Are breathalyzers not a thing?
Posted by Helpful-Structure955@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 243 comments
Hi đ Question here from a kiwi.
I notice in movies and real life footage (including Tiger Woods recent arrest) that when you are pulled up by a cop, that they often carry out feild sobriety tests. i.e. walk in a line, touch your nose, count backwards etc etc. Why dont they just do a breath test and call it a day? In NZ, you get breath tested (none of this hopping on one foot BS), if you fail, you then go back to the station for a blood test. done. dusted. simple. Is it normal in the US to do all the sobriety tests and breath test? why waste the time? (we also have tongue scrape tests for drugs too)
BelligerentWyvern@reddit
They are a thing and I would encourage anyone to simply do that rather than a field sobriety test.
CriticalSuit1336@reddit
Because there are many forms of impairment. Alcohol is one, and the breathalyzer is a good way to test for it. However, pills, smokeable, edible, snortible, injectible, and so on are means of impairment a breathalyzer won't pick up.
Woods did do a breathalyzer, and it came back 0.0, yet he still clearly was impaired.
mklinger23@reddit
If the cops get you to do a field sobriety test, they can basically manipulate you and then claim it is evidence that you were drunk. In most states, you can skip field sobriety and do breathalyzer or blood test. My attorney has encouraged me to always skip field sobriety.Â
Sensitive-Chemical83@reddit
We do use breathalyzers. But those only test for alcohol. There are lots of kinds of impaired.
ghostwriter85@reddit
Because Tiger wasn't drunk
Breathalyzers are a thing. Generously, field sobriety tests check for other sources of impairment (pills in Tiger's case). Less generously, anyone can be given a DUI / DWI after a field sobriety test.
Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit
In Washington state, anyone can also refuse a field sobriety test, although that does create sufficient grounds for an arrest. After the arrest, they could ask you to take a breathalyzer or blood test. They can get a warrant for a blood test.
Once you have been detained, the consequences were refusing a breathalyzer test are pretty dire.
Itâs very tempting to comply with the field sobriety test. Thereâs a lot of social pressure because youâre nervous and whether the cop is scary cop or nice cop, everything they do will make you want to comply. If youâre drunk, youâre hoping that you can manage to push through it and convince them youâre not drunk. If youâre sober, you just wanna put the whole thing behind you when they tell you that if you donât do the field sobriety test, theyâre going to arrest you.
I am not a lawyer. The advice I have seen is that field sobriety test are subjective, and yet they can be used against you in court. They could still make you take a breathalyzer test. Thereâs really not much to be gained from going along with the field sobriety test. By the time they are putting you into a field sobriety test, they are already looking for a reason to detain you and give you a breathalyzer or blood test.
GrunchWeefer@reddit
You can refuse a field sobriety test in every state. It's always voluntary. You should never consent to one.
Suppafly@reddit
Really depends on the state. Sure, it's voluntary, but declining means automatically losing your license. If you've truly not been drinking, losing your license for a year or two because you decided to play games by declining to take a test is stupid.
GrunchWeefer@reddit
Pretty sure no states extend implied consent to field sobriety tests. Or even field breathalyzers. If you're arrested and don't submit to a blood test or breath test at the station that's a totally different story. Then under implied consent you can be suspended. Not sure exercising your constitutional rights is "playing games". I'd prefer not to hand over evidence against myself whether I've been drinking or not.
HadynGabriel@reddit
You can lose your license for a year for refusing to consent to a breathalyzer or blood testing in some states after failing a field sobriety test.
Classic-Push1323@reddit
You can be arrested in every state for refusing a breathalyzer or blood test under implied consent laws. Whether or not you do a field sobriety test has nothing to do with it.
HadynGabriel@reddit
I only know about the past. I havenât kept up with it
Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit
You can lose it in Washington state for refusing his breathalyzer test, even if no field sobriety test is administered.
3X_Cat@reddit
You can be arrested in Washington State but not convicted if there's no other evidence. Keep your mouth shut except to evoke your rights to remain silent, to not consent to a search, and to demand an attorney be present for all questioning. Fight it in court! Jail after an arrest is easy peasy and nothing to be scared of.
HadynGabriel@reddit
There we have it!
IP_What@reddit
You should not refuse to consent to a breath or blood test where doing so would result in loss of license. You should refuse to dance like a monkey for a cop so they can make some unscientific observations about you to justify wrongful arrests.
Bright_white2413@reddit
Florida- That is the truth here
Inspi@reddit
Florida is mandatory or straight to the station for a blood test.Â
GrunchWeefer@reddit
It's not mandatory anywhere. They need probable cause to take you to the station. They can't ask you to do a field sobriety test and then just whisk you off to the station solely based on the refusal to submit to the test. The 4th amendment protects you from having to submit to a blood test without probable cause. Invoking the 5th amendment and refusing a field test is not probable cause. In all 50 states. Know your rights.
cwcam86@reddit
They can still arrest you. Refusing the tests does take away a lot of the evidence that the officer and DA will have against you. But they can still get ya. If you've been drinking a considerable amount they can smell it and if you're slurring while talking.
GrunchWeefer@reddit
They need probable cause to arrest you. Refusing a field sobriety test is not probable cause. Smelling like liquor and slurring is.
Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit
In Washington state, refusing a sobriety test can be a trigger for arrest. This of course assumes theyâve already had some chain of probable cost to talk to you in the first place and suspect that you are not sober.
Da1UHideFrom@reddit
Washington State LEO here. I can't arrest people simply because they refuse a sobriety test. If I'm at the point where I'm asking to do sobriety tests, I already suspect you're impaired. I get clues from your driving, eyes, speech, odor, and coherence long before I ask you to do the tests. That is what I'm basing my arrest decision on, not whether you refuse the tests or not.
Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit
If you donât mind me asking then whatâs the purpose of the field sobriety test? How often do you choose to apply one? Why not skip directly to an empirical test like a breathalyzer?
Da1UHideFrom@reddit
The results of field sobriety tests are admissible in court. The results of the portable breath test (PBT) are not. The more tests I do the more clues of impairment I get from the driver. If I determine they are impaired, I arrest them and take them to do a breath test on a larger and more accurate machine that is maintained by the state. Those results are admissible in court.
Also, the PBT only detects alcohol. We are finding drivers that are impaired by meth, fentanyl, and marijuana. The field tests are useful for detecting those types of impairments.
EatLard@reddit
Out of curiosity, what happens to a personâs vehicle after theyâre arrested on suspicion of DUI, but is released after testing negative for any substances? Do they still have to pay to retrieve it from an impound lot, or is that waived?
Da1UHideFrom@reddit
I can't answer that accurately because each state has different laws and everyone I've arrested for DUI has tested positive, so I've never been in that situation.
IP_What@reddit
To build evidence against the driver.
3X_Cat@reddit
What does alcohol smell like?
Da1UHideFrom@reddit
This feels like a trick question.
The nerdy scientific answer is alcohol itself doesn't have a smell, you are smelling the stuff dissolved in it. Coming from a person, you are smelling the alcohol that's in a person's blood that evaporates in their lungs.
If you are genuinely curious, I can't describe the smell to you accurately. Go to your local bar and speak to some people who have had more than one or two drinks.
3X_Cat@reddit
Yes, it's a trick question. I'll pass on going to a bar though.
Crazy_Raven_Lady@reddit
Why even do the field sobriety test? If they reek of alcohol why donât you go straight to the breathalyzer?
Da1UHideFrom@reddit
Field sobriety test results are admissible in court. Portable Breath Test results are not.
If they refuse to give a breath sample on the calibrated machine at the station, I can use the field sobriety test results to apply for a blood warrant.
3X_Cat@reddit
You're going to get arrested anyway. Why give them more evidence??
GrunchWeefer@reddit
The refusal isn't the trigger. The underlying probable cause is. If they already had the cause a field sobriety test likely isn't helping you anyway. You're just giving them more evidence.
Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit
True. They will IMPLY that if you take the test and pass, that youâre free to go, but thereâs no guarantee. Passing is very subjective and they can still decide to give you the breathalyzer. Thereâs really not much to win by taking the test.
cwcam86@reddit
Yeah that's literally what I said.
GrunchWeefer@reddit
Yeah, I see that. I think I responded to the wrong comment.
smile_saurus@reddit
Night shift will do that to you.
cwcam86@reddit
It happens, replies on here get wonky sometimes.
jeefra@reddit
Why should you not consent?
3X_Cat@reddit
Because the test is bullshit
bayouz@reddit
This. Why gift-wrap evidence against you and hand it to the prosecutor? Rather, remain polite, exercise your right to remain silent and ask to speak to an attorney.
DrMindbendersMonocle@reddit
refusing a test can suspend your license, though
fattymcbuttface69@reddit
We know he wasn't drunk because he took a breathalyzer. He blew a 0.0.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Breathalyzers aren't infallible. They are still going to get him checked for other substances and confirm the BAC because those are more correct plus if they even remotely suspect he's on something - you won't find that necessarily on site.
Tiger refused this so his driver's license is suspended for a year (i think that's the FL law). All states have a similar law but the suspended time frame is different. This is not removed even if found inoccent of chargers regarind DUI.
innocent
KayoticVoid@reddit
That's interesting that if the license was removed from refusing but then you are later found to be clean it's not reinstated. I can from one side see where they are coming from but on the other side, it is a bit fucked up. The whole "if you did nothing wrong, comply" thing is not great...
JanuriStar@reddit
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
The US has implied consent agreements; when you get a driver's license, you are immediately subjected to and required to agree to. These apply to BAC tests. Field Breathalyzers aren't great, so saying no is fine, but if you're told to take a BAC test at a station of hopsital, you legally can't say no b/c of implied consent. You agree to this the minute you sign your driver's license.
This is one of the things tested on the DMV on driving tests, covered in classes and i believe reminded about the first time you get a liscence.
Driving is seen as a privilege, not a right.
You are violating a driving law when you say no. The US isn't the only country with these laws in regards to driving.
copper_rabbit@reddit
It's because driving is a privilege not a right, and you agree to certain conditions like complying with those tests and maintaining vehicle insurance. It doesn't matter if you're actually clean, the refusal obstructs the process police use to ensure impaired drivers are removed from the road.
JayinNPBch@reddit
I t is inherent in your license application that holding that license is implicit agreement to be breath or blood tested if requested
majxover@reddit
So in FL, DUIâs go through both the administrative system and criminal court system. If you get arrested, the arrest stays on the administrative record as a DUI, even though you could potentially plead down to a lesser charge (i.e.: reckless/careless driving) or getting them tossed.
So even with no criminal conviction, you still have to pay restatement fees and may still be required to get SR-22 insurance (higher liability limits).
If you refuse to blow, you get an automatic 1 year suspension, per the law, but you can get an exemption to get back and forth to work/school.
2PlasticLobsters@reddit
Also, breathalyzer are supposed to calibrated yearly, but not all police depts keep up with this. At one point, it turned out the DC Metropolitan police hadn't had any of theirs calibrated in TEN years.
AgathaM@reddit
He did the breathalyzer. He refused the blood test, which would show the drugs.
Hoopajoops@reddit
Afaik sobriety tests aren't conclusive. They can detain you to do further testing, but not everyone has the coordination to complete all those tests even if they are completely sober, though it may vary by state. Breathalyzer means you're in the drunk tank until sober, but you're charged with a DWI no matter what
One_Advantage793@reddit
On the less generous side, local police in the college town where I went to school used to do sobriety tests and hand out DUIs constantly - without ever bothering with the breathalyzer. They just waited just off the main drag where the student bars were and stopped people headed back toward campus.
That is, until they did that to a young instructor who did not drink and was not impaired on anything else, but did have a limp. They got sued for a huge amount because the woman nearly lost her job, too. She insisted on a blood test as soon as they got back to the station and naturally it showed no impairment.
But, that was back in the 80s and they had to wait a week or so for blood results to come back. They had already charged her and published her photo and charges online for everyone to see. Charges were ultimately dropped but they tried to insist she was impaired until they went before a judge who asked some questions about her physical impairment and what impact it had on the field tests. (They still publish charges like that in my state; so much for presumption of innocence.)
They still lay in wait on the road between the bars and campus there, but now they go to breathalyzer first. You can refuse and they can still charge based on sobriety checks alone, but it does not happen nearly as often.
theryman@reddit
Something a little fishy here
One_Advantage793@reddit
Sorry! It was in the paper then. Online now.
la-anah@reddit
You don't know about all the online publishing of photos in the 1980s?
ripyourlungsdave@reddit
I have a neurodegenerative disorder. Makes me walk kinda funny, But doesn't affect my actual equilibrium or sense of direction. I would absolutely fail a field sobriety test despite my driving not being even remotely affected by my condition.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
That's why you agree to a blood test
ripyourlungsdave@reddit
Agree to a blood test for a warrantless, unjustified field sobriety test?..
That seems like a bit more than an invasion of my privacy and bodily autonomy for the sin of having a disability.
DefinitelyNotEmu@reddit
Driving is not a right it is a privilege.
Your concerns about privacy are valid but you carry a mobile phone everywhere that can track you via GPS and social media. Constant CTV cameras everywhere etc...
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Warrantless? Implied consent laws regarding driving. It's applied in every US state. Refusal to get tested means your license will be automatically revoked for 12-18 months, even if you are found not guilty. So either you get a breathalyzer test or a blood/urine test or lose your license.
This is only assuming that the police don't believe you about your condition. I keep info on me at all times and also wear a medical alert bracelet.
taranathesmurf@reddit
Ask your doctor if your state accepts doctor's notes that state that you suffer from x disease that effects your equilibrium. My dad had Parkinsons and his doctor gave him a card that stated that.
DefinitelyNotEmu@reddit
You can buy those medical exemption cards on eBay. Due to some bad-faith actors they have lost a lot of credibility.
Blue_Star_Child@reddit
Because roadside breathalyzers aren't admissible in court. Don't ask me why. They are just a rough indicator. Those field tests are admissible. They will take the person back to jail and preform a breathalyzer with a bigger official machine or get a blood alcohol level blood draw.
Any_Ferret8369@reddit
smh bro thats just how they do it here, kinda wild honestly but gotta cover stuff
Ok_Dog_4059@reddit
Is he back on the pain pills? He got clean years ago but them had that wreck and messed up his leg and I remember at the time wondering if that would lead to a relapse.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
They found Hydrocodone aka. Vicadin in his car on the floor. Yeah, i'd assume that's what going on
Word2DWise@reddit
Not all states use breathalyzers and also, training usually involves using the field sobriety tests to determine whether the use of a breathalyzer is legally warranted, regardless of situation. I realize it sounds stupid, because it is.
Expert_Tomorrow_3915@reddit
Field "sobriety tests" should be illegal. They are notorious for getting people down to the station booked on DWI just on some officer's opinion of how your leg balancing is and touching your nose and stuff. Either you pass a breathalyzer on SITE and on the patrol person's camera or you don't. Tennessee is notorious for having crooked quotas and cops with this nonsense ruining people's lives.
vingtsun_guy@reddit
Field Sobriety exercises are presented as a way to shoe that you're not drunk, but it's actually just about gathering evidence.
TankDestroyerSarg@reddit
I've never been pulled over for a DUI, so I couldn't say on that end. I do have a friend who does drug testing for a living and keeps his work breathalyzer in his trunk. We have on occasion pulled it out and tested after a night of heavy consumption (we stayed in and no driving. We're idiots, not stupid)
ArrrcticWolf@reddit
I know not a lot of police depts have more than one or two of them typically carried by the supervisor. A lot of times itâs just easier and faster to do a field test instead, and they can request a breath test later
No_Entertainment_748@reddit
Never heard of a tounge scrape for drug tests but breathalyzer tests, ignition interlocks and sobriety checkpoints are all normal here .08 BAC is the federal limit here except for Utah where its the same as NZ .05 BAC
Classic-Push1323@reddit
You can be charged with a DUI if you look and act impaired even if you are not above the legal limit. The legal limit for alcohol in most of the US/ under most circumstances is 0.08% which is actually quite high. The legal limit in Australia is only 0.05%.
superneatosauraus@reddit
My husband and I bought a breathalyzer and decided to get to .08 out of curiosity. I was shocked by how drunk I felt, definitely would never try ro drive in that state.
JayinNPBch@reddit
I did the same
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
Gosh that is high. We are the same levels as Australia I think. 0.05
Classic-Push1323@reddit
Yeah it really is! But like I said, thatâs why you can be charged without actually meeting that limit.
You actually have the option to decline a field sobriety test, but if you appear impaired based on your driving or interactions with the police officer and you have alcohol in your system you should expect to be charged.
Kestrel_Iolani@reddit
Question for you: Do NZ cops carry a breathalyzer in their cars?
Here, they do the field test to see if there's reasonable suspicion, then bring you to a breathalyzer to prove/disprove it.
SillyBanana123@reddit
Breathalyzers are a thing, but you can refuse. I bribe theyâll take you to the station if you refuse. As far as Iâm aware, thereâs no test for drugs like the tongue scrape you mentioned. Thatâs hair or urine tests done at the station
Unsolven@reddit
It depends on the state but often times refusing a breathalyzer can be punished as harshly as failing it.
JayinNPBch@reddit
Punished for sure , not as harshly though , at least if its your first refusal . Second incident that you refuse in , the gloves come off
ClickClick_Boom@reddit
IDK what the best choice to make is if you're definitely drunk driving and in that situation. I always wonder that when I'm watching body cam clips of drunk drivers. Seems like you're probably fucked either way and it wouldn't make a difference.
Sufficient_Cod1948@reddit
I got a DUI about 10 years ago, and it was explained to me that if I refused the breathalyzer on site, then it would be and automatic license suspension of 180 days. I blew into the breathalyzer, plead guilty, and ended up with my license suspended for 45 days.
Unsolven@reddit
Yeah if you get pulled over for driving drunk and you are too drunk to talk to the cops youâre super fucked.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Generally, you can refuse a breathalyzer (as they aren't infallible) but need to agree to a more traditional test, usually a blood draw or a urine test. If you refuse this, all states at minmum will immediately suspend you drivers liscence for anywhere from 6 month to a year, and it won't be reinstated even if you are found not guilty.
DeviantDork@reddit
The license suspension may be as long, but you wonât have a DUI on your record.
Important for some jobs.
Also a nice workaround for the wealthy since they can avoid the charge and pay someone else to drive them.
da_chicken@reddit
Actually, I would say you generally can't refuse a breathalyzer. Like you literally can, but they'll just arrest you on suspicion and make you do a blood test at the station.
More than that, every US state has an implied consent law, AFAIK. So refusal will mean you'll have your license suspended. That's not really being free to refuse. More than that, a dozen or so states have even criminalized refusal.
A-Moron-Explains@reddit
The point of refusing is to buy you time to get under the legal limit.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
If you are over the limit, you are not generally going to sober enough to pass a urine or blood test even when some time passes.
A-Moron-Explains@reddit
If you are drunk you may deny those as well, and itâs easier to beat a case where youâre going against the police officers word that you were drunk vs one with numerical proof you were. Advice given to me by both a lawyer friend and my brother a cop. You basically never cooperate if you can.
Classic-Push1323@reddit
Again, the problem with this is that there are legal penalties to refusing those tests. They might not be able to prove that you were driving drunk, but you will still lose your license and be charged.
It is (quite literally) not a get out of jail free card.
I think you misunderstood their advice. Some people feel that itâs better to lose their license for not taking the test then to be charged with the DUI and thatâs true for some circumstances. You wonât have a DUI on your record, but you wonât be able to drive for longer.
Pkrudeboy@reddit
That still buys time if you think youâre at the limit.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
If you are over the limit, you are not generally going to sober enough to pass a urine or blood test even when some time passes.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Yes, you can, as the breathalyzer isn't actually perfect. Usually, they'll give a urine test or a blood test instead. Again, i believe in some places you can refuse.
Late_Resource_1653@reddit
In PA. You can refuse. And you can do a field test instead. And if you failed to that. they'll take you for a blood test.
I once watched a social worker I was honestly worried about who was coming to pick up one of my residents for a doctor appointment hit a car while parking. The owner of the car called the cops.
She called her boss, who called mine, and I was asked to go out and make sure she was okay. She was so clearly drunk or on something. Refused the brealthaizer and tried the road test and fell.
An ambulance was called, and the cops followed. Immediate blood draw showed she was very drunk. Lost her whole career.
Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit
You have to be very careful what you refuse. For my American audience or people driving in America, you also have to remember that we have 50 different states and that one Iâm about to say Iâve only checked for Washington state.
You can refuse a field sobriety test. Itâs considered subjective. Iâm not a lawyer, but everything Iâve seen says that you should refuse the field sobriety test. Just because you pass it doesnât mean they canât still give you a breathalyzer test, and if you fail it because youâre nervous or your foot slips or youâre just uncoordinated, it can be used against you. Refusal can be grounds for an arrest or detention, but refusal alone isnât illegal nor is it enough to get you a DUI conviction.
However, if they do detain you on suspicion, whether itâs just from observation or from a field sobriety test, refusal of a prompt breathalyzer test or blood test can result in penalties. The obvious reason for this is, if you can somehow avoid taking the test for a while, you could sober up. Therefore, thereâs penalties built into the law for refusing. They can be pretty severe. You canât get an automatic on your suspension. The police can get a warrant for a blood draw and weâll find out your blood alcohol level anyway. If you do end up in front of a judge, the refusal may count against you in terms of sentencing.
If you think you are so sober, refusing the field test may get you arrested, but it wonât get you convicted. Again not a lawyer, but I believe the best advice is, officer. Iâm not really good at stuff like that, can we go straight to the breathalyzer, please?
If you think you are sober, refusing a breathalyzer test can get you a DUI even if you would have passed the breathalyzer immediately.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
In Washington State, refusing a blood alcohol test after a DUI arrest triggers immediate, serious consequences under implied consent laws (RCW 46.20.308), including an automatic minimum one-year driverâs license revocation, even if you are not convicted of a DUI. Your refusal can be used as evidence against you in a criminal trial, and police may still obtain a warrant to force a blood draw.Â
Double-Bend-716@reddit
Police arenât doing hair tests for DUIs/DWIs.
They might do a hair test for something like probation.
Breath tests, blood draws, and urine samples can help prove some one was either drunk or high on drugs at the time of arrest and at the time of driving.
Hair tests donât work for proving recent intoxication. Typically, a hair test will use like first 1-2 inches of hair for a hair test, which gives them about 90 days of drug use history. Thatâs way too large of a time frame to be useful in a DUI case. In top of that, if I smoke pot for first time in months and then an hour later I get pulled over for a DWI, my blood and urine will test positive for THC, but my hair will test negative because it hasnât had to grow yet. Blood and urine tests are much better ones for this scenario
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
they will do a hair test if they suspect you've been smoking weed and driving. Its still considered a DUI/DWI.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Hair is to test for specific drugs - often blood may be drawn to test for other things as well as alcohol.
JayinNPBch@reddit
Anyone can refuse a field sobriety test in most states. You can't refuse a breath or blood test
Traditional_Trust418@reddit
They are a thing and they are sometimes used
tcspears@reddit
Often if police suspect you are drunk, they will suggest a breathalyzer, but you have the right to refuse. If you refuse, then you go through. The field test to see if you are impaired enough to warrant an arrest and/or blood draw.
The tests also work for drugs that a breathalyzer wouldnât detect. In Tiger Woodsâ case he wasnât drunk, so his breathalyzer came back with a zero, he was on pills.
houdini31@reddit
You can refuse until a lawyer is present but you can then be detained.
MountSaintElias@reddit
Breathalyzers determine if your BAC is above the legal limit, not how intoxicated you are. A 100 lb person at just below the legal limit may be very intoxicated, while a 200lb person just below may be not intoxicated at all. A field sobriety test shows how intoxicated a person is, not just how much alcohol is in their blood.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
A 100lb person's tolerance is extremely different from a 200lb person. If both have 3 beers one if naturally going to be more intoxicated than the other and will obviously have a higher BAC. A higher BAC means someone is more intoxicated.
MountSaintElias@reddit
Your comment reads like ChatGPT. âI see what youâre saying but honestly - XYZ.â
Anyways, BAC isnât perfect for establishing if someone is unfit to drive. People react differently to alcohol. Someone with a BAC under the legal limit can still be too drunk to drive. It also doesnât test for any other drug. Field sobriety tests directly measure your coordination and motor skills.
BoopleSnoot921@reddit
There needs to be probable cause, which the field sobriety tests establish. But yes, breathalyzers are definitely a thing.
lukebop@reddit
Kiwi living in USA here; blew my mind when I found out checkpoint stops arenât a thing here. Something about needing probable cause to breath test, and a NZ style checkpoint is an unlawful stop.
To the Americans - itâs common in NZ to basically have a roadblock around city centers and stop and breathalyze every car that passes, typically set up around the weekend.
lukebop@reddit
Also I live in the Midwest and people drive drunk like every weekend here. Office work beers and people have about 6-7 beers then drive home
WreckinPoints11@reddit
The breathalyzers arenât always accurate, and only check for alcohol. He did do one, and he blew a flat 0. This is because he wasnât drunk; just high off his gourd.
Rogue_Cheeks98@reddit
Funny that you mention Tiger Woods recent arrest, considering a breathalyzer was administered. And he blew a 0.00.
One of the reasons why they do a field sobriety test, is to look for other forms of impairment, since the breathalyzer only checks alcohol.
-hacks4pancakes-@reddit
Both. Because booze isnât the only thing that can cause you to be impaired whilst driving
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Yup - and thats why he refused a blood test. They'd find the drugs in his system. he rather take the suspension of his licence and not get caught with drugs. it'd cause other issues
SummertimeThrowaway2@reddit
Cant they just get a warrant and make him take the blood test anyways? Or is that not a thing in his state?
CharlesDickensABox@reddit
You need a judge to be able to get a warrant, and no judge is going to wake up in the wee hours of the morning to sign a warrant for a DUI. You do sometimes see events, particularly on big drinking holidays like New Year's and the 4th of July, where some junior judge will hang out around a big event and be ready to issue warrants on the spot, but that's quite uncommon.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
They 100% can and will. This is Florida.
Emotional_Ad5714@reddit
The actual answer to your question is that we have a Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have ruled that it is a violation of your 4th Amendment right for a police officer to just pull you over and give you a breathalyzer (PBT).
So, they first have to observe incicia of impairment. When they can state articulable facts to prove this, then they move on to less invasive testing, like a HGN (pen following) test, balancing tests, etc.
At that point they can point to more evidence of impairment and provide the PBT test on the road. When that shows intoxicated beyond the legal level, they will arrest you and bring you to the station and use a much more accurate legally admissible breathalyzer machine and have an officer follow all proper protocol for operating the machine, including continuous observation of the subject for 15 minutes to ensure all mouth alcohol has evaporated and that nothing additional has been placed in the mouth that could impact the results, like a mint.
wawa2022@reddit
Also, I think theyâre supposed to wait 15 minutes or so after they pull you over before they give breathalyzer just to make sure alcohol registers OR breath spray dissipates.
Thatâs just what I heard. I donât know for sure.
HeyPurityItsMeAgain@reddit
Because it's illegal to force someone to take a breathalyzer unless they're already arrested (they need probable cause and a warrant to arrest you). It's faster just to do the field sobriety test.
mack_dd@reddit
We do both. The legalities varies a bit state by state, but the way it generally works is:
(1) You legally dont have to blow into the breatherlizer unless the cops have a warrent; but in a lot of states, they can suspend your licenses because its seen as an administrative punishment rather than a criminal one
(2) You legally dont have to concent to a road sobrieity test (and it usually wont affect your license), but a lot of people just do it anyway (either because they dont know they dont have to, or because theyre convinced it will help them). Cops mainly use the footage to show to the jury, to help get a conviction.
The obvious disclaimer, none of this is legal advice.
Pernicious_Possum@reddit
Alcohol isnât the only thing that can impair you, but itâs the only thing a breathalyzer can test for
ATLien_3000@reddit
4th amendment. We have rights in the US that your cops don't have to worry about.
Phoenix_Court@reddit
Breathalyzers are a thing here. However they only check for alcohol where field sobriety tests check for any type of impairment (i.e. Tiger Woods). In the US you also have the right to deny both breathalyzers and field sobriety tests if you have not been officially arrested (the reason, to my understanding, is because they are easy to get false positives on.) However if you are arrested under suspicion of DUI they will take you back to the station and test you there (blood test), which you are not legally able to deny. There's a phrase, "bleed, don't breathe" which is basically saying if you're not drunk it's best to refuse the breathalyzer and do the blood test because it's more accurate.
TheLastCoagulant@reddit
Except youâll permanently have a âDUI arrestâ (I know itâs not conviction) on record if they arrest you and take you back for blood testing, correct? After that point canât anyone who googles your name see that you were arrested for DUI?
cat_prophecy@reddit
Breathalyzers are only probable cause to run a blood test for alcohol. The blood test is the "official" test for BAC.
Extreme-Strawberry17@reddit
There are two breathalyzers. The PBT, preliminary breath test, which is useful for confirming probable cause, but not calibrated enough to establish as a stand-alone. Then the real intoxilyzer test which is evidentiary and holds up in court. Its also a 200lb machine that costs over 20k. So, the issue is the police need to establish probable cause monthly can detain, transport to the jail/station, and require the evidentiary breath test. The Standardized Field Sobriety Test, SFST, is, contrary to popular belief, not a "pass/fail" but rather a series of procedures designed to detect signs of impairment.
SFST is not required to arrest and charge. Charges can be filed whenever there is probable cause. If your driving, slurred speech, and appearance are enough to establish PC, the SFST isn't necessary. The PBT will be foregone, as well, but the evidentiary breath or blood draw will be conducted to add concrete evidence to the case.
SFST is useful because it can reasonably estimate, within a margin of error, both intoxication and level of intoxication. So, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, erratic driving, but a perfect SFST may not be actual DUI, but maybe a mental/medical emergency or distracted driving combined with other circumstantial factors.
Source: law school, practice, and prior law enforcement.
rojoshow13@reddit
They have handheld breathalyzers. And I wish more people knew this but we're not obligated by law to do the field sobriety tests which aren't pass/fail tests anyway. We're not obligated to do the handheld breathalyzers either. If the cops have what they think is probable cause to arrest you then let them and take the breathalyzer they have at the jail, which is the only one that is admissable in court anyway. Even if you blow zeros on the handheld breathalyzer they might still arrest you... you wouldn't believe how many ways they have to justify it. Fuck the police, and don't drive drunk.
RickyRagnarok@reddit
They have field breathalyzer tests, but the only one that is admissible in court is the one back at the station (generally) and youâre already arrested for suspicion of DUI by the time theyâve got you blowing into that one.
therealdrewder@reddit
A breathalyzer is considered a search. The field sobriety test is designed to establish probable cause to authorize the search. On top of that field breathalyzers aren't considered reliable enough to hold up in court. If pulled over a person should refuse to perform a fst as the results can only damage you and unlike a station breathalyzer or blood test, you can't be forced to do a fst.
3X_Cat@reddit
Most Americans are terrified to be arrested. They think Bubba is going to rape them in jail. But Bubba isn't in the drunk tank. Nobody gonna rape you.
Outlaw_Josie_Snails@reddit
Yes, they are common in the US.
Stop taking what you see in Hollywood TV shows and movies as gospel.
We do
Same thing in the US
3X_Cat@reddit
Most Americans don't know that field sobriety tests are voluntary in all 50 states. They also don't realize that FSTests aren't definitive, there's no pass or fail, that passing one is 100% up to officers discretion. And that officers must collar a certain number of DUIs every shift. So people demand FST to "prove" to the officer that they're sober. In my state, police are required to carry breathalyzers but people continue to demand field sobriety tests.
Low-Landscape-4609@reddit
Retired police officer here. It's just an evidentiary test. The officer doesn't have to offer it.
You typically pull over a suspicious vehicle based on the way they are driving. That is your probable cause for the stop.
After that, you can pull the motorist out and offer standardized field sobriety testing. The motors can refuse if they choose.
You can also do a preliminary breath test on the side of the road. That's not a breathalyzer but most people get confused and think it is.
If the officer makes the determination that you appear under the influence, they will take you for an evidentiary test. This is usually a blood test or breathalyzer.
Once again, these tests can be refused but these are two tests that are used after the arrest for evidentiary purposes.
With body cameras, it's a whole lot easier because you now have video evidence. Even if you refuse every test, if your actions appear that you're under the influence, that's just more evidence in the court system.
Mrlin705@reddit
As someone who was pulled over for being "under the influence" when I was 18. I can assure you, it's not that we the people are confused about what a breathalyzer is, it's that we aren't familiarized with the deceptive tactics used to trick us into providing "evidence" vs otherwise.
Especially young people, they are just scared and don't know what to do in a fender bender, let alone when a type A authority figure is giving them commands they don't know they can refuse.
To say it's confusion is just ignorant, show me the educational tools that teach us any of this.
Low-Landscape-4609@reddit
That's why they say there's no excuse for ignorance of the law. It's your job to know your state laws. Especially nowadays, they're all free to research online.
Most state laws are very easy to understand.
Not to mention, law enforcement officers can't judge you in a trial or send you to prison. They have a very low standard which is probable cause. That just means that they have reason to believe that you may have committed a crime and that's why the court system takes over.
As you know, being charged with a crime does not mean you're guilty. More cases get dismissed than cases that go to trial.
Osric250@reddit
Except ignorance of the law is an excuse for cops when they overstep their bounds and violate your rights. Do the average citizen is held to a higher standard than those who are actively hired to enforce those laws.Â
Mrlin705@reddit
Obviously you would counter with that. Very little of what I said is ignorance of the law, aside from the fact you don't have to comply with deceptive tactics. Even so, you're likely voluntarily subjecting yourself to overaggressive, power drunk, officers.
Everyone knows being under the influence is against the law. They don't know how they can be fucked six ways to Sunday by trusting our public servants on anything they say.
Prior to being a police officer, did you know every single law, what methods would be used to collect evidence against you, justified or otherwise, and how to protect yourself?
Even reading everything in this thread as an adult with legal insurance, I don't know exactly what to do if I was pulled over with suspicion of being under the influence. Obviously, ignore everything you would say and refuse. How do I contact my lawyer? It's in a portal through MetLife, are you going to give me my phone to find that information?
Again, show me the educational tools available for any of this.
Low-Landscape-4609@reddit
As a police officer, you only have to know criminal law. There's a lot of civil laws as well. You have your laws you enforce everyday and laws that you don't really come across much.
Not to mention, you've got a legal manual rot in your cruiser. If you're unsure of a law, you just look up the elements and determine what to charge with. After a few years on the job, you get pretty familiar with the elements of all the common crimes you come across.
Once again, it's only your job to determine probable cause is a police officer. You don't get to act as judge, jury and executioner. Your job is simply to charge somebody and take them in front of the court system.
I'm retired now my friend. Same applies to me. If I get out and do something stupid, it's my thought. That's why they say ignorance of the law is no excuse.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
oh, i had this explained very coherently in driver's ed that and the search rule.
OutrageousQuantity12@reddit
I was a research assistant for the current field sobriety tests, and I agree with every YouTube lawyer when they say DO NOT EVER CONSENT TO A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST.
I was the âwarmupâ subject for the officers they brought in for the study. I got a FST done 6 days a week for 6 weeks with 36 different officers before I started my shift babysitting drunk guys and swapping signs for the driving course.
34 of the 36 officers swore I was drunk or high after straight up acing the FST while being stone cold sober. I stood on one leg better than a flamingo, did the heel-toe walk in a way that would make Simone Biles jealous, and followed the pen tip so well I canât think of a funny line for that test. All 34 of them swore I knew some trick for the breathalyzer machine when I blew 0.00 after they said I was shitfaced, none of them said âoh wow Iâm glad Iâm getting extra FST training, I had that wrongâ
If the officer is asking you to do a FST, theyâve already made up their mind that you are drunk and youâre going to jail that night regardless of how well you perform. Just decline the FST, shut up, and get a decent lawyer.
fasterthanfood@reddit
Iâve watched the Tiger Woods footage, and honestly, I donât think he seems impaired at all â despite the fact that I also fully believe he was driving under the influence.
Like lie detector tests, it seems like something that shouldnât even be legal.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
don't believe a short video you see on TV - also some drunks and people high can short term appear extremely coherent. in an accident like this - check sobriety is 100% gonna happen
OutrageousQuantity12@reddit
One note from the drunk driving study I worked on. Some guys seemed completely coherent at 0.12 BAC and other guys were trashed/throwing up before we could get them to 0.08
fasterthanfood@reddit
Agreed, thatâs my point though: the field sobriety test can be interpreted as saying someone is impaired when theyâre not (like OPâs case) and can also be interpreted as saying someone whoâs high and/or drunk is fine. If thereâs reason to believe someone consumed something, why not skip right to testing them for substances?
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Some people make it easy for the cops - some people don't. that's also why the checked the car.
CaptainPunisher@reddit
Decline all searches and seizures except AS REQUIRED BY LAW and verbally invoke your 4th and 5th amendment rights. Then, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Just remaining silent isn't enough and can be twisted as you acting abnormally or suspiciously.
OutrageousQuantity12@reddit
Good point about invoking your 4th/5th rights.
CaptainPunisher@reddit
If you don't do it verbally, there's often no legal recourse later on.
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
Thanks so much for your explanation. I didnt realise a breath tester and breathalyzer were different, but that makes sense. In NZ, you get pulled over, stay in your car, the police officer pops the breath machine through the open window and asks you to breath into it. Its either a pass or a fail. If its a fail, they ask you to accompany them to the station for an evidentiary breath or blood test which will give an actual reading. This is then determined if you are over the limit or not. We also have drug tests in the field where they scrape the tongue to test for MDMA, THC, Methamphetamine, cocaine etc
whitecollarredneck@reddit
What do they do if the person has no alcohol in their system, but appears to be under the influence of something else?Â
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
In NZ we have field drug tests too. They scrape the tongue and it will indicate if the person has had THC, MDMA, Methamphetamine, Cocaine etc. If they fail this test, then off the go to the station for blood tests. You can also just be 'done' for dangerous driving, so if they were seen driving erratically but passed all the breath and drugs tests, they can still be charged with dangerous driving
Jamesiefied@reddit
Saliva drug tests aren't widely used in the US for roadside drug tests because they aren't as accurate as blood tests, especially in the case of THC, which can be detected as many as 3 days after consumption (well into sobriety). Most local courts don't recognize saliva tests as evidence of impairment in traffic incidents.
OfficialDeathScythe@reddit
Fun fact, THC can actually be detected in the blood for MONTHS after consumption, which is why even a blood test is very inaccurate when it comes to THC. Someone who smokes every night but never in the morning or before driving could easily test way higher than someone who just smoked their first joint and are genuinely impaired.
Itâs not a fair assessment especially to medical patients, who, after heavy use for medical purposes, could quit for 3+ months and still test higher than some people who are actively high, or go 6+ months and still have a detectable amount in their system
United_Gift3028@reddit
Dang, we need that in the US.
Low-Landscape-4609@reddit
That's what the blood test is for. It was actually far more common in my jurisdiction to find somebody on pain medication than alcohol.
The way I look at it, at the end of the day, you're taking a non-safe driver off the road so who cares how it turns on in court. Doesn't matter. As long as they're in a safe place and people on the roadway are safe, that's all that matters.
vwsslr200@reddit
One big difference between the US and NZ is that in the US, the courts are very skeptical of portable breath tests as sole evidence of probable cause for arrest. Another thing relatively unique to the US if the initial arrest is ruled improper, the entire criminal case is invalidated even if there's "smoking gun" evidence collected later (blood test, station breathalyzer, etc).
For these reasons cops in the US virtually always do a field sobriety test when they want to make a DUI arrest (unless the suspect is physically incapable of taking the test), to make sure they have a watertight case. Some cops in the US carry portable breath testers, but these are generally just used for supplementary purposes, not as the primary justification for arrest.
As a bonus the field sobriety test provides more evidence, on top of the blood test and/or station breathalyzer, that can be used in trial (which the portable breath test can't). This is especially useful if they want to convict someone who tested below the limit.
TsundereLoliDragon@reddit
They are a thing. This has been asked 100 times in this sub.
Smokinsumsweet@reddit
There are two separate issues. Driving over the legal limit, and driving while intoxicated. You can be guilty of either one and not the other. I just sat on a drunk driving jury over the summer so I feel pretty well versed in this now. The field sobriety test proves that they're behaving in a way that shows they are intoxicated and guilty of that charge. The breathalyzer only shows that they are over the legal limit.
rawbface@reddit
We literally invented them.
No-Lunch4249@reddit
In the US, a breathalyzer is considered a search of your person.
Under our constitution, the police have to have a good reason to do such a search.
Starting with the field sobriety test allows them to establish (or not) that reasoning.
BakedBrie1993@reddit
They are but we have a right to not self-incriminate and can decline to take the breath test on the side of the road.
jrhawk42@reddit
In the US police need reasonable cause. They need a reason to pull you over. They need a reason to give you a field sobriety test, and they need a reason to give you a breathalyzer test.
So it goes like this. They cop sees you go out of your lane. This gives them a reason to pull you over. They ask where you came from, ask when your last drink was, or will mention they smell alcohol. They now have a reason to give you a field sobriety test. They say you failed the field sobriety test then they give you a breathalyzer test.
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
I think thats what I am learning most from these answers is about "probable cause". That isnt really a thing here in NZ. You can be pulled up at any time just randomly. Any breath test I have ever done has been random. Not due to dangerous behaviour or suspicious circumstances. We have "booze bus" stops where several cops line 2 sides of the street and pull iver every single car gling through, a quick breath test is performed while you stay in your car, then you are waved on. If you fail the test, the you are asked to pull over and enter the booze bus for a evidentiary breath or blood test
ayebrade69@reddit
Breathalyzer tests are considered a search and we are protected from unreasonable searches under the 4th amendment. The cops canât just search your breath for no reason
YaBoiAir@reddit
canât breathalyze meth
nowordsleft@reddit
More than just alcohol can impair your ability to drive a car.
DrMindbendersMonocle@reddit
They do blood tests at the station
Crazy_Raven_Lady@reddit
Americans also feel this way. I feel like the field sobriety test is just a way to publically humiliate you and embarrass you for fun. After that charade they always do a breathalyzer.
Total-Fruit-6583@reddit
A field sobriety test is something you have a right to refuse and you can still be arrested for failing one of these test while not being intoxicated. Which leads to a higher arrest rate which is a goal for some police departments. A breathalyzer leaves law enforcement with little room for interpretation leading to a lower rate. So itâs nothing more than a police tactic.
smile_saurus@reddit
Cops carry an Alco-Check which detects alcohol. If a person submits to that test ("breath-alizer") and it is positive then that prompts the field sobriety tests.
There is the finger count test (touching your finger to your thumb one at a time saying 1,2,3,4 then 4,3,2,1). The ABCs (say the alphabet starting with the letter F without singing). The Walk and Turn (walking 9 steps heel to toe, turning around and doing the same heel-to-toe 9 steps - without using your arms for balance). The NYSTAGMUS test (to see if the eyes get screwy when they aren't supposed to if you're sober, to simplify the description of the test). The One Legged Stand (raise one foot off the ground and tilt your head back without using your arms for balance for X amount of time).
The breathalizer gives the green light for the rest of the tests, legally. If you fail the rest of the tests you are arrested and then given another kind of breath test at the booking station.
Some states hold you in jail, some will release you to a sober party. But you'll still have to go to court for it and could lose your driver's license, and there are some hefty fines & fees to get it back. And that's after all of the attorney and court fees.
nowhereman136@reddit
A lot of good answers here. It's also worth mentioning that you can legally refuse a field sobriety test. They will still arrest you, but it will give you time to sober up and hopefully think your way out of the situation (this doesn't work, but people think it does). You can refuse the breathalyzer and instead opt for the walking test. A person may think they cant trick the breathalyzer but can still pass the walking test
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Its very very unlikely if you are at .08 you are going to sober up quickly enough to be okay on another test.
nowhereman136@reddit
Right, but a person over 0.8 likely isn't thinking that
mezolithico@reddit
You should always refuse a field sobriety test sobriety test -- there is no legal penalty for doing so in almost every state. Field sobriety tests give an enormous amount of leeway in how the officer perceives impairment. You should always demand a breathalyzer or blood test.
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
you can physically refuse a blood test for a DUI, but doing so triggers automatic administrative penalties under "implied consent" laws in all U.S. states, typically resulting in immediate license suspension (12-18 months) and potential criminal penalties, regardless of innocence. While data varies widely (1% to 82%), roughly one in four drivers arrested for DWI refuses a BAC tes
mezolithico@reddit
Field sobriety test refusal cannot be used against you and has no legal consequences in most states. Breathalyzers as you said generally fall under implied consent
cofeeholik75@reddit
Cops do FSTâs (field sobriety tests) to help build a case against you. The tests are voluntary, you should always refuse the tests.
chimugukuru@reddit
Yes breathalyzers are definitely a thing.
Nottacod@reddit
And if you refuse-they take you and get blood drawn.
DrWooolyNipples@reddit
That never happens unless you kill a family of 4 or something. Most times refusal to blow is its own crime but theyâre not jumping through hoops with you to get blood lol
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
That's absolutely false - most states let you say no but if they suspect you of being drunk or high, you still may get arrested and likely blood will often be drawn and tested
DrWooolyNipples@reddit
Of course youâre still getting arrested. But theyâre not taking you to a hospital to get blood drawn unless thereâs extreme circumstances or a warrant.
Lawyers will advise not blowing, and people refuse often. I assure you the police arenât carting in countless people to the ER every night for refusing
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
Actually, that happens more frequently than you realize. you can refuse but that's a bigger problem as some states will immediately suspend your license for a refusal.
DrWooolyNipples@reddit
Uhhh yeah. âRefusal to blow is a crime on its ownâ is what I said in my original comment lmfao
EaglesFanGirl@reddit
You can refused to blow but usually they'll make you take a different test - thats the one that will get you.
CuppaJoe11@reddit
Itâs because breathalyzers only test for alcohol. But you could be impaired for any number of reasons.
Every time a field sobriety test is conducted on a yt channel all the comments are âwhy not just give a breathalyzer?â
Itâs because if you are taking any other substances, the breathalyzer wonât detect it. Every country should do field sobriety tests on top of breathalyzers.
RickySlayer9@reddit
Field sobriety tests are so subjective if the cop wants to get you they will find reasons, which is why they use them.
Also there isnât a weed, cocaine or other drug breathalyzer.
In all states, you can refuse a field sobriety test, in most states you can refuse a breathalyzer.
You can technically refuse the blood test at the station too, but it costs you your license basically everywhere.
Yes breathylizers exist. Theyâre common
BuckyDoneGun@reddit
OP, you do not "go back to the station for a blood test" in NZ. You can chose to have a blood test if you want, but the only requirement is to provide an evidential test. Breath test is the first choice (on a different machine to the handhelds), blood is your choice. Also you'd only go back to the station if you were pulled over, at a checkpoint you would just be processed in the "booze bus".
A common old wives tale is "if your drinking was recent, take the blood test before the booze hits you!" which lol, is total bullshit.
azorianmilk@reddit
Field sobriety tests are just further proof of evidence. Breathalyzers are used but they can be faulty
Elbarto_007@reddit
I know what you mean. I am in Australia. Like watching COPS and they do these field tests on the drivers. Just get them do the breath analyser or a drug test
theycallmethevault@reddit
They need to make sure youâve not had anything to drink in the previous 20 minutes before they breathalyze you, so they do the sobriety tests first.
DJPaige01@reddit
It's called probable cause. You have to have a reason to conduct a breathalyzer.
USAF_Retired2017@reddit
You can refuse a breathalyzer. My husband is a cop and he said if you ever get pulled over for suspicion of DUI/DWI, donât take the breathalyzer. Ha ha. Neither of us drink, so, itâs not a problem for us, but hey, good info for someone out there.
ratchetcoutoure@reddit
Yes, breathalyzers (specifically Portable Breath Testers or PBTs) are used in the USA, but police often use Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs), such as walking a straight line, to establish "probable cause" for an arrest. FSTs check for physical impairment from alcohol or drugs, are cost-effective, and provide admissible evidence of impairment, whereas breathalyzers only detect alcohol. Officers need evidence of impairment to justify an arrest. FSTs like the walk and turn, one leg stand, or horizontal gaze nystagmus are standardized tests designed to prove to a jury that a person was unfit to drive. While a breathalyzer gives a number, FSTs provide visual evidence of impairment (i.e., poor balance, inability to follow instructions) that a jury can easily understand.
RevoRadish@reddit
OG Aussie, STD Kiwi and American passport holder here that has worked in law enforcement (unsworn).
The States has a whole thing about probable cause. Breathalysers are totally a thing for the most part but canât be used until probable cause is established.
So the field test is kind of a test for the rozzers to establish that yeah this guy is drunk as a skunk.
As always with America itâs variable state by state.
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
Thats interesting about probable cause, as Im sure you know, our cops can just make a check point with the booze bus on a Weekday morning in the main street of town and just stop and breath test every car that drives passed. Anyone who sees the booze bus and gets nervous may go to head down a side street, where there will be other cops waiting to catch them out.
RevoRadish@reddit
Yup. Same in Aussie.
Outside of legal reasons Iâve also got the theory that American cops are just way busier with more serious crimes.
Even as an Australian I couldnât believe it that in NZ the police just randomly come into the pub and ask to see your ID.
Living_Substance9973@reddit
They do in Australia too.
Tav17-17@reddit
Breathalyzers are a thing and used for most DUIs. They also can do blood draws. Every state has a law that says if you refuse to do a breathalyzer your license is automatically suspended for a year. Some states have made it a criminal offense. And after a refusal in every state they can just get a warrant for a blood draw and take that by force.
The field sobriety tests give police more evidence and test for any type of impairment not just alcohol and not even just illegal drugs. You can refuse to do them and there will be no legal repercussions. A lot of drunk people who are pulled over think they can do the tests and end up just providing more evidence to be used against them later.
Pemminpro@reddit
They do both but we can also refuse. The smart offender isn't going to to self incriminate and try to by time to get under the legal limit/ go for a lesser charge like reckless driving.
expomac@reddit
Yes?
Highway_Man87@reddit
Breathalyzing someone before an officer establishes probable cause would be a violation of our fourth amendment rights (protection from unreasonable searches and seizures). Because of this, police officers will ask the driver to perform a field sobriety test to establish probable cause so they can legally use the breathalyzer on the driver without violating the driver's rights. The breathalyzer they use can either be a field breathalyzer or the breathalyzer at the police station, or both.Â
A driver can refuse to perform the tests, but in most states that's considered an admission of guilt and most states will revoke your driver's license for refusal.Â
jquailJ36@reddit
Roadside models are not as accurate. That also only says if they're drunk. There are a lot of other ways to be legally impaired.
SabresBills69@reddit
not all officers have this equipment and what they have is faulty and would not hold up in court. after an arrest at the station they do have much better equipment to do this
cwcam86@reddit
Because those roadside breathe tests arent super accurate. They can add more evidence to a cops probable cause that someone is intoxicated though.
But if someone is high instead of drunk then its doing nothing.
That's why they do the roadside tests to determine if someone is intoxicated/unfit to be driving.
direwolf106@reddit
Why would a cop go with something objective when they can see what they want and have the courts pretend itâs objective?
ghjm@reddit
This is a state thing, not a federal thing, so there are 50 different answers.Â
In North Carolina, roadside breathalyzers are rarely used for actual prosecutions because many cases have been dismissed based on their unreliability. To get a conviction the police would rather get you in to the station for a blood test, which is much harder to argue with. But to do that they need cause to arrest you. That's the real purpose of a breathalyzer or field sobriety test - they want you to fail or refuse it so they can take you in. And of course, since they know it's never going to be used as evidence anyway, there are no standards for how they use it.
Our neighbor Tennessee has been in the news lately for hundreds of DUI arrests and even convictions where the person had 0.0% blood alcohol.
TK1129@reddit
Here in New York, if youâre believed to be impaired theyâll do a field sobriety test to confirm or disprove their suspicion. You can take it or refuse. If you refuse you can be locked up on the suspicion where youâll be brought to a station house with a breathalyzer and the test is filmed. You can refuse that and be charged based on the observation. If you take it and fail youâll be charged and that test will be used as evidence. Since state laws differ, New York courts have determined that taking blood for a test without the consent of the person constitutes an illegal search. In order for the police to obtain a blood sample to test, they must apply for a warrant. In most cases judges will grant the warrant if thereâs serious injury to a person other than the driver.
Side note- 20+ years ago in college I got out of work and picked my then gf up from a party. She was bombed. A few minutes into the ride to my apt she projectile puked all over the inside of the car and me. I slammed on my brakes and pulled to the curb. The car behind me was a cop car. He stopped questioned me and due to smelling like booze through the puke thought I was drunk. He gave me a field sobriety test which I donât think I impressed him with because I couldnât stand on 1 foot for as long as he wanted but I had other things on my mind, mainly the puke covering me and congealing on the interior of my car. He asked if I wanted to change my story I said no sir can you just breathalyze me? He asked if Iâm sure thatâs what I wanted, said yes and proceeded to blow a 0.0. He said ok son youâre free to go and sorry about the inside of your car.
machagogo@reddit
They are absolutely a thing.
Breathalyzers only test alcohol, field sobriety tests give a baseline to test for other things.
I hope in you country when a person is swerving down the road police don't just let them go because they breathalyzed and blew a 0.0.
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
Thanks for your answer. And absolutely not, if you're swerving etc but blow a zero, you will still be done for dangerous driving even if you are sober. We also have field tests (tongue scrape) for drugs. I also learnt too that NZ doesn't need the 'probable cause' thing that cops need in the States. In NZ you can pulled up completely randomly and asked to do a breath test. I for one have probably been breath tested 6 or 7 times in my adult life, and none were due to erratic driving. Purely random. A couple times after leaving a concert and the others on a weekday morning dropping my kids to school. (Passed them all, for the record đ)
Kanya_Mkavry@reddit
I always figured they do the field sobriety tests to get your reaction. If they keep you talking and annoyed, you might say something that can be used in court.
LikelyNotSober@reddit
They certainly use them- although in some places they can ask you to take one for no reason.
Usually police have to have probably cause to stop you or compel a breath test here, like driving erratically, smelling like alcohol during a traffic stop, etc.
If they determine youâre drunk, theyâll have you repeat the test at the more expensive/calibrated machine that they have at the police station.
United_Gift3028@reddit
Some times, they'll cut you a break, if you're not actually impaired. Pass the one foot, touch nose stuff, they may let you on your way. A breathalyzer is a zero tolerance device. Blow too high, off you go.
SirFelsenAxt@reddit
It depends on the jurisdiction. In Florida for instance, you can still get a DUI even if you are under .08% blood alcohol (The legal limit) if the officer deems you to be sufficiently impaired.
If you were under 21 it's .02%.
pixienightingale@reddit
They do that, but they need the field exercises to have videographed proof.
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
Makes sense. Our police dont wear cameras (I dont think), so that could be another reason these field tests aren't used.
pixienightingale@reddit
It's really a CYA kinda thing - as long as it's documented, they have the evidence to back it up.
TumbleFairbottom@reddit
Breathalyzers were invented in the US.
Stuffed-Bear412@reddit
They do those too. But if they expect me to recite the alphabet backwards, I'm going to have to go slow.
Leaf-Stars@reddit
Because failing a heavily biased field sobriety test allows them to bring charges even if youâre not intoxicated.
Irak00@reddit
Breathalyzers are administered both roadside & at a jail/police stations. Roadside tests use portable devices to establish probable cause for arrest and are generally not admissible in court. Tests at the station are more accurate & are used in court.
Critical_Profile4291@reddit
We have breathalyzers too, Iâm not sure why they do both. But now that Iâm thinking about it, I kind of love that we have to pass this weird gauntlet of tests to prove sobriety
Helpful-Structure955@reddit (OP)
I gave up alcohol 5 years ago, but if I had to do the walking talking test these days, Id be worried Id fail due to nerves or clumsiness!
Individual_Check_442@reddit
Thereâs been many stories of people telling officers âI couldnât even do that if I was sober!â Oops.
FinanceGuyHere@reddit
I keep a cheap one in my car just in case so I can verify that Iâm good to drive. Used it last night after Iâd had a few, then drank nothing at dinner and sobered up. Wasnât sure if I was ok so I tested myself.
As others mentioned, you can get a DUI for things other than alcohol and can even get a similar charge for simply being tired and driving erratically
Until--Dawn33@reddit
Bc we have the right to refuse a breath test. If we do they take us to the station and draw blood to do a blood test. Many drunk drivers think that by the time they get to the station and are processed that the alcohol limits will be significantly less, but the court system always takes that into consideration, and now they have alcohol tests that go back 48 hours.. If you refuse the blood test as well,you need an attorney to get out or you sit in jail and will definitely have to face a judge.
Individual_Check_442@reddit
Lawyers. They just want to collect as much evidence as they can, even if you fail the breath test, you can try to get out on so e technicality or something.
tacogordita91@reddit
I've never heard of any tongue scraping technology used here. So they've decided that field sobriety tests are the next best thing for determining impairment regardless of substance. Breathalyzers are definitely frequently used for alcohol but people have a right to refuse them, which typically leads to them getting more severe charges. Blood tests are often used too, but later in the process
Deep_Contribution552@reddit
Not a cop here: I always assumed the other tests were some sort of process to justify breaking out the breathalyzer, like being asked to walk along a line is less invasive and easier to justify to a court than going straight for a chemical test. Depending on when and where you are in the US, following due process can be a big deal (unfortunately not necessarily for everyone).
Unsolven@reddit
They have breathalyzers but generally they give you a field sobriety test beforehand. When they suspect youâre impaired they administer the breathalyzer.
Dr_Watson349@reddit
They are a thing and you should always refuse one unless you are 100% sober.Â
band-of-horses@reddit
Portable breathallyzers are usually not calibrated and certified, so they are good for a quick indication but usually won't be admissible in court. Generally when a breathalyzer is needed they will determine that from field tests and then transport the person to the station to use the official calibrated non-portable test. If a person is not cooperative then depending on state laws they may also obtain a warrant for a blood draw to test for intoxication that way.
Some offers will use a portable breath tester in the field but not everyone carries them since they have to use the one at the station anyway.
thatsad_guy@reddit
If I recall correctly, Tiger took a breathalyzer and blew 0's. He was under the influence of other stuff.
CarelessCreamPie@reddit
Those field sobriety tests are a "gotcha". People comply because they think they have to, but really it's just a cop using a qualitative justification to arrest you because he's a dick.
People should refuse field tests and only do breathalyzer tests.
Vachic09@reddit
I think that this may need to be added to the FAQs... we seem to be getting a question about breathalyzers/field sobriety tests every month or so.
FivebyFive@reddit
Police can't compell a breathalyzer without reasonable suspicion.Â
So the field sobriety tests help them do that.
Also, they help them gather evidence of intoxication, so even if you pass a breathalyzer later they can still charge you if you fail the field tests.Â
Most DUI stops will end with a breathalyzer. If not on the scene, then at the station.
IsopodKey2040@reddit
Because they are trying to get you to say or do something incriminating
go-vols-28@reddit
We have the breath test too, but itâs in addition to everything you named. Also thereâs some of it thatâs state dependent.Â