My first encounter with an a-hole cop

I had a cop at a checkpoint tell me that I failed the field sobriety test - which are designed for you to fail BTW - and make me take a breathalyzer... which I passed.

BUT, they wouldn’t let me leave. They said it was obvious I had been drinking and I had to call someone to come pick me up.

Now, I’ve been told that the field sobriety test is indeed optional and that you can refuse to take it without repercussions. But the breathalyzer is not optional and refusing to take it will get your license suspended for a year (or six months or something). (And apparently there is a hearing to determine if the breathalyzer was warranted, but it’s my understanding that you never win that one, so the breathalyzer is in effect mandatory.)



Side note - I’ve since learned that hyperventilating will decrease the results on the breathalyzer, but I’m not sure that you want to fly that close to the sun.

quote:

---

Now, I’ve been told that the field sobriety test is indeed optional and that you can refuse to take it without repercussions. But the breathalyzer is not optional and refusing to take it will get your license suspended for a year (or six months or something). (And apparently there is a hearing to determine if the breathalyzer was warranted, but it’s my understanding that you never win that one, so the breathalyzer is in effect mandatory.) 

---

bullshite. You can refuse every test they ask. Just say nope and nothing more.

Any decent attorney will have your license back in your pocket in a few months. It's a dog and pony show.

He didn't have a breathalyzer on him? Seems like that was very unnecessary.

quote:

---

He didn't have a breathalyzer on him? Seems like that was very unnecessary.

---

A buddy of my brother had a similar story as the OP but the cop just left his truck where is was and took him to the testing place a few miles away. After he passed the breathalyzer he asked the cop to bring him back to his truck. The cop told him that he’d have to find his own way back.

quote:

---

Until you have a family member or members killed by a drunk driver.

---

But the laws and their enforcement have nothing to do with that. There’s a plethora of better ways to reduce alcohol related deaths, but they’re not used because they don’t get money and don’t produce election influencing stats.

quote:

---

quote:

---

blew a .01

---

So you were driving after drinking a little bit?

---

I could register that at lunch on Saturday after a good Friday night.

quote:

---

I believe every car should have a breathalyzer, just like a seat belt

---

quote:

---

I believe every car should have a breathalyzer, just like a seatbelt, but that is just me. 

---

People would just bypass it.

quote:

---

It sounds like your rights were blatantly violated. I strongly recommend you talk to a lawyer, and hopefully sue the shite out of them.

---

Likely a waste of time. Federal courts have made it very difficult for an individual citizen to prevail over the cops in a civil rights case.

Congress passed a statute in the 1870s that says you can sue state officials for violating your federal constitutional rights. But judges said cops and other officials get what is called qualified immunity from your claims. Congress never said that; judges just made it up. Talk about legislating from the bench.

Anyhow, qualified immunity means the cop gets off scot-free even if he violated your rights so long as he did not screw up so bad that every reasonable official would understand that what he did was unlawful.

He only needs probable cause to justify an arrest. Flunking the horizontal gaze nystagmus (eyeball) test will bolster his case there, protests of medical issue aside. The cop will also say, as they always do, that you had glassy, watery, or red eyes, were unsteady on your feet, smelled of alcohol, and the like. It doesn't take much.

Even if he actually lacked probable cause, qualified immunity means he is not liable unless his actions were so plainly wrong that all but the most incompetent officer would have known it violated clearly established law.

The Supremes applied this recently to let off some cops who arrested partygoers for trespass. They said that even if there was no probable cause, and the partygoers rights to be free of false arrest were violated, it would still be case dismissed because a cop could have had a reasonable but mistaken belief the partygoers did have permission to be there. ("Even assuming the officers lacked actual probable cause to arrest the partygoers, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably but mistakenly conclude[d] that probable cause [wa]s present.” Clarence Thomas)

Here is a discussion of the case, praising it for protecting the rights of the cops. OFFICERS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR ARREST OF TRESPASSING PARTYGOERS (even if they weren't really trespassing)