was driving funny (I was just trying to find my turn, it was dark, and the signage was poor). He asked if I had been drinking. Told him I had 1 glass of wine. He asked me to step out, and performed a field sobriety test which was great fun in front of my kids. I did a number of tests, passed them with flying colors, but he was still being a prick. He then asked me to take a breathalizer. My first reaction was to tell him to fuck himself, but because I believe vant0037 hit the nail on the head, I didn't need the extra heat, and just wanted to get the fuck out of there. So I told him he was an idiot, but that I'd submit to one. I blew a 0.02, thanked him for wasting my time, and that was that. That took the wind out of his sails. If I had refused I'm sure I'd have been further detained, eventually driven to the station, and exhonerated anyway.
The bottom line is that cops have all the power in these situations, and even though you have "rights" you are not in control. They get to determine how the stop goes for you, so it is probably best to just cooperate. This was reason #6,345 that I dispise most cops. Not all cops. I'm sure there are a few that are interested in serving and protecting and fighting crime. But most cops, as I've said before, are nothing but armed revenue agents. The guys who stopped me sure were.
I've been pulled over and given a field sobriety test only once in my life. I was in an unfamiliar town and had just been out to dinner with my family. I had 1 glass of wine with dinner. I was not intoxicated by any stretch of the imagination. But I got pulled over because the cop thought I was driving funny (I was just trying to find my turn, it was dark, and the signage was poor). He asked if I had been drinking. Told him I had 1 glass of wine. He asked me to step out, and performed a field sobriety test which was great fun in front of my kids. I did a number of tests, passed them with flying colors, but he was still being a prick. He then asked me to take a breathalizer. My first reaction was to tell him to fuck himself, but because I believe vant0037 hit the nail on the head, I didn't need the extra heat, and just wanted to get the fuck out of there. So I told him he was an idiot, but that I'd submit to one. I blew a 0.02, thanked him for wasting my time, and that was that. That took the wind out of his sails. If I had refused I'm sure I'd have been further detained, eventually driven to the station, and exhonerated anyway.
The bottom line is that cops have all the power in these situations, and even though you have "rights" you are not in control. They get to determine how the stop goes for you, so it is probably best to just cooperate. This was reason #6,345 that I dispise most cops. Not all cops. I'm sure there are a few that are interested in serving and protecting and fighting crime. But most cops, as I've said before, are nothing but armed revenue agents. The guys who stopped me sure were.
Interesting story, Jeff. What I meant by the section you quoted above was that cops are legally required to possess a reasonable belief that you might have been drinking prior to asking you for a PBT (again, this is the roadside test). In other words, a cop can't just ask you to take one. In your case, he asked you if you've been drinking; you said one glass of wine. That probably gave the officer enough to legally ask you to take a PBT. If you had refused, he might have thought you were hiding something etc and arrested you anyway etc. There are lots of ways an officer can formulate a basis to ask you to take a PBT. Things like driving conduct, admissions of drinking, smell of alcohol, wristbands from bars, bloodshot eyes, watery eyes, suspicious/nervous behavior etc, all can lead to an officer suspecting you of drinking and thus giving them a basis to ask you for a PBT. Again, this is all determined after the fact, usually by a judge in a court of law, but the rule is that if an officer can point to some reasonable basis for believing you to be drinking and driving, they can ask you for a PBT.
My only point is a practical one: blanket advice to refuse EITHER breath test is just bad advice. Refusing the first test might not spare you any trouble; refusing the second might cause you a lot more.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I've been pulled over and given a field sobriety test only once in my life. I was in an unfamiliar town and had just been out to dinner with my family. I had 1 glass of wine with dinner. I was not intoxicated by any stretch of the imagination. But I got pulled over because the cop thought I was driving funny (I was just trying to find my turn, it was dark, and the signage was poor). He asked if I had been drinking. Told him I had 1 glass of wine. He asked me to step out, and performed a field sobriety test which was great fun in front of my kids. I did a number of tests, passed them with flying colors, but he was still being a prick. He then asked me to take a breathalizer. My first reaction was to tell him to fuck himself, but because I believe vant0037 hit the nail on the head, I didn't need the extra heat, and just wanted to get the fuck out of there. So I told him he was an idiot, but that I'd submit to one. I blew a 0.02, thanked him for wasting my time, and that was that. That took the wind out of his sails. If I had refused I'm sure I'd have been further detained, eventually driven to the station, and exhonerated anyway.
The bottom line is that cops have all the power in these situations, and even though you have "rights" you are not in control. They get to determine how the stop goes for you, so it is probably best to just cooperate. This was reason #6,345 that I dispise most cops. Not all cops. I'm sure there are a few that are interested in serving and protecting and fighting crime. But most cops, as I've said before, are nothing but armed revenue agents. The guys who stopped me sure were.
And thank goodness the test was accurate or calibrated correctly.
no idea if that works....
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Curious if the bottle is kept in the car - open container charge? - or in the trunk.
As the theme song of Baretta goes (oh, the irony!) - "don't do the crime if you can't do the time (don't do it!)"
1. What your buddy is probably thinking would happen is creating what's called a "post-driving consumption" defense (e.g. you drank AFTER driving, no during or before).
2. Why it won't work: lots of reasons.
First, you can be guilty for DWI in most states by either have a blood alcohol content over a certain point (usually .08 or more) OR for being under the influence. Both are DWIs, just different types. By drinking after the stop, you're not only NOT creating a post-consumption defense, you're creating an additional charge of Possession of Open Bottle.
A good prosecution can find you guilty of the first type of DWI (being over a certain BAC limit) by incorporating what's called extrapolation testimony which can - assuming you take a test - prove with fairly precise scientific certainty what your BAC would have been at during the time of the stop. For example, if you took a test and it came back at a certain point, it can be proven fairly accurately what your BAC would've been at the time of stop, independent of any additional alcohol consumed. This is in part based on metabolization rates etc. So chugging one during the stop would likely have little effect on your BAC, at least for purposes of proving you guilty of DWI.
Now if you refused the test and had just finished drinking from a bottle of alcohol on camera, the state can still go after you for being under the influence while driving. By chugging a bottle during the stop, you just helped convict yourself without a test, if only because no jury is going to buy that ultra-fine legal argument. "I wasn't drunk when they pulled me over, it was after. See when I hammered that bottle there? THAT's when I got drunk..." The state would likely have testimony that you were drinking when stopped, had a bottle in hand, smelled like alcohol etc. Pretty easy case to prove actually.
Lastly, please please please stay in your car. Traffic stops can be chaotic enough. The last thing an officer needs is someone they believe may be drinking with a bottle coming at them on the side of a highway. There are enough shootings happening as it is; we don't need more because someone believes they've finally found the DWI Loophole.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
The correct response is to ask if you are being detained, if not then ask if you are free to leave. The police are not your friends, anything you say can and will be used against you. You are not required to answer any of their questions.
Then, it just comes down to whether you want to answer questions or not. I don't see how admitting to drinking could ever help you, but that's beside the point.
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't answer an officer's questions, but I think there's a lot of faulty advice out there that makes people believe there's a loophole that will get them out of a stop.
The law has developed in a way that allows cops a lot of latitude to do their jobs and yet not overly restrict a person's individual liberties (no commentary; that's what Courts say they're doing when they assess these cases). Just keep that in mind; the law is going to allow an officer to stop you and ask you a question or two, so long as the officer can - after the fact - point a valid reason for doing so. At that point, refusing to answer questions may or may not help you. If you've been drinking, answering the question "have you been drinking?" may not help you; but remember, if the cop is asking you that, he probably has already observed something to make him think that (in which case, your answer is irrelevant). If you haven't been drinking and he asks you something benign like "where are you going tonight?" I don't see how refusing to answer any questions will help you. It will probably just prolong the traffic stop and perhaps make them wonder a bit more about why you won't answer.
Again...my ultimate point is that there is no such thing as blanket advice that will work. Refusing to answer questions would be a good plan in a lot of situations (e.g. if you're being questioned about a crime at the station, you don't have an attorney present etc). That would be a great time to not answer questions. On the side of the road when you haven't been drinking? Not sure that's a great strategy. It will likely only prolong the stop unnecessarily. There's a difference between refusing to answer questions and refusing to make admissions.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Do realize the cop has you by the Juevos so playing it cool and polite reaps it's rewards. But sticking to thread topic it's dead wrong to force someone to submit to withdraw blood. And surely most DWI lawyers would prefer that you not blow.
* Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Check with your legal council for professional legal advice.
They wouldn't possibly have these checkpoints to raise revenue now would they?