So I got pulled over...

nguyendot

Seriously, let it go. Pushing it further considering you got off is beating a dead horse.

kawizx9r

Soon as I saw the thread title, knew it'd be bad news.

I'm actually glad he kept you from driving though. I lost a very good friend of mine+roommate just a few months after we got back from our first tour to Iraq. He was killed on a Saturday due to a drunk driver.

Not saying you were drunk, or lashing out at you but being tired is just as bad if not worse if you're driving.

Jstas

bobman1235 wrote: »

... beaten with a billy club for being stupid looking.

I've always felt that that should be a viable excuse for use of a billy club.

steveinaz

dkg999 wrote: »

I always fail the field test! I can't balance on my left foot due to an ankle injury. I can balance on my right foot all day long. I also can never do the alphabet backwards without a bunch of prep work and making scribbles in the dirt. I make them waste the $250 breathalyzer. Usually two of them because they think the first one was faulty.

I hear if you make them tase you prior to the breathalyzer that you'll blow a couple of points lower

They're not looking at how you perform so much, but how you react to the tests as indicators.

tommyboy

nguyendot wrote: »

Seriously, let it go. Pushing it further considering you got off is beating a dead horse.

What? was this directed towards me

If so, I guess you forgot to actually read my posts...

tommyboy wrote: »

Its not that big of a deal, just happy as this could of been much worse. Only confused (as was others I've asked) if I was really stuck there.

tommyboy wrote: »

Either way, being pulled over while having a few drinks, It was probably the best outcome for me, so in the end I am happy how it turned out.

Again, I didn't create this thread so I can **** about being pulled over, only what rights I had during the incident as there was some confusion with others I talked to about it. I'm not going to call a lawyer about it, since there is no reason to. Just thought I'd ask on here, chill

nguyendot

My bad, they should prolly leave it be then

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

Overreact much?

I'm usually NOT on the side of traffic cops and their retarded antics / busting people for doing things that are not in the least bit dangerous... but he failed the f!@#$%g sobriety test. It's not like he passed and then was beaten with a billy club for being stupid looking.

Sure he "barely" failed and it was on account of some nerves, but he didn't get arrested so no harm no foul. I'm sure if he'd been able to walk in a freakin' straight line while purportedly sober and not all that tired, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not really. I just feel like expressing my displeasure for cops who don't use very good use of their discretion. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Anyone can fail the field sobriety tests and be stone cold sober. I didn't say the copper was wrong, either. I just disagree.

Speaking of overreacting, is there a reason you're so upset?

fishbones

dkg999 wrote: »

i hear if you make them tase you prior to the breathalyzer that you'll blow a couple of points lower

lmao!!

Face

He did you a favor.

bobman1235

Demiurge wrote: »

Speaking of overreacting, is there a reason you're so upset?

Not upset, just using naughty language to punctuate my point.

Like I said, I'm usually not on the side of the cops, but what other tools do they have at their disposal if they think someone's intoxicated? A breathalyzer only works for alcohol (as mentioned, someone can be high as a kite on pot and pass w flying colors). Sure anyone can fail a field sobriety test, but at that point it's up to the cop's discretion, and that's obviously imperfect.

In this particular case, someone who smells of beer, fails the test, and may or may not seem nervous or tired.... I don't know who in their right mind would have let him go.

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

Not upset, just using naughty language to punctuate my point.

Like I said, I'm usually not on the side of the cops, but what other tools do they have at their disposal if they think someone's intoxicated? A breathalyzer only works for alcohol (as mentioned, someone can be high as a kite on pot and pass w flying colors). Sure anyone can fail a field sobriety test, but at that point it's up to the cop's discretion, and that's obviously imperfect.

In this particular case, someone who smells of beer, fails the test, and may or may not seem nervous or tired.... I don't know who in their right mind would have let him go.

There could be much left out of the recounting of this event, but given what was stated we know he was pulled over for not using a turn signal -- not because he was observed driving erratically. According to the cop, he was told he didn't pass the field sobriety test(s), yet upon being given the breathalyzer, was well under the legal limit for alcohol.

Not knowing what his problem was, the cop erred on the side of caution and let him call friend to pick him up. I wasn't there to see how he was acting, but I'll just assume everything the cop is doing is a-OK at that point.

Then it all changes.

If I read the OP right, he had tommyboy drive his own car back to the station. If this guy is so effed up in the cops mind he can't drive home, how is he supposed to follow a cop back to a police station? Once there, the cop can't even be honest and "forces" him into a blood test. Nice. Yeah, he did him all sorts of favors. :rolleyes:

It may have just been a small inconvenience for tommyboy, and in the grand scheme of things it is, but to me it just shows how much more of a guilty until proven innocent nanny-state society we're becoming. I've got a similar story to his and I have heard many more. Many cops seem upset when citizens are caught NOT breaking the law by them.

megasat16

Better be safe than sorry for you, himself and everyone.

I think he did what he got to do to protect everyone even if he didn't do it nicely.

reeltrouble1

If it wasn't for the cops I could make a fortune in daily human waste disposal fees.

RT1

megasat16

Of coz, why didn't I think of that before? Rabbit holes double functions as.....:D

shack

So I basically understand what the cop did...although field sobriety tests are very unreliable IMO...but I think he went a little overboard. I think some of you have as well. IF he was not intoxicated...if he was not impaired(and no the field test is NOT enough to make that determination)...how did the cop do him a favor by not letting him drive? I think the cop should have had him blow the test and if he passed he should have been allowed to go on his way...and even moreso after the blood test.

If we get to the point that if you have a glass of wine with a meal or a beer (maybe two) after work you are not allowed to drive just because the cop says so...then we have gone too far. The limits are set for a reason and they are VERY conservative. There is science involved...and either you are intoxicated or not.

If I read the OP right, he had tommyboy drive his own car back to the station. If this guy is so effed up in the cops mind he can't drive home, how is he supposed to follow a cop back to a police station? Once there, the cop can't even be honest and "forces" him into a blood test. Nice. Yeah, he did him all sorts of favors.

It may have just been a small inconvenience for tommyboy, and in the grand scheme of things it is, but to me it just shows how much more of a guilty until proven innocent nanny-state society we're becoming. I've got a similar story to his and I have heard many more. Many cops seem upset when citizens are caught NOT breaking the law by them.

Demi and I are more often than not on the opposite side of things...but I think we agree on this one.

reeltrouble1

I would actually like to see a limit of .02, that would help keep alot of good people alive, especially the totally innocent children. If you drink then you cant drive, mutually exclusive privledges from one another. Only the lawbreakers will then tempt it, when they get caught at least five years suspension on the first offense, with the hope nobody got hurt or even died.

Thank goodness for Law Enforcement officers everywhere, its a shame, they get hard, they die young, they deal with the dirt, they are just ordinary people.

RT1

mdaudioguy

^^^^Great post. (Didn't say I agreed, but I like where you're coming from.)

Demiurge

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

I would actually like to see a limit of .02, that would help keep alot of good people alive, especially the totally innocent children. If you drink then you cant drive, mutually exclusive privledges from one another. Only the lawbreakers will then tempt it, when they get caught at least five years suspension on the first offense, with the hope nobody got hurt or even died.

Thank goodness for Law Enforcement officers everywhere, its a shame, they get hard, they die young, they deal with the dirt, they are just ordinary people.

RT1

Try North Korea, you'll love it there.

dkg999

After riding a motorcycle in IL for the last 5 yrs, I'm with Ted. I'd be fine with a law that said if you've had any alcohol at all you can't drive. I've been just about run over by a couple of people that couldn't successfully smoke and drive at the same time, so the same prohibition should also apply. It's strange we can limit cell phone use while driving and can't also prohibit alcohol and tobacco use while driving. I'm not saying you can't smoke and/or drink, just don't do it before or while driving.

cincycat13

Know your rights ahead of time to be prepAred. That way you know field sobriety tests are VOLUNTARY. They tell you but most are to distracted to hear. Research first then don't do the test.

tommyboy

Demiurge wrote: »

There could be much left out of the recounting of this event, but given what was stated we know he was pulled over for not using a turn signal -- not because he was observed driving erratically. According to the cop, he was told he didn't pass the field sobriety test(s), yet upon being given the breathalyzer, was well under the legal limit for alcohol.

Not knowing what his problem was, the cop erred on the side of caution and let him call friend to pick him up. I wasn't there to see how he was acting, but I'll just assume everything the cop is doing is a-OK at that point.

Then it all changes.

If I read the OP right, he had tommyboy drive his own car back to the station. If this guy is so effed up in the cops mind he can't drive home, how is he supposed to follow a cop back to a police station? Once there, the cop can't even be honest and "forces" him into a blood test. Nice. Yeah, he did him all sorts of favors. :rolleyes:

It may have just been a small inconvenience for tommyboy, and in the grand scheme of things it is, but to me it just shows how much more of a guilty until proven innocent nanny-state society we're becoming. I've got a similar story to his and I have heard many more. Many cops seem upset when citizens are caught NOT breaking the law by them.

Yes, this was the part that kind of bothered me (and what I didn't want to get into but since you brought it up). He told me to get a ride, and if they were ready to pick me up immediatly (within 20 min) then I would be on my way. However, since this place is across the city (plus its 2:30), it was gonna take longer. Thats when he tells me to drive to the police station. I thought at this point that my friends would pick me up at the station with no further incident.

However, once he finally opens the door (and let another officer and a girl out the door in handcuffs), he goes on to tell me I failed the sobriety test completely and must take a blood test. I was reluctant at this point since I was just allowed to be done with everything if my friends lived 2 minutes away. He then goes on to tell me if I don't comply, he will keep me for the rest of the night until another officer (some sort of specialist I can't remember) does further "tests" on me. In my head I'm like WTF is going on here. But then once I do comply and we walk in for the test, he makes it blatanly clear to others in the room that this was a voluntary test.


Anyways, this was kinda the reason I asked about my rights at this point and especially after the blood test. I was in the clear of drugs and alcohol, does he still LEGALLY have the right to stop me from driving? Please, I'm not trying to figure if he SHOULD have or not, which is what you guys keep debating

dkg999

Most of us on this forum probably have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express at some point in our lives, but most here haven't attended law school. You need to consult someone who has attended law school, passed the bar exam, and practiced in family and traffic court for a few years. They can provide you the information you are seeking.

You should also search uTube for "why you shouldn't talk to the police", it's a pretty long video, in two parts, the first is an attorney talking to a law school class, the second is a cop validating what the attorney tells them.

george daniel

did you get the job?

shack

dkg999 wrote:

I'm with Ted. I'd be fine with a law that said if you've had any alcohol at all you can't drive.

I completely disagree. There is no science or research that says this is necessary.

snow

tommyboy wrote: »

Yes, this was the part that kind of bothered me (and what I didn't want to get into but since you brought it up). He told me to get a ride, and if they were ready to pick me up immediatly (within 20 min) then I would be on my way. However, since this place is across the city (plus its 2:30), it was gonna take longer. Thats when he tells me to drive to the police station. I thought at this point that my friends would pick me up at the station with no further incident.

However, once he finally opens the door (and let another officer and a girl out the door in handcuffs), he goes on to tell me I failed the sobriety test completely and must take a blood test. I was reluctant at this point since I was just allowed to be done with everything if my friends lived 2 minutes away. He then goes on to tell me if I don't comply, he will keep me for the rest of the night until another officer (some sort of specialist I can't remember) does further "tests" on me. In my head I'm like WTF is going on here. But then once I do comply and we walk in for the test, he makes it blatanly clear to others in the room that this was a voluntary test.


Anyways, this was kinda the reason I asked about my rights at this point and especially after the blood test. I was in the clear of drugs and alcohol, does he still LEGALLY have the right to stop me from driving? Please, I'm not trying to figure if he SHOULD have or not, which is what you guys keep debating

This is the most bizzare story I have ever heard, he stops you fine, you fail the FST then he asks you to drive some more? to the polce station where he administers a blood alcohol/drug test? that part I get the blood test part he wants to be sure your not high from something else but letting you drive to the station after he has decided your impaired for any reason is baffling. As far as not letting you drive after all the tests were done as long as he felt you were unsafe to drive for any reason whether it be lack of sleep, mental state or what have you yes I think he has the legal right to do so.

Another thing that intrigues me is after he tells you about a job oppurtunity which you apply for and he doesnt arrest and charge you woth anything you seem bound to try and either sue the agency or at best get him in trouble in some fashion.

Personally I would consider myself lucky hell he could have kept you on suspicion of anything for 72 hrs if he wanted too.



REGARDS SNOW

messiah

My Fiancee was killed by a drunk driver, and he was hammered. It wasn't even close. This happened a while back (almost 20 years) so please no regrets. That said, I've had a cop try to give me a dui when I had NOTHING to drink. Where I live (Chicagoland), cops pretty much do what they want, when they want. It is just a joke. Tommy, I used to play hockey, and when you are done if you have any energy left, you didn't get much ice time. Sure, a tired driver is dangerous, but there is a bonus for the cops for dui's. Who doesn't want a bonus?

headrott

I'm with Demiurge and shack. If the cops intention to keep Tommy off the road to keep people (including Tommy) safe, why did he allow him to drive to the police station? Did the cop think that he would be following Tommy and be able to prevent any accidents while in a car behind Tommy? It seems there was another motive behind the cops actions, otherwise the cop would not have let hime drive again until the cop felt Tommy was "safe" to drive.

Greg

bobman1235

shack wrote: »

The limits are set for a reason and they are VERY conservative. There is science involved...and either you are intoxicated or not.

Most of hte science I've ever seen says that you are impaired at .05. So I wouldn't call the limit conservative.



That being said, seeing the rest of the story, the cop was pretty out of line. Letting him drive to the station m akes no sense, and the threat of overnight jail in exchange for a blood test is ****, plain and simple.

I'm sorry for taking the cops side over yours, tommyboy. I almost always will err on the side of the citizen over the cop, but driving intoxicated is one of those things... I can see it being hard to judge as a cop. The breathalyzer and its ilk are great tools, but they completely ignore everything other than alcohol, and LOTS of people smoke pot and drive, especially younger people like our OP. Similarly lots of people drive while exhausted, or some combination of one or two beers and exhaustion, which is just as bad as getting hammered in some cases. So what else can an officer rely on aside from some sort of field sobriety test, or just his gut? And the latter could get him in big trouble if he's wrong.

It's unfortunate so many LEO's are just jackoffs on a power trip who, as a few people alluded to, seem to WANT people to be guilty, especially younger people. They're really our only line of defense against something that is a serious problem (intoxicated drivers), it would be nice if they could take that responsibility seriously but not let it get to their heads.

mdaudioguy

The irony in our current environment is that we rely on potentially impaired individuals to exercise good judgement. An ex-cop friend of mine always jokes about how almost every driver he ever stopped for suspicion of DUI admitted to having "a couple drinks" (as in two). While some were truthful about it, many were clearly not. Sometimes what was intended to be a "couple" turns into 3, 4, or maybe more... for some people. Not saying this was the OP at all. I'm just saying that for some it's true, because I've been there myself. I didn't exercise good judgement at all when I drank. Thankfully, I finally did exercise my own best judgement to never put myself in this situation again. I had foolishly believed that I was a capable driver after a "couple" drinks, but it finally dawned on me that I couldn't afford even a minor charge, due to the potential embarrassment to my family, the poor example it would be for my kids, and possible repercussions for my employment. I'm fortunate to have never had an incident, and I can be perfectly confident now that I never will. For me, the only way is zero drinks. For everyone else, I guess I'll have to trust their better judgement.

tommyboy

snow wrote: »

Another thing that intrigues me is after he tells you about a job oppurtunity which you apply for and he doesnt arrest and charge you woth anything you seem bound to try and either sue the agency or at best get him in trouble in some fashion.

Personally I would consider myself lucky hell he could have kept you on suspicion of anything for 72 hrs if he wanted too.



REGARDS SNOW

Once again, I'm not here to ask if I could build some sort of case against him! If I really was, I would not be asking an audio forum for legal advise. I was just CURIOUS of what my rights really were during the incident as it seemed odd I was free to go then he decides to keep me in custody (with apparently no new evidence to do so). Thats all. If there was a cop on here to answer this question thats all I expected from the thread.