NationStates Jolt Archive

Here in the UK, if a police officer suspects you of drinking alcohol and you're at the wheel of a car he can stop you and insist that you take a breathalyser test. Refusing such a test is essentially the same as admitting your guilt and you'll be taken to a police station where you'll get the opportunity to either give one there, provide a urine sample, or a blood sample. Or you can refuse the lot and be charged with failure to provide a sample, which I believe is an automatic 18 month driving ban.

Now, I've been led to believe that in the USA the standard roadside alcohol tests are simple physical examinations involving coordination, reasoning, logic, and verbal response. Which is fair enough since it's quite easy to detect when someone is patently drunk... but not necessarily effective on those marginally over the permissable legal limit.

But this is the bit that scares me: about a year ago I came across a conversation in a chatroom where 4 or 5 guys were discussing how they learned the alphabet backwards, and challenged each other to straight-line-walking games in order to prepare themselves for being stopped while driving under the influence... So naturally I asked "And does this work?"

Three of them confirmed that as long as you can actually stand and speak, you can pass. None of them had had their license suspended yet all 3 openly admitted to regular drink driving. And one claimed to be under 21 (although I don't remember how old).

Now, as I understand it you cannot breathalyse an American citizen at the roadside because it's unconstitutional, although I may be wrong about this.

What I'd like to know is: is this true? And if so, what do you Americans on here think about the drink-drive laws? What do you think about our UK drink drive laws, having had them pointed out?

Some state police and local police carry portable brethalyzer tests, but most in my experience don't. It's not unconstitutional to give breathalyzers at a traffic stop, most departments simply don't find the extra expense necessary because the standard Field Sobriety Tests work pretty well and cost nothing.

Some parts of the field sobriety test are not what you think they are.
Saying the alphabet correctly is not the important part.

They are looking for gross signs of motor dysfunction. Slurred speech (which you may not notice). Dilation of the pupils (or dilation in one eye and pinpoint in the other). And irregular attempts to regain balance when you're not moving.

There's a neat trick that involves making the person lean their head back. You tell them to focus on your finger (starting at the end of their nose). Slowly move the finger up their face, and back over their head, telling them to follow it up with their eyes.

If they've had too much, they'll fall over backwards, or start to fall down.

These initial tests are done repeatedly in separate ways, and most jurisdictions have a video camera in the car filming you. The officer will generally not take you in to get the breathalyzer unless he knows he has you.

On the other hand, purposeful roadblocks WITH a breathalyzer are set up. You're going to get nailed.

It's better just to have someone do the driving while the rest of you do the drinking.

Now, I've been led to believe that in the USA the standard roadside alcohol tests are simple physical examinations involving coordination, reasoning, logic, and verbal response. Which is fair enough since it's quite easy to detect when someone is patently drunk... but not necessarily effective on those marginally over the permissable legal limit.
Interesting, though I personally believe that since people have different tolerances to the drug. Capability seems like a more reasonable test to me, though blood alcohol level is probably a more surefire way of determining sobriety. Either way, I don't really care much. What is important is thoroughness and accuracy of examination.

Just for note, almost all officers carry brethalyzers, but in the US a citizen has the right to refuse a brethalyzer test, and that refusal is not allowed in as evidense of guilt in court. I know, screwy.

Or at least, this is the standard in Massachusetts, I can't speak for other states, but I think this is a federal law.

Just for note, almost all officers carry brethalyzers, but in the US a citizen has the right to refuse a brethalyzer test, and that refusal is not allowed in as evidense of guilt in court. I know, screwy.
No, it's not. That is one of the beaties of the American legal system (and trust me, there are some ugly ones, but there are indeed substantial numbers of diamonds in the ruff).

But say an officer performs a field sobriety test at Point A and is satisfied that the recipient is OK to drive. 10 miles down the road at point B he loses control and smashes into a pedestrian and kills them. The subsequent breathalyzer test at the police station reveals him to be marginally over the legal limit.

How does that get dealt with? In the UK the situation would not have arisen as he'd have been breathalyzed initially, arrested and removed from causing the fatality. Not that I'm suggesting this happens that often...

Just for note, almost all officers carry brethalyzers, but in the US a citizen has the right to refuse a brethalyzer test, and that refusal is not allowed in as evidense of guilt in court. I know, screwy.

Or at least, this is the standard in Massachusetts, I can't speak for other states, but I think this is a federal law.
In New Jersey refusing a brethalyzer carries the same penalty as drunk driving.

But say an officer performs a field sobriety test at Point A and is satisfied that the recipient is OK to drive. 10 miles down the road at point B he loses control and smashes into a pedestrian and kills them. The subsequent breathalyzer test at the police station reveals him to be marginally over the legal limit.

How does that get dealt with? In the UK the situation would not have arisen as he'd have been breathalyzed initially, arrested and removed from causing the fatality. Not that I'm suggesting this happens that often...

In more rural areas, the breathalyzer is less prevalent in the field.

In the Northeast, and more urban areas, every policeman has one.

Some are even built in to the flashlight, and can detect alcohol at a distance without notifying the person being tested.

Detect alcohol in the car with one of those, and they will make you breathe into it for the test.

In the Northeast, and more urban areas, every policeman has one.

.
Not in New Jersey.

my advice is to live in wyoming. Just a year ago we finally got rid of the law that said outside of city limits you can have a open container. There are sometime dui's but for the most part you have to be smashed to get one.

But say an officer performs a field sobriety test at Point A and is satisfied that the recipient is OK to drive. 10 miles down the road at point B he loses control and smashes into a pedestrian and kills them. The subsequent breathalyzer test at the police station reveals him to be marginally over the legal limit.

How does that get dealt with? In the UK the situation would not have arisen as he'd have been breathalyzed initially, arrested and removed from causing the fatality. Not that I'm suggesting this happens that often...
Ok, I see the point. It probably does work better to require a breathyliser test, or some method of measuring blood-alcohol level. The main arguments against that are that more muscular people metabolise the alcohol faster, and that some people can be over the legal limit but still not be technically intoxicated to an impaired level due to tolerance to alcohol. But it's probably better overall.

I can't speak for all states, but I've been pulled over a few times in Alaska. There is a field sobriety test (walk the line, do the alphabet, blah, blah), but it is always followed by a breathalyzer. As someone said before, the point of the test isn't to see whether you can touch your nose with your eyes closed, but whether you fall down when you try.

Also, in Alaska, refusal to submit to the breathalyzer (or a blood test) equals a DUI. The Mass. thing mentioned above is not a federal law. A friend refused to submit to the test and she lost her license and served her three days, just the same as if she'd blown over an 0.08. Of course it didn't help that she was smashed at the time.

Those people you were chatting with were bragging. I doubt any of them have actually been pulled over while under the influence.

As a couple of other people have mentioned, the sobriety tests are quite accurate. Something trivial like saying the alphabet backwards isn't really what an officer is looking for. Someone who's had a significant amount to drink is extremely unlikely to pass these tests. I'm sure the margin for error is the same in the UK as it is here. Furthermore, if someone *does* pass the tests, chances are they're probably capable of driving.

EDIT: In California, you can refuse a breathalyzer, but only to choose another method (urine or blood). Since the urine and blood tests can only be administerd at the station and police officers will detain you until the tests are taken and.... as you can see, it's not worth it.

But say an officer performs a field sobriety test at Point A and is satisfied that the recipient is OK to drive. 10 miles down the road at point B he loses control and smashes into a pedestrian and kills them. The subsequent breathalyzer test at the police station reveals him to be marginally over the legal limit.

How does that get dealt with? In the UK the situation would not have arisen as he'd have been breathalyzed initially, arrested and removed from causing the fatality. Not that I'm suggesting this happens that often...

If that happens in the U.S., the cop is fucked. As I said above, I've never been pulled over/been in a car that's been pulled over on suspicion of DUI without myself or the driver being offered a breathalyzer or a trip downtown for a blood test. I don't know how it works in states that don't require a chemical test.

Transportation laws are set up by the state, so there is no nation wide law applicable to drunk driving.
In my state, Illinois, the fact that you use the roads means that you automatically submit to breathlyzer tests(as they are owned by the state). If you refuse a test and the officer has reason to suspect DUI, you get a WORSE penalty than if you had just submitted.

Transportation laws are set up by the state, so there is no nation wide law applicable to drunk driving.
In my state, Illinois, the fact that you use the roads means that you automatically submit to breathlyzer tests(as they are owned by the state). If you refuse a test and the officer has reason to suspect DUI, you get a WORSE penalty than if you had just submitted.
If your state wants Federal Highway money then it had better toe the line on .08 BAC. Federal government has found ways to get around the problem mentioned in your opening line.

Transportation laws are set up by the state, so there is no nation wide law applicable to drunk driving.
In my state, Illinois, the fact that you use the roads means that you automatically submit to breathlyzer tests(as they are owned by the state). If you refuse a test and the officer has reason to suspect DUI, you get a WORSE penalty than if you had just submitted.

Sure, states are technically free to do what they like, but the federal govt. has tied DUI and seatbelt laws to fed. highway money. So if states don't go in for "click it or ticket" and the 0.08 standard, they're screwed.

EDIT: Friggin' Drunk Commies.

i live in Canada and although i'm not sure whether one is forced to take a breathalyzer test, we have this thing (in Ontario at least) called the R.I.D.E. program. basically the cops set up a roadblock at random intersections and breathalyze everyone that passes. so you never know where they're going to be. some people actually seek them out in the winter months because they give out free ice scrapers to help visibility. They don't do this in every city, but in Bramton where i live they print the names twice a week on the front page of the papaer of everyone over the age of 18 (in Canada you can't release the names of minors under law) who has been caught. I don't know what the stats are on it's deterrency but, it sure is funny!

i live in Canada and although i'm not sure whether one is forced to take a breathalyzer test, we have this thing (in Ontario at least) called the R.I.D.E. program. basically the cops set up a roadblock at random intersections and breathalyze everyone that passes. so you never know where they're going to be. some people actually seek them out in the winter months because they give out free ice scrapers to help visibility. They don't do this in every city, but in Bramton where i live they print the names twice a week on the front page of the papaer of everyone over the age of 18 (in Canada you can't release the names of minors under law) who has been caught. I don't know what the stats are on it's deterrency but, it sure is funny!
What are the penalties like in Candada? In NJ for a first offense they suspend one's license for 6 months, impose fines in the thousands of dollars, and force the convicted to pay "surcharges" of $3,000. Fines that are paid directly to the auto insurance industry as a bribe to keep doing business in NJ.

I think they're considering amputation of the right foot as an additional penalty next year.

the legal limit here is 0.08%. if you get caught over that limit you will be charged which could carry a jail term of up to three years depending on the circumstance. you also will lose your licence for 90 days. however if you have a reading under the limit, but more than 0.05% the police can temporarily suspend your liscence for 12 hours. which sucks for getting home, i would expect.
if you get in am accident while under the influence, you can go to jail for up to ten years. which is a looooong time people!

of course each time you get caught the consequences get worse. we have a demerit point system, so anything bad you do in your car loses points. at certain amounts of lost points you have to go to training, get your licence taken away for much longer, you go to jail. i guess the main difference is you guys have to pay lots of money, we have to pay lots of jail time. people get jailed all the time for this kind of thing here.

of course each time you get caught the consequences get worse. we have a demerit point system, so anything bad you do in your car loses points. at certain amounts of lost points you have to go to training, get your licence taken away for much longer, you go to jail. i guess the main difference is you guys have to pay lots of money, we have to pay lots of jail time. people get jailed all the time for this kind of thing here.
We get jail time too, but you have to do it two or three times.

What I'd like to know is: is this true? And if so, what do you Americans on here think about the drink-drive laws? What do you think about our UK drink drive laws, having had them pointed out?Yes and no on the truth part. Laws vary by state but generally roadside sobriety tests are used to determine if further testing/investigation is warrented, they usually never use that to prosecute alone. You have a choice of giving blood, urine or submitting to a breathalyzer. You can refuse, but that means an automatic suspension of your license.

As for beating the roadside sobriety test, I would bet money those guys in the chat room were blowing smoke. They do more than make you walk a line or say your alphabet backwards. The tests are designed to show your motor skills and practice isn't gonna help there. Also the officer is allowed to use things like smell or other indicators to determine if other tests should be given (blood alcohol tests).

My Father was a CHP (California Highway Patrolman) up until his death. He showed me probably 10 different roadside tests they use. Practice all you want, but it won't help you when you're drunk and they make you close your eyes and lean your head back and hold it while concentrating on other tasks. If your drunk sooner or later you'll either open your eyes or sway or stumble.

That's what these guys don't realize, most of the 'tests' they give you are somewhat misleading, distracting you with physical movements so the officer can assess your demeanor, balance and reaction time. There also is no set standard for "passing", you can do fine on the roadside and the officer can still decide a blood alcohol test is warrented based on other factors.

Now, as I understand it you cannot breathalyse an American citizen at the roadside because it's unconstitutional, although I may be wrong about this.


The purpose of the field sobriety test is to establish "probable cause." This is not only required in order to arrest and convict an individual of impaired driving, it is also required in order to collect additional evidence (i.e.: breathalyzer tests). Evidence collected without establishing "probable cause" is not admissable in court. You will find that even at a roadblock where random breathalyzer tests are being administered, a field sobriety test is also going to be administered before an individual is arrested.

Whether you agree or disagree with them, these procedures are in place in order to protect the rights of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States and a defense attorney will have you walking free in no time if they are not followed.

most of the time you don't get jailed on the first offence, but its up to the cops descretion how they want to charge you, so NO MEAN DRUNKS! seriously, its really up to how they feel like handling it that day, which is kind of scary.

The purpose of the field sobriety test is to establish "probable cause."

Usually, the officers have probable cause before they even pull you over. They don't just stop people at random. If you weave, if you don't signal a turn, if you run a stop sign, whatever. That's the cause.

You can ace a field sobriety test and, depending on the state, you'll still get the breathalyzer.

Usually, the officers have probable cause before they even pull you over. They don't just stop people at random. If you weave, if you don't signal a turn, if you run a stop sign, whatever. That's the cause.

You can ace a field sobriety test and, depending on the state, you'll still get the breathalyzer.
Dude, cops don't really need probable cause to pull you over. Back when I was dealing the cops stoped me for "swerving within my lane". How can you be swerving if you never leave your lane? They didn't care about traffic violations. They had arrested me before, and thought they might try to search my vehicle in case I had anything illegal in there.

You will find that even at a roadblock where random breathalyzer tests are being administered, a field sobriety test is also going to be administered before an individual is arrested. I have never seen random beathalyzer tests given, even at sobriety check points. Even roadside tests are only given to those that physical observation deems warrented. Also as I stated in my other post other factors besides the roadside sobriety test can be used to establish probable cause.

Since most states now have "Driving under the influence" laws instead of the old "driving while intoxicated" that expand the concept to include drugs of various sorts, something as simple as pupil dialation can be used as probable cause.

Dude, cops don't really need probable cause to pull you over. Back when I was dealing the cops stoped me for "swerving within my lane". How can you be swerving if you never leave your lane? They didn't care about traffic violations. They had arrested me before, and thought they might try to search my vehicle in case I had anything illegal in there.

No, no, what I'm saying is that the police don't conduct a field sobriety test to give cause for a breathalyzer. If they see you do something that suggests you could be drunk, like swerving, that's sufficient cause.

The field sobriety test, as mentioned above, allows the officers to get a general sense of a driver's condition. After all, you can get a DUI for being baked out of your mind, and that don't register on a breathalyzer.

Back in my younger days, when I used to pull such stupid stunts, I got pulled over three times after drinking. Once I was given a breathelizer immediately, and barely passed.

Another time he didn't even make me get out of the car. I'd neglected to turn on my headlights so he pulled me over. It was on 6th street in Austin, which is a major party spot. If you're there and not drinking, I don't know what the hell you're doing there. Before the cop got out of his car some guy hollered at my from the sidewalk telling me my lights weren't on.(6th street has literally thousands of pedestrians on weekends) I turned on my lights real quick. The cop asked me if I knew why he pulled me over. I just grinned sheepishly and told him I forgot to turn my lights on.(6th street is pretty well lit). He let me go, but if the guy hadn't hollered at my I'd never had known.

The last time (scared me enough to behave after that) I left the bar about 4:00 AM. That was after being passed out in my car for two hours. I'd not only been drinking, but had several hash brownies. Two blocks from the bar (the cop had obviously been waiting for this) I got pulled over. I passed the field sobriety test and was stoned as hell, but most of the alchohol was out of my system. (This was also near 6th street) He had to let me go, but I asked him if he honestly thought I shouldn't drive. When he said yes, I called a cab. It was realy expensive (about 30 miles from home) but cheaper than jail.

I guess it just depends on the place and the cop.

Thanks everyone, not only for giving me your informed opinions and the facts on this topic, but also for not letting it degenerate into a typically NS political soapbox. ;) :)

I hadn't actually considered that the law would vary from state to state, although my limited understanding of US legislature should perhaps have told me this. And to further the comment from the guy suggesting the people in the chatroom were bragging... I sincerely hope you're right, but the way they talked... having drunk-driven in my youth there was such a ring of truth about what they said I'd be surprised if they were. I guess you had to be there...

Now... Seatbelt laws. What's the score there? Compulsory in some states but not others?

(RIP Mr Brooks)

Now... Seatbelt laws. What's the score there? Compulsory in some states but not others?

(RIP Mr Brooks)

"Click It or Ticket" is now national, thanks to the same persuasive methods used to make the 0.08 blood alcohol level national. States comply or lose fed highway $$.

In Florida, there's a tiny line on your driving license: "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."

Therefore refusing a breathalizer is a crime in itself; not evidence of another crime.

Several states I've lived in , refusal to take a breathalizer test is grounds for immediate arrest.

In Florida, there's a tiny line on your driving license: "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."

Therefore refusing a breathalizer is a crime in itself; not evidence of another crime.

That's clearer than what I said above with "refusal to take breathalyzer = DUI." In Alaska, refusal to take a breathalyzer is indeed a separate crime, but it carries exactly the same penalties as the DUI (loss of license, 3 days jail, etc.).

Well in the US, you need proof someone is drunk or breaking the law, you cant just say, that guy looks suspicious and pull them over. Its written in on our ammendment rights.

Thanks everyone, not only for giving me your informed opinions and the facts on this topic, but also for not letting it degenerate into a typically NS political soapbox. ;) :)

I hadn't actually considered that the law would vary from state to state, although my limited understanding of US legislature should perhaps have told me this. And to further the comment from the guy suggesting the people in the chatroom were bragging... I sincerely hope you're right, but the way they talked... having drunk-driven in my youth there was such a ring of truth about what they said I'd be surprised if they were. I guess you had to be there...

Now... Seatbelt laws. What's the score there? Compulsory in some states but not others?

(RIP Mr Brooks)Seatbelt laws are left up to the states, but the Federal government coerces them into making seatbelt use mandatory by threatening to withhold Federal highway funds.
Friggin' You forgot Poland

Well in the US, you need proof someone is drunk or breaking the law, you cant just say, that guy looks suspicious and pull them over. Its written in on our ammendment rights.
Tell that to the cop that pulled me over for "swerving within my lane"

Well in the US, you need proof someone is drunk or breaking the law, you cant just say, that guy looks suspicious and pull them over. Its written in on our ammendment rights.

It depends what you mean by "looking suspicious." Yeah, you can't pull someone over because he looks black or he's got a lowered ride, but if he's suspiciously weaving all over the road (like our Drunken Comrade), or there are suspicious clouds of reefer smoke billowing out of the back of the mystery machine, or he suspiciously passes out while idling at a red light, that's probable cause.

EDIT: Payback's a bitch, eh Commies?

Well in the US, you need proof someone is drunk or breaking the law, you cant just say, that guy looks suspicious and pull them over. Its written in on our ammendment rights.

You're funny. :rolleyes:

All they have to do is say "you forgot to use your blinker when you changed lanes." Or they frequently set up check points where they check everybody. I don't think it's right, but that hardly stops them.

In Aus the legal limit is 0.05. You can be pulled over for a random breath test at any time. The cops also often have a set up where they stop every passing driver & test them. They have what's called a booze bus where they take you if you fail the breathaliser. In the booze bus they can do blood test. Penalties vary from state to state, but refusal to take a test carries a similar penalty to having blown a high reading (not just over 0.05). In Victoria (where I live) they've just introduced roadside amphetamines & cannabis drug testing. It's caused a fair bit of controversy because they've returned a number of false positives in their samples.

Seat belts are mandatory, fron & rear. They have been for more than 20 years & it's seen a huge drop in the road toll.

Seat belts are mandatory, fron & rear. They have been for more than 20 years & it's seen a huge drop in the road toll.

So it's pure coincidence that Mad Max left the country around the same time?

So it's pure coincidence that Mad Max left the country around the same time?

Nah, he made two more Mad Maxes, then he left. I think he wasted his time with the third one though.

i know someone who was arrested... he swears the officer never read him his Miranda rights. isn't that a big deal?

i know someone who was arrested... he swears the officer never read him his Miranda rights. isn't that a big deal?
No. Not unless he gave a confession or a self-incriminating statement. A court case a handfull of years back weakened Miranda significantly.

If your state wants Federal Highway money then it had better toe the line on .08 BAC. Federal government has found ways to get around the problem mentioned in your opening line.

Sure, states are technically free to do what they like, but the federal govt. has tied DUI and seatbelt laws to fed. highway money. So if states don't go in for "click it or ticket" and the 0.08 standard, they're screwed.

This does not change the fact that transportation laws are still set up by the state.

This does not change the fact that transportation laws are still set up by the state.

Whatever, dawg. DoT makes a lot of laws governing interstate transportation. Operating hours for interstate drivers and load limits for interstates, for example, aren't state decisions. And, when it comes to things like seat belts and BAC, the states are free to either accept the federal stance or get used to driving on gravel.

States may nominally be free to make their own transportation laws, but this nominal freedom is impinged upon by interstate transportation laws and financial pressures.