Anyone in Tennessee?

callen

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

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.

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).

Translation: . Cops and prosecuting attorneys will encroach into your rights as much as possible and could give a shit about your human rights and the masses haven't a clue as to rights they are giving up and allow it. No right to refuse is a classic example and Supreme Court should have struck this down. But alas. Don't question people, courts and lawyers know best.

"No commentary". Ha. Says who.

Jason P

Any reports on if they actually conducted any blood tests during stops?

vant0037

callen said:

vant0037 said:

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.

Who suggested that people should self-incriminate?

Practically speaking, officers have a lot of discretion and can make someone's experience easier or more difficult. As an example, if an officer is going to arrest you for DWI on a Friday night, he often has the discretion whether to keep you in jail until Monday morning to see the judge, or whether to let you go home with a citation. Most clients are interested in the latter option, especially if they're getting charged either way. If the officer's decision to let you go home or sit in jail is going to be based on anything, it's going to be on whether you were polite and cooperative (which can be done without incriminating yourself), or whether you were odd and made blanket statements like "I refuse to speak with you." Trust me - the latter spend the weekend in jail far more often.

I'm not debating the philosophical merits whether you should cooperate with a testing request or answer questions from an officer. I am suggesting that there are some very significant differences in the consequences of your choices, and if a little cooperation can be shown without incriminating yourself, it will probably make things go much easier for you. If you're not interested in that, fine. Most people are.

Long story short: giving people the advice that they should always refuse tests/questions is bad advice. If it's your neck, try it out. If it's not, let them talk to a lawyer of their own.

callen

vant0037 said:

callen said:

vant0037 said:

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.

Who suggested that people should self-incriminate?

Practically speaking, officers have a lot of discretion and can make someone's experience easier or more difficult. As an example, if an officer is going to arrest you for DWI on a Friday night, he often has the discretion whether to keep you in jail until Monday morning to see the judge, or whether to let you go home with a citation. Most clients are interested in the latter option, especially if they're getting charged either way. If the officer's decision to let you go home or sit in jail is going to be based on anything, it's going to be on whether you were polite and cooperative (which can be done without incriminating yourself), or whether you were odd and made blanket statements like "I refuse to speak with you." Trust me - the latter spend the weekend in jail far more often.

I'm not debating the philosophical merits whether you should cooperate with a testing request or answer questions from an officer. I am suggesting that there are some very significant differences in the consequences of your choices, and if a little cooperation can be shown without incriminating yourself, it will probably make things go much easier for you. If you're not interested in that, fine. Most people are.

Long story short: giving people the advice that they should always refuse tests/questions is bad advice. If it's your neck, try it out. If it's not, let them talk to a lawyer of their own.

Maybe I'm reading into your post referencing my post of not blowing.

And already agreed with you on my Need for disclaimer. Hence have offered in each reply.

For me a bit of inconvenience is not worth giving the state evidence that will be used against me (see how I now don't need disclaimer )so your advice is bad..........blow so you don't upset cop or spend extra night in jail but now hard to fight your case. Again I'm sure most DWI DEFENSE attorneys would agree.

Do appreciate your views on this BTW.

Gern Blansten

vant0037 said:

Gern Blansten said:

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.

Yeah I figured it was BS. But in my vision the bottle was not opened until you exit the car...so I don't think they could hit you with open container but at that point that would be the least of the worries.

vant0037

callen said:

so your advice is bad..........blow so you don't upset cop or spend extra night in jail but now hard to fight your case. Again I'm sure most DWI DEFENSE attorneys would agree.

Fine, but that's not at all what I said. And again, we're talking about two different tests. The first test is the PBT (on the side of the road) and there are no penalties that I know of for not taking it. But just understand that it may not make things any easier or any worse for you. You'll still likely be charged, whether you take that test or not, because technically, an officer needs to have a reason to ask you to take it in the first place. Furthermore, if you are a "close call" to begin with, blowing and passing the test might actually get you out of a charge. Not blowing? The cop will (and rightly so) assume the worst and charge you.

Now...

The second test is the one I'm concerned about. Most states have additional consequences for refusing to take this test. This is the test at the jail after you've been arrested. If you refuse this, you will likely lose your license for a long time and could be charged with an additional crime.

I think its fairly irresponsible - to the extent that we care about our fellow 10c Forum members - to suggest that people should "refuse tests" generally, especially because there are often a number of tests. Then we devolved into a discussion about refusing to answer questions, which was similar, but in my opinion, not quite as important as the first topic.

My point: it's bad advice to say that you should generally refuse tests, even if you think philosophically the tests are wrong/unconstitutional etc. For one, if you don't clarify which test you're talking about, you could be helping someone make a really bad decision and they might never know it. Two, the increased penalties for refusing the wrong/second test are pretty severe. As I stated before, refusing the second test [edit: this is in MN] takes your license away for 9 months longer than simply failing the test. Third, refusing might not spare you from a conviction when passing it (if you're close to the limit, have truly only had "one or two" etc) might. Lastly, and perhaps only an ancillary concern but a point worth considering, an officer who perceives you as cooperative and polite might let you go home instead of spending a weekend in the county jail.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the PBT (roadside test) is a way to beat a DWI: I'd question what retainer they're trying to sell you. It's not going to beat a DWI (PBT results aren't admissible anyway). They're trying to get you to hire them and they're doing so by trying to sell you a "loop-hole" that doesn't exist.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the second test is good advice: I'd question their ethics (as in many cases, such advice is advising a client to violate the law, which lawyers cannot do). I'd also question whether they're truly counseling their clients, knowing that many people would rather take the test and get their license back sooner.

Anyway, I think the point has been made: if you're ever faced with a choice about that second test, talk a lawyer first. Cheers.

unsung

vant0037 said:

callen said:

vant0037 said:

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.

Who suggested that people should self-incriminate?

Practically speaking, officers have a lot of discretion and can make someone's experience easier or more difficult. As an example, if an officer is going to arrest you for DWI on a Friday night, he often has the discretion whether to keep you in jail until Monday morning to see the judge, or whether to let you go home with a citation. Most clients are interested in the latter option, especially if they're getting charged either way. If the officer's decision to let you go home or sit in jail is going to be based on anything, it's going to be on whether you were polite and cooperative (which can be done without incriminating yourself), or whether you were odd and made blanket statements like "I refuse to speak with you." Trust me - the latter spend the weekend in jail far more often.

I'm not debating the philosophical merits whether you should cooperate with a testing request or answer questions from an officer. I am suggesting that there are some very significant differences in the consequences of your choices, and if a little cooperation can be shown without incriminating yourself, it will probably make things go much easier for you. If you're not interested in that, fine. Most people are.

Long story short: giving people the advice that they should always refuse tests/questions is bad advice. If it's your neck, try it out. If it's not, let them talk to a lawyer of their own.

Not an abuse of power at all.

vant0037

unsung said:

vant0037 said:

callen said:

vant0037 said:

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.

Who suggested that people should self-incriminate?

Practically speaking, officers have a lot of discretion and can make someone's experience easier or more difficult. As an example, if an officer is going to arrest you for DWI on a Friday night, he often has the discretion whether to keep you in jail until Monday morning to see the judge, or whether to let you go home with a citation. Most clients are interested in the latter option, especially if they're getting charged either way. If the officer's decision to let you go home or sit in jail is going to be based on anything, it's going to be on whether you were polite and cooperative (which can be done without incriminating yourself), or whether you were odd and made blanket statements like "I refuse to speak with you." Trust me - the latter spend the weekend in jail far more often.

I'm not debating the philosophical merits whether you should cooperate with a testing request or answer questions from an officer. I am suggesting that there are some very significant differences in the consequences of your choices, and if a little cooperation can be shown without incriminating yourself, it will probably make things go much easier for you. If you're not interested in that, fine. Most people are.

Long story short: giving people the advice that they should always refuse tests/questions is bad advice. If it's your neck, try it out. If it's not, let them talk to a lawyer of their own.

Not an abuse of power at all.

Could be. Again, none of this was brought up to argue the merits of it. I'm just trying to point out a very common situation.

vant0037

callen said:

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

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.

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).

Translation: . Cops and prosecuting attorneys will encroach into your rights as much as possible and could give a shit about your human rights and the masses haven't a clue as to rights they are giving up and allow it. No right to refuse is a classic example and Supreme Court should have struck this down. But alas. Don't question people, courts and lawyers know best.

"No commentary". Ha. Says who.

Says me. I wrote "no commentary" meaning just what it says: I'm not commenting on whether that's what's actually happening. What I pointed out above is how Courts have interpreted what the law means. For the lay person, it means cops have a lot of power to stop you. Not all of it - despite your suggestion - is improper or unconstitutional.

And how is "no right to refuse" a "classic example" of cops and prosecuting attorneys encroaching on human rights? I didn't write the law. Cops probably didn't either. Courts have let it stand for decades; at least get your outrage right.

Finally, if you really think that prosecutors are out to trample on people's rights, a few thoughts:

1. You've probably never talked to one before (until now),
2. I spent a chunk of my first afternoon NOT in court in months participating in this thread (and not, you know, out trampling on the rights of the masses), and
3. You've probably not talked to that many lawyers. Lawyers, and prosecutors in particular, are very interested in a fair trial and a criminal process that's done with integrity. Why? Because the last thing I want to do is fuck up something in that process that warrants a new trial or a reversal of conviction. So yeah...prosecutors are very mindful of a defendant's rights, due process, and yes, the Constitution. We're self-interested animals, and no one wants to do things twice.

I really, really, really hope that you were just spouting off and don't really believe that about prosecutors (and cops, for that matter). I can tell that, on the whole, it's just not true.

unsung

If a cop orders you out of your vehicle you have to comply, correct? Even if you have done nothing wrong. Or can you refuse based on a lack of probable cause?

What about only rolling your window down a couple of inches?

*I am not questioning the intelligence of either, I am wondering if it is within your right to not comply with orders without justifiable cause.

vant0037

unsung said:

If a cop orders you out of your vehicle you have to comply, correct? Even if you have done nothing wrong. Or can you refuse based on a lack of probable cause?

What about only rolling your window down a couple of inches?

*I am not questioning the intelligence of either, I am wondering if it is within your right to not comply with orders without justifiable cause.

Good questions. The answer to the first question is obviously going to be a qualified yes. The reason is because whether or not probable cause exists for an arrest is a legal inquiry, and therefore measured (and remedied) by a court after the fact. In other words, you as a citizen are not the arbiter to decide, on the side of the road, whether an officer had probable cause to arrest you, or a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop your vehicle etc. That has always been the province of the judicial system. Further, all probable cause inquiries are considered from the officer's point of view, and for good reason (imagine: considering whether there was probable cause for an arrest from the arrested's point of view; "of course there wasn't!").

Now, I can't point to a law or a requirement that states you must comply, but again, think of the options available to you. If you believe the officer does not have probable cause to arrest you, you can't make that argument there on the side of the road, right? Who would you make that appeal to, the officer who has already decided to arrest you? For that reason alone, if an officer is making that determination, you probably have no choice but to comply. An additional reason why you likely have to comply is because what happens if you don't? Who gets tased? Who gets an additional charge for resisting arrest? I'm not saying the officer is right, but again, if they have made their mind up to arrest, the proper place to challenge that is in the courtroom and not on the side of the road.

For those reasons, you likely have no choice but to comply.

As far as rolling your window down a couple of inches, you could do this, but again, if an officer asks you to roll it down further or to step out of your vehicle, technically speaking, those requests are legitimate if they're based on reasonable suspicion (that an officer would testify to in court after the fact). So for instance, if an officer stopped you for speeding, came up to your car with the window rolled down a few inches, and believed he smelled alcohol coming through the window, he could legally ask you to step out of the vehicle (as he now would have a reason to believe you've been drinking and driving). Once he has a reason to expand the scope of the traffic stop, you run a serious risk of an additional charge (obstructing legal process?) if you prevent the officer from doing this. This is getting into the warrant exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, but again, generally speaking, if an officer wants you out of your car, they will find a way to make that happen. The place for you, the citizen, to challenge those actions is NOT on the side of the road. It's after the fact, in a court of law, with an attorney by your side. (I sound like an advertisement).

It might sound like I'm speaking from a place of justifying unlimited police conduct, and that couldn't be further from the truth. When I'm urging people to comply or cooperate, its speaking out of concern for the safety of anyone getting stopped or coming into contact with police. By and large, I deal with a lot of cops and a vast majority are good, honest, trustworthy people who want to keep their cities safe (seriously, I've met probably two out of hundreds that were genuine creeps). And yet I still caution people to be polite and cooperative when coming into contact with police because by nature, a cop's job is very unpredictable. They have no idea what they're coming up against when they make a traffic stop, and so they will always err on the side of caution if there's any question about who they're dealing with. Sort of the "if it's going to be somebody, it's going to be you" mentality. Someone getting out of their car and hammering a bottle of vodka during a traffic stop? Yeah, that person would probably face some stern warnings to put their hands up, get on the ground, etc.

A citizen should entitled to ask questions of police as the officer is carrying out his/her investigation. A citizen should feel free to calmly decline to answer questions during that investigation. A citizen should feel free to exercise any and all constitutional rights, including the right to an attorney.

But the place to challenge police tactics and investigation is NOT the side of the road. This is for legal reasons and safety ones.

Hope that helps. Sorry about the tangent.

(And it goes without saying: this is NOT legal advice. I'm no one's attorney and you can take this all with a grain of salt. I'm just a dude on a messageboard. ) ).

unsung

Thanks for the replies.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

If a cop orders you out of your vehicle you have to comply, correct? Even if you have done nothing wrong. Or can you refuse based on a lack of probable cause?

What about only rolling your window down a couple of inches?

*I am not questioning the intelligence of either, I am wondering if it is within your right to not comply with orders without justifiable cause.

But why such an oppositional attitude to begin your encounter with?

My parents taught me to respect the police and to this day... I do. I might drive away afterwards muttering, "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck..." but the last thing I want to do is get some cop's back up when I don't even know them.

Have I told you that the polite approach has served me relatively well? I have had more than my fair share of warnings which I have been appreciative of.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

If a cop orders you out of your vehicle you have to comply, correct? Even if you have done nothing wrong. Or can you refuse based on a lack of probable cause?

What about only rolling your window down a couple of inches?

*I am not questioning the intelligence of either, I am wondering if it is within your right to not comply with orders without justifiable cause.

But why such an oppositional attitude to begin your encounter with?

My parents taught me to respect the police and to this day... I do. I might drive away afterwards muttering, "fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck..." but the last thing I want to do is get some cop's back up when I don't even know them.

Have I told you that the polite approach has served me relatively well? I have had more than my fair share of warnings which I have been appreciative of.

I only give the respect that's given me, cops don't get blanket respect for wearing a badge. If they treat me fairly and with respect they will get the same but I don't believe in deference to authority just because...goes for politicians, priests, and teachers too!

callen

vant0037 said:

callen said:

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

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.

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).

Translation: . Cops and prosecuting attorneys will encroach into your rights as much as possible and could give a shit about your human rights and the masses haven't a clue as to rights they are giving up and allow it. No right to refuse is a classic example and Supreme Court should have struck this down. But alas. Don't question people, courts and lawyers know best.

"No commentary". Ha. Says who.

Says me. I wrote "no commentary" meaning just what it says: I'm not commenting on whether that's what's actually happening. What I pointed out above is how Courts have interpreted what the law means. For the lay person, it means cops have a lot of power to stop you. Not all of it - despite your suggestion - is improper or unconstitutional.

And how is "no right to refuse" a "classic example" of cops and prosecuting attorneys encroaching on human rights? I didn't write the law. Cops probably didn't either. Courts have let it stand for decades; at least get your outrage right.

Finally, if you really think that prosecutors are out to trample on people's rights, a few thoughts:

1. You've probably never talked to one before (until now),
2. I spent a chunk of my first afternoon NOT in court in months participating in this thread (and not, you know, out trampling on the rights of the masses), and
3. You've probably not talked to that many lawyers. Lawyers, and prosecutors in particular, are very interested in a fair trial and a criminal process that's done with integrity. Why? Because the last thing I want to do is fuck up something in that process that warrants a new trial or a reversal of conviction. So yeah...prosecutors are very mindful of a defendant's rights, due process, and yes, the Constitution. We're self-interested animals, and no one wants to do things twice.

I really, really, really hope that you were just spouting off and don't really believe that about prosecutors (and cops, for that matter). I can tell that, on the whole, it's just not true.

You can refuse to comment and more power to you. The Police, Judges and Prosecutors best interest is not with the defendant. It’s their jobs to prosecute as many people as possible. Simple as that. Are they unscrupulous in their pursuit….most not but to just go ahead and trust them…riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Physically restraining a human to a board is wrong. Yes I very much know that cops just administer the law. It’s the courts that are fucked for letting this happen. Established law doesn’t mean just law.
To address your points
1. I have. Now I get your position on blowing.
2. Prosecutor’s goal is to convict. Grand Jury says hey there’s enough evidence make it happen bud.
3. Okay so you contradicted yourself…its not that you want a fair trail, you just don’t want the perp to walk due to fking up. Prosecutors are forced by law to be mindful not because they are good guys and want to give a fair trial. Of course there are good prosecutors and there are bad..just like anywhere….the defendant can’t take the chance.
Prosecutors are judged by number of convictions and it’s their job. Spouting off???? It’s a PJ message board. Don’t be so fragile, not a good trait being in your profession.

callen

vant0037 said:

callen said:

so your advice is bad..........blow so you don't upset cop or spend extra night in jail but now hard to fight your case. Again I'm sure most DWI DEFENSE attorneys would agree.

Fine, but that's not at all what I said. And again, we're talking about two different tests. The first test is the PBT (on the side of the road) and there are no penalties that I know of for not taking it. But just understand that it may not make things any easier or any worse for you. You'll still likely be charged, whether you take that test or not, because technically, an officer needs to have a reason to ask you to take it in the first place. Furthermore, if you are a "close call" to begin with, blowing and passing the test might actually get you out of a charge. Not blowing? The cop will (and rightly so) assume the worst and charge you.

Now...

The second test is the one I'm concerned about. Most states have additional consequences for refusing to take this test. This is the test at the jail after you've been arrested. If you refuse this, you will likely lose your license for a long time and could be charged with an additional crime.

I think its fairly irresponsible - to the extent that we care about our fellow 10c Forum members - to suggest that people should "refuse tests" generally, especially because there are often a number of tests. Then we devolved into a discussion about refusing to answer questions, which was similar, but in my opinion, not quite as important as the first topic.

My point: it's bad advice to say that you should generally refuse tests, even if you think philosophically the tests are wrong/unconstitutional etc. For one, if you don't clarify which test you're talking about, you could be helping someone make a really bad decision and they might never know it. Two, the increased penalties for refusing the wrong/second test are pretty severe. As I stated before, refusing the second test [edit: this is in MN] takes your license away for 9 months longer than simply failing the test. Third, refusing might not spare you from a conviction when passing it (if you're close to the limit, have truly only had "one or two" etc) might. Lastly, and perhaps only an ancillary concern but a point worth considering, an officer who perceives you as cooperative and polite might let you go home instead of spending a weekend in the county jail.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the PBT (roadside test) is a way to beat a DWI: I'd question what retainer they're trying to sell you. It's not going to beat a DWI (PBT results aren't admissible anyway). They're trying to get you to hire them and they're doing so by trying to sell you a "loop-hole" that doesn't exist.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the second test is good advice: I'd question their ethics (as in many cases, such advice is advising a client to violate the law, which lawyers cannot do). I'd also question whether they're truly counseling their clients, knowing that many people would rather take the test and get their license back sooner.

Anyway, I think the point has been made: if you're ever faced with a choice about that second test, talk a lawyer first. Cheers.

Not knowing if your on the line is the best reason in my opinion to not blow.

if you blow you are giving the state evidence to be used against you in court. Self incrimination. Hard to fight numbers....easier to fight behaviour. Hence why DWI attorneys recommend you not to submit.

It's not a loop hole it's just smart. Why is it that they have no refusal weekends? Cause it's harder to convict without it. You are giving bad advise if your telling people to blow.

Disclaimer. Seek your own legal advice and suggest not from prosecuting DA. )

unsung

While I agree that the side of the road is not the place to argue over certain things I find that if one doesn't stand up for their rights when they are right the police will continue to be authoritative.

Another scenario...I'm walking my dog, a cop stops me to ask me for my ID. I refuse to comply. I'm not doing anything wrong. Besides I'm not driving, why should I carry my drivers license.

vant0037

callen said:

vant0037 said:

callen said:

so your advice is bad..........blow so you don't upset cop or spend extra night in jail but now hard to fight your case. Again I'm sure most DWI DEFENSE attorneys would agree.

Fine, but that's not at all what I said. And again, we're talking about two different tests. The first test is the PBT (on the side of the road) and there are no penalties that I know of for not taking it. But just understand that it may not make things any easier or any worse for you. You'll still likely be charged, whether you take that test or not, because technically, an officer needs to have a reason to ask you to take it in the first place. Furthermore, if you are a "close call" to begin with, blowing and passing the test might actually get you out of a charge. Not blowing? The cop will (and rightly so) assume the worst and charge you.

Now...

The second test is the one I'm concerned about. Most states have additional consequences for refusing to take this test. This is the test at the jail after you've been arrested. If you refuse this, you will likely lose your license for a long time and could be charged with an additional crime.

I think its fairly irresponsible - to the extent that we care about our fellow 10c Forum members - to suggest that people should "refuse tests" generally, especially because there are often a number of tests. Then we devolved into a discussion about refusing to answer questions, which was similar, but in my opinion, not quite as important as the first topic.

My point: it's bad advice to say that you should generally refuse tests, even if you think philosophically the tests are wrong/unconstitutional etc. For one, if you don't clarify which test you're talking about, you could be helping someone make a really bad decision and they might never know it. Two, the increased penalties for refusing the wrong/second test are pretty severe. As I stated before, refusing the second test [edit: this is in MN] takes your license away for 9 months longer than simply failing the test. Third, refusing might not spare you from a conviction when passing it (if you're close to the limit, have truly only had "one or two" etc) might. Lastly, and perhaps only an ancillary concern but a point worth considering, an officer who perceives you as cooperative and polite might let you go home instead of spending a weekend in the county jail.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the PBT (roadside test) is a way to beat a DWI: I'd question what retainer they're trying to sell you. It's not going to beat a DWI (PBT results aren't admissible anyway). They're trying to get you to hire them and they're doing so by trying to sell you a "loop-hole" that doesn't exist.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the second test is good advice: I'd question their ethics (as in many cases, such advice is advising a client to violate the law, which lawyers cannot do). I'd also question whether they're truly counseling their clients, knowing that many people would rather take the test and get their license back sooner.

Anyway, I think the point has been made: if you're ever faced with a choice about that second test, talk a lawyer first. Cheers.

Not knowing if your on the line is the best reason in my opinion to not blow.

if you blow you are giving the state evidence to be used against you in court. Self incrimination. Hard to fight numbers....easier to fight behaviour. Hence why DWI attorneys recommend you not to submit.

It's not a loop hole it's just smart. Why is it that they have no refusal weekends? Cause it's harder to convict without it. You are giving bad advise if your telling people to blow.

Disclaimer. Seek your own legal advice and suggest not from prosecuting DA. )

I promise you the advice of most defense attorneys is not to refuse. Perhaps the PBT, but you're wrong about the second one.

As far as my job being to convict...again, you're just dead wrong about that. I'm the one tasked with making convictions happen when appropriate, but that's simply not the job description.

This ain't about being sensitive; it's public education. If you really think judges, prosecutors and the courts are solely out to get people and abuse rights, looks like I got here just in time...

chadwick

"If you really think judges, prosecutors and the courts are solely out to get people and abuse rights, looks like I got here just in time..."

if i may say something real quick on this.... i believe many judges, prosecutors & the courts do abuse the hell out of people, not all, but many do. it's rigged, sir. this whole fucking system is rigged. some have morals & things moreso than others that's all.

corruption, greed & through bullshit? stop it! not here in merica. now erect those silly ass road blocks for dui/driver's license check points

this is fucking nazism

what would be great is to tell the cops, "hey, stick your questions up your ass, do i look drunk?" "this road block shit & shooting ppl everywhere is getting out of order"

a fucking dried up, raggedy, bent up, joint some 20 years ago cost my brother $750.00 plus court costs
what is wrong with this picture?

unsung

They are all on the same side, and their job is to raise revenue.

vant0037

callen said:

3. Okay so you contradicted yourself…its not that you want a fair trail, you just don’t want the perp to walk due to fking up. Prosecutors are forced by law to be mindful not because they are good guys and want to give a fair trial. Of course there are good prosecutors and there are bad..just like anywhere….the defendant can’t take the chance.
Prosecutors are judged by number of convictions and it’s their job. Spouting off???? It’s a PJ message board. Don’t be so fragile, not a good trait being in your profession.

What difference does it make what the impetus for a fair trial is so long as the defendant'a rights are respected? You've suggested that prosecutors and courts are only interested in convictions and will trample the rights of a defendant to get them. I've given you the best and most honest reason why that simply isn't the case: sheer self interest. If courts ensure that defendants rights are scrupulously respected but only because they don't want verdicts/judgments/plea agreements/aka "work" to be overturned, so what?

vant0037

unsung said:

While I agree that the side of the road is not the place to argue over certain things I find that if one doesn't stand up for their rights when they are right the police will continue to be authoritative.

Another scenario...I'm walking my dog, a cop stops me to ask me for my ID. I refuse to comply. I'm not doing anything wrong. Besides I'm not driving, why should I carry my drivers license.

I won't argue with that. Just know that cops aren't usually interested in having a discussion right then and there (which of course goes to the heart of your point). Just be safe is all I'm saying - there's a venue to challenge bad cop behavior and it's not the roads.

callen

Y

vant0037 said:

callen said:

vant0037 said:

callen said:

so your advice is bad..........blow so you don't upset cop or spend extra night in jail but now hard to fight your case. Again I'm sure most DWI DEFENSE attorneys would agree.

Fine, but that's not at all what I said. And again, we're talking about two different tests. The first test is the PBT (on the side of the road) and there are no penalties that I know of for not taking it. But just understand that it may not make things any easier or any worse for you. You'll still likely be charged, whether you take that test or not, because technically, an officer needs to have a reason to ask you to take it in the first place. Furthermore, if you are a "close call" to begin with, blowing and passing the test might actually get you out of a charge. Not blowing? The cop will (and rightly so) assume the worst and charge you.

Now...

The second test is the one I'm concerned about. Most states have additional consequences for refusing to take this test. This is the test at the jail after you've been arrested. If you refuse this, you will likely lose your license for a long time and could be charged with an additional crime.

I think its fairly irresponsible - to the extent that we care about our fellow 10c Forum members - to suggest that people should "refuse tests" generally, especially because there are often a number of tests. Then we devolved into a discussion about refusing to answer questions, which was similar, but in my opinion, not quite as important as the first topic.

My point: it's bad advice to say that you should generally refuse tests, even if you think philosophically the tests are wrong/unconstitutional etc. For one, if you don't clarify which test you're talking about, you could be helping someone make a really bad decision and they might never know it. Two, the increased penalties for refusing the wrong/second test are pretty severe. As I stated before, refusing the second test [edit: this is in MN] takes your license away for 9 months longer than simply failing the test. Third, refusing might not spare you from a conviction when passing it (if you're close to the limit, have truly only had "one or two" etc) might. Lastly, and perhaps only an ancillary concern but a point worth considering, an officer who perceives you as cooperative and polite might let you go home instead of spending a weekend in the county jail.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the PBT (roadside test) is a way to beat a DWI: I'd question what retainer they're trying to sell you. It's not going to beat a DWI (PBT results aren't admissible anyway). They're trying to get you to hire them and they're doing so by trying to sell you a "loop-hole" that doesn't exist.

To a defense attorney that thinks refusing the second test is good advice: I'd question their ethics (as in many cases, such advice is advising a client to violate the law, which lawyers cannot do). I'd also question whether they're truly counseling their clients, knowing that many people would rather take the test and get their license back sooner.

Anyway, I think the point has been made: if you're ever faced with a choice about that second test, talk a lawyer first. Cheers.

Not knowing if your on the line is the best reason in my opinion to not blow.

if you blow you are giving the state evidence to be used against you in court. Self incrimination. Hard to fight numbers....easier to fight behaviour. Hence why DWI attorneys recommend you not to submit.

It's not a loop hole it's just smart. Why is it that they have no refusal weekends? Cause it's harder to convict without it. You are giving bad advise if your telling people to blow.

Disclaimer. Seek your own legal advice and suggest not from prosecuting DA. )

I promise you the advice of most defense attorneys is not to refuse. Perhaps the PBT, but you're wrong about the second one.

As far as my job being to convict...again, you're just dead wrong about that. I'm the one tasked with making convictions happen when appropriate, but that's simply not the job description.

This ain't about being sensitive; it's public education. If you really think judges, prosecutors and the courts are solely out to get people and abuse rights, looks like I got here just in time...

As Unsung pointed out its in legal systems best interest to convict.

Now I'm all for law and order and thank random cops when I have the opportunity. I also thank you for your part to get dangerous and stealing dirtbags off the street

I also realize that it's easy to criticize and for most part think we have a good system.

I do also understand my rights as a human being and the thread topic violates those rights. And contrary to your position I personally will not blow , field or station. You have your perspective and everyone else check what's best for you.

Peace.

chadwick

what are the costs of jailing & imprisoning drug addicts, drug users & the like? this is insanity & a very rigged crapfest-system ruining the lives of countless millions of people

callen

chadwick said:

what are the costs of jailing & imprisoning drug addicts, drug users & the like? this is insanity & a very rigged crapfest-system ruining the lives of countless millions of people

Think some cops would rather not deal with drug users. And probably feel like shit busting someone for a joint. But yeah it totally sucks such a large percentage of Americans are treated as criminals for such unjust laws.

hedonist

unsung said:

While I agree that the side of the road is not the place to argue over certain things I find that if one doesn't stand up for their rights when they are right the police will continue to be authoritative.

Another scenario...I'm walking my dog, a cop stops me to ask me for my ID. I refuse to comply. I'm not doing anything wrong. Besides I'm not driving, why should I carry my drivers license.

You're a smart guy. Surely you understand 'time and place'.

Out walking your dog, no ID, why have it? I agree, it's no biggie.

But you seem already on the defensive - "refuse to comply".

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

While I agree that the side of the road is not the place to argue over certain things I find that if one doesn't stand up for their rights when they are right the police will continue to be authoritative.

Another scenario...I'm walking my dog, a cop stops me to ask me for my ID. I refuse to comply. I'm not doing anything wrong. Besides I'm not driving, why should I carry my drivers license.

Maybe you match the description of someone who just robbed an old lady down the street? An officer could have a reason for asking for your ID. It might just be a conversation starter.