39 points

I got maybe a third of the way through the article and had to stop due to rage at the police. Again.

permalink
report
reply
82 points

Field sobriety tests are about as accurate as Tarot readings.

In most jurisdictions, the police can arrest you for refusing. Some experts say that if you’re sober, it’s better to refuse and be arrested, and then find it in court.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Refusing a breathalyzer is expensive though thanks to implied consent. The ticket for that is a ton of points.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

If you’re sober you should absolutely agree to the breathalyzer and the blood test.

It’s the field tests that are bogus.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

What? You have to pay for the blood test if you refuse the breath analyzer? Everyday I learn something new about the US and everyday I’m shocked about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Not sure if you have to pay for the blood test (it wouldn’t surprise me), but part of driving on a public road is consenting to a breathalyzer test. They do need a warrant to draw your blood against your will, but they may bully the hospital into doing it anyway. Refusing to take one is a crime that in combination with any other violation can get your license suspended.

It may be worth going that route if you are marginally over the limit and a few hours would sober you up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

It’s 100% what to do.

Let them arrest you on suspicion. The cost of the lawyer will be less than the DUI fines and lost income due to all of it.

“No thank you, officer. If that means I am under arrest then I am under arrest and would like to invoke my 5th amendment right at this time. I will not be answering any further questions this evening.”

🤐

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

If I refuse a field sobriety test and request s breathalyzer or blood test instead, would I still be arrested?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yep. Defy a cop in any way and you’ll likely be arrested. You might even be charged with resisting arrest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
150 points

i have witnessed 100% sober drivers, blowing zero on a breathalyzer being arrested because the cops felt like it. anyone else failing so hard at their jobs would be fired, and these people are supposed to be trusted with extra responsibilities and human killing devices.

acab

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Were those people black by chance?

permalink
report
parent
reply
69 points

nope, not in my case. they were butt-hurt because a bunch of designated drivers were picking up drunk people

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Well their quota was bust if no one was drunk driving. They would have to work harder.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points

Man I hope you show this comment when you’re in need of help.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

‘just wait til you need a bully with a human killing device’ shouldnt be something anyone has to say

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’ve got my own actually. Cops won’t be there for me, but I will be.

SocialistRA.org

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

Alright kiddo

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Dude for real - if this dude ends up being the victim of a home invasion who the hell is he going to call to show up 8 hours later to interrogate him like he was the culprit and probably shoot his dog for some reason?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Man I’m sure they’ll be really sad when no one shows up to shoot their dog

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Portable breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable and it’s definitely possible for them to indicate zero on someone that is drunk. And also the other way around, which is why the tests always have to repeated with a stationary breathalyzer or a blood sample to be used as evidence in court.

That being said, it’s still not acceptable for cops to arrest people without probable cause

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Dogs are also as accurate as a coin toss. Essentially, it all comes down to what the officer thinks and their personal motivations, which is terrifying.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Trust the experts!

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Fuck driving. You’d be lucky to get me off the couch. 😆

Obviously ACAB, but…I have known a few jackasses who thought nothing of driving while high. Just don’t. And don’t reply to me about how you “know your tolerance” or that you can “handle it”. Fuck you, you’re impaired. Don’t do it.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

While in principle, I don’t disagree. If you’re impaired, you shouldn’t drive. I lost a parent after they were hit by a drunk driver.

However, there are monstrously different amounts of impairment. You have reaction times and motor skills, decision making and judgement, awareness and attention.

Implying any type of impairment to be an unequivocal “no” to driving is short sighted, in my opinion. It’s the easy argument to point at any mind-altering substance: caffeine, tobacco, or antidepressants could be classified an impaired driver.

It’s also worth pointing out that even different emotions could dramatically alter driving performance. Not that we would ever think about restrictions on crying while driving.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 521K

    Comments