Field sobriety test vs. breathalyzer

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Suppose one day I'm falsely accused of driving drunk. Would it be an option to request a breathalyzer test instead of a field sobriety test? If I am required to take the field sobriety test anyway, and am too nervous to pass it, would they be allowed to jail me based solely on the field sobriety test results, or would they need breathalyzer and/or blood test results to do so?

[Katganistan]

Wouldn't this best be asked of a lawyer dealing with traffic violations/dwi violations?

[Vassenor]

Suppose one day I'm falsely accused of driving drunk. Would it be an option to request a breathalyzer test instead of a field sobriety test? If I am required to take the field sobriety test anyway, and am too nervous to pass it, would they be allowed to jail me based solely on the field sobriety test results, or would they need breathalyzer and/or blood test results to do so?

Pretty sure the hand-held breathalyser / FST is only probable cause to arrest. To jail you have to be put on the more advanced machine they have at lockup.

At least that's how it works here.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Wouldn't this best be asked of a lawyer dealing with traffic violations/dwi violations?

Surely some people here have to at least have heard of what the laws are, if only by the fact that some of them might watch different news than I do.

Suppose one day I'm falsely accused of driving drunk. Would it be an option to request a breathalyzer test instead of a field sobriety test? If I am required to take the field sobriety test anyway, and am too nervous to pass it, would they be allowed to jail me based solely on the field sobriety test results, or would they need breathalyzer and/or blood test results to do so?

Pretty sure the hand-held breathalyser / FST is only probable cause to arrest. To jail you have to be put on the more advanced machine they have at lockup.

At least that's how it works here.

Is it allowed to vary from place to place? On what basis?

[USS Monitor]

Pretty sure the hand-held breathalyser / FST is only probable cause to arrest. To jail you have to be put on the more advanced machine they have at lockup.

At least that's how it works here.

Is it allowed to vary from place to place? On what basis?

Different countries, states, provinces, etc. have their own governments and their own laws. Not sure why this is a novel concept to you.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Is it allowed to vary from place to place? On what basis?

Different countries, states, provinces, etc. have their own governments and their own laws. Not sure why this is a novel concept to you.

Different countries, maybe, but states and provinces? You'd think this would be a matter of federal jurisdiction. Drunk driving isn't necessarily more likely to end in an accident in one state than another.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Different countries, states, provinces, etc. have their own governments and their own laws. Not sure why this is a novel concept to you.

Different countries, maybe, but states and provinces? You'd think this would be a matter of federal jurisdiction. Drunk driving isn't necessarily more likely to end in an accident in one state than another.

Here in the US, the states regulate roads and driving, not the feds. (Other than things about the Interstates, but I couldn't tell you what exactly.)

[USS Monitor]

Different countries, states, provinces, etc. have their own governments and their own laws. Not sure why this is a novel concept to you.

Different countries, maybe, but states and provinces? You'd think this would be a matter of federal jurisdiction. Drunk driving isn't necessarily more likely to end in an accident in one state than another.

Nope, it is up to the states. AFAIK, they all have laws about drunk driving, but the exact legal definition of "drunk" and the penalties are set by the state.

[Scomagia]

Here in Oregon, it's like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 33669.html

Tldr; You can receive a DUII even under .08 on a breathalyzer if you fail a sobriety test, since this demonstrates that you are impaired enough to be a danger. This is how it should be in every state.

So, for the scenario in the OP: Let's say you fail the sobriety test but pass the breathalyzer in Oregon with a .06. You are going to jail for sure because you have drunk some measure of alcohol and, though your Blood Alcohol Level is below the legal limit, it has impaired you to the point of being unable to safely operate a vehicle. Any other system is frankly nonsensical.

[USS Monitor]

Here in Oregon, it's like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 33669.html

Tldr; You can receive a DUII even under .08 on a breathalyzer if you fail a sobriety test, since this demonstrates that you are impaired enough to be a danger. This is how it should be in every state.

So, for the scenario in the OP: Let's say you fail the sobriety test but pass the breathalyzer in Oregon with a .06. You are going to jail for sure because you have drunk some measure of alcohol and, though your Blood Alcohol Level is below the legal limit, it has impaired you to the point of being unable to safely operate a vehicle. Any other system is frankly nonsensical.

Yeah, if you fail a field sobriety test, regardless of the reason why you failed, that's not a good sign for your ability to drive safely.

[Scomagia]

Here in Oregon, it's like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 33669.html

Tldr; You can receive a DUII even under .08 on a breathalyzer if you fail a sobriety test, since this demonstrates that you are impaired enough to be a danger. This is how it should be in every state.

So, for the scenario in the OP: Let's say you fail the sobriety test but pass the breathalyzer in Oregon with a .06. You are going to jail for sure because you have drunk some measure of alcohol and, though your Blood Alcohol Level is below the legal limit, it has impaired you to the point of being unable to safely operate a vehicle. Any other system is frankly nonsensical.

Yeah, if you fail a field sobriety test, regardless of the reason why you failed, that's not a good sign for your ability to drive safely.

There are legitimate reasons a person might fail, like anxiety, that doesn't reflect your ability to drive safely. The point of the laws here in Oregon are to nab those drunk drivers who are total lightweights but otherwise "legal" to drive. Sadly, quite a lot of states are too lenient with this shit. Hell, a lot of states let you plea a DUII down to reckless driving. Not in Oregon, thankfully.

Play it safe, folks. If you're gonna drive, don't drink AT ALL.

[Sovaal]

Yeah, if you fail a field sobriety test, regardless of the reason why you failed, that's not a good sign for your ability to drive safely.

There are legitimate reasons a person might fail, like anxiety, that doesn't reflect your ability to drive safely. The point of the laws here in Oregon are to nab those drunk drivers who are total lightweights but otherwise "legal" to drive. Sadly, quite a lot of states are too lenient with this shit. Hell, a lot of states let you plea a DUII down to reckless driving. Not in Oregon, thankfully.

Play it safe, folks. If you're gonna drive, don't drink AT ALL.

I just don’t drink period. Don’t even see the appeal of alcohol really.

[Scomagia]

There are legitimate reasons a person might fail, like anxiety, that doesn't reflect your ability to drive safely. The point of the laws here in Oregon are to nab those drunk drivers who are total lightweights but otherwise "legal" to drive. Sadly, quite a lot of states are too lenient with this shit. Hell, a lot of states let you plea a DUII down to reckless driving. Not in Oregon, thankfully.

Play it safe, folks. If you're gonna drive, don't drink AT ALL.

I just don’t drink period. Don’t even see the appeal of alcohol really.

There's nothing wrong with that. Alcohol is a heavy drug and in my experience, most people don't handle it well.

[Vassenor]

OK, so I'm just going to run down the UK procedure.

An officer can require you to provide a specimen of breath under a given number of circumstances (generally after an RTC or if your driving has given them probable cause to believe you are intoxicated). Failure to do so is a criminal offence (s7 (6) Road Traffic Act 1988).

If you blow positive, you're arrested and taken to the police station. Once there you provide two further specimens into an evidential breath testing machine, with the lower figure of the two being the one that is recorded. If that specimen is still over the legal limit, then you are formally charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol.

[Greed and Death]

Suppose one day I'm falsely accused of driving drunk. Would it be an option to request a breathalyzer test instead of a field sobriety test? If I am required to take the field sobriety test anyway, and am too nervous to pass it, would they be allowed to jail me based solely on the field sobriety test results, or would they need breathalyzer and/or blood test results to do so?

This is purely a hypothetical and I am in no way shape or form offering legal advice to you or offering to represent you.

99 times out of 100 the police officer will give you both (and you will likely get two one in the car and one at the station). They are also very likely to take you for a blood draw if a judge is awake to issue a warrant or you consent.

The officer's job is to gather evidence. The field sobriety, the breathalyzer, and the blood test is evidence.

So lets say you fail the field sobriety but pass the Breathalyzer they are still going to take you in to the station. The assumption will be that you are on another substance. They will almost certainly "offer" (push you to take) a blood draw, and if a judge is awake they will issue a warrant for the blood draw.

Now there is a problem with this is they will test for other substances however most of these tests are designed for the employment context so they catch usage from weeks ago as well as current usage that would actually impair you.

Say for instance you are sober but you stumble on video and then test positive for marijuana (usage from 2 weeks ago). The prosecuting attorney will argue you are high on pot. Your defense attorney would likely need at least two maybe three expert witnesses to keep you from being convicted and even then that is at best 50 percent chance.

Again no offer or representation and this is not legal advice just a purely hypothetical internet discussion.

[Greed and Death]

Here in Oregon, it's like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 33669.html

Tldr; You can receive a DUII even under .08 on a breathalyzer if you fail a sobriety test, since this demonstrates that you are impaired enough to be a danger. This is how it should be in every state.

So, for the scenario in the OP: Let's say you fail the sobriety test but pass the breathalyzer in Oregon with a .06. You are going to jail for sure because you have drunk some measure of alcohol and, though your Blood Alcohol Level is below the legal limit, it has impaired you to the point of being unable to safely operate a vehicle. Any other system is frankly nonsensical.

Yeah, if you fail a field sobriety test, regardless of the reason why you failed, that's not a good sign for your ability to drive safely.

100% completely sober people can fail the field sobriety test and fail it for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to operate a vehicle.

For instance many narrow waist men can not walk a straight line by putting one foot in front of the other. It is not surprising as we have a million or so years of evolution for us to walk with feet shoulder width apart.

[Araraukar]

Tldr; You can receive a DUII even under .08 on a breathalyzer if you fail a sobriety test, since this demonstrates that you are impaired enough to be a danger. This is how it should be in every state.

Except that limit is like twice as high as what's safe to be driving around.

Yes, yes, I know, different countries with different laws, but still, I'd be afraid to share the road with more than the rare drunk driver who got even 0.7 on it...

[Salandriagado]

After ten seconds of googling:

Admissibility of Standardized Field Sobriety Test Results

In 1981 NHTSA promulgated a federal standard for field sobriety testing procedures. States are not required to adhere to this federal standard. Although some states do not employ the exact procedures, others replicate NHTSA procedures as closely as possible. In Ohio v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio, 2000), Ohio became the only state where courts ruled that evidence is “inherently unreliable” and inadmissible when gathered from field sobriety tests that deviate from NHTSA standards. However, this “strict compliance” standard has since softened to a “substantial compliance” standard, as confirmed by the Ohio State Supreme Court in Ohio v. Boczar, 863 N.E.2d 155, 160 (Ohio, 2007).

Furthermore, according to NHTSA, courts in several states have reviewed the admissibility of field sobriety tests and have held that deviations from the administration of simple dexterity tests (one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests) should not result in the suppression of test results. However, admissibility of the HGN test may be treated differently due to its “scientific nature.” For this reason, HGN results are vulnerable to challenge, and likely to be excluded by the court if the test was not administered in strict compliance with established protocols. Appellate courts generally require that, before an opinion can be expressed by an officer who administered an HGN test, the officer must be qualified as an expert or skilled witness for the purpose of administering the test as well as expressing an opinion as to the results. For example see Robinson v. State 982 So.2d 1260, 1261 Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2008.

Also, having read the summary, I'm reasonably confident that I'd fail the FST right now. That this is a thing that is used in America seems ridiculous to me. Just use a damned brethalyser.

[Galloism]

After ten seconds of googling:

Admissibility of Standardized Field Sobriety Test Results

In 1981 NHTSA promulgated a federal standard for field sobriety testing procedures. States are not required to adhere to this federal standard. Although some states do not employ the exact procedures, others replicate NHTSA procedures as closely as possible. In Ohio v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio, 2000), Ohio became the only state where courts ruled that evidence is “inherently unreliable” and inadmissible when gathered from field sobriety tests that deviate from NHTSA standards. However, this “strict compliance” standard has since softened to a “substantial compliance” standard, as confirmed by the Ohio State Supreme Court in Ohio v. Boczar, 863 N.E.2d 155, 160 (Ohio, 2007).

Furthermore, according to NHTSA, courts in several states have reviewed the admissibility of field sobriety tests and have held that deviations from the administration of simple dexterity tests (one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests) should not result in the suppression of test results. However, admissibility of the HGN test may be treated differently due to its “scientific nature.” For this reason, HGN results are vulnerable to challenge, and likely to be excluded by the court if the test was not administered in strict compliance with established protocols. Appellate courts generally require that, before an opinion can be expressed by an officer who administered an HGN test, the officer must be qualified as an expert or skilled witness for the purpose of administering the test as well as expressing an opinion as to the results. For example see Robinson v. State 982 So.2d 1260, 1261 Fla.App. 1 Dist., 2008.

Also, having read the summary, I'm reasonably confident that I'd fail the FST right now. That this is a thing that is used in America seems ridiculous to me. Just use a damned brethalyser.

It's not as if breathalyzers are really expensive. I mean, people can buy them off the shelf at walgreens now.

The police ones have to be a higher standard and calibrated periodically, but they're not THAT expensive.

It's worth note though that breathalyzers are only good for alcohol. Any other impairment (drugs, etc) would not show up on a breathalyzer.

[Ifreann]

Challenge the officer to a dance off.

[Vassenor]

After ten seconds of googling:




Also, having read the summary, I'm reasonably confident that I'd fail the FST right now. That this is a thing that is used in America seems ridiculous to me. Just use a damned brethalyser.

It's not as if breathalyzers are really expensive. I mean, people can buy them off the shelf at walgreens now.

The police ones have to be a higher standard and calibrated periodically, but they're not THAT expensive.

It's worth note though that breathalyzers are only good for alcohol. Any other impairment (drugs, etc) would not show up on a breathalyzer.

The breathalyser kept in the patrol car probably isn't kept to the same standard as the one at the station. There's a reason why you're only charged on the basis of that one and not just because you blew positive at the roadside.

[Greed and Death]

It's not as if breathalyzers are really expensive. I mean, people can buy them off the shelf at walgreens now.

The police ones have to be a higher standard and calibrated periodically, but they're not THAT expensive.

It's worth note though that breathalyzers are only good for alcohol. Any other impairment (drugs, etc) would not show up on a breathalyzer.

The breathalyser kept in the patrol car probably isn't kept to the same standard as the one at the station. There's a reason why you're only charged on the basis of that one and not just because you blew positive at the roadside.

They generally are, but the one in the car is harder to document all the maintenance and prove something was not throw out of whack by all the bouncing around while driving.

[Vassenor]

The breathalyser kept in the patrol car probably isn't kept to the same standard as the one at the station. There's a reason why you're only charged on the basis of that one and not just because you blew positive at the roadside.

They generally are, but the one in the car is harder to document all the maintenance and prove something was not throw out of whack by all the bouncing around while driving.

When I was touring the lockup at the local station when I was doing my degree we were told the machine there was more precise in its measurement as well.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Here in Oregon, it's like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 33669.html

Tldr; You can receive a DUII even under .08 on a breathalyzer if you fail a sobriety test, since this demonstrates that you are impaired enough to be a danger. This is how it should be in every state.

So, for the scenario in the OP: Let's say you fail the sobriety test but pass the breathalyzer in Oregon with a .06. You are going to jail for sure because you have drunk some measure of alcohol and, though your Blood Alcohol Level is below the legal limit, it has impaired you to the point of being unable to safely operate a vehicle. Any other system is frankly nonsensical.

And if your blood alcohol is .00, then what? Do they assume you were on something other than alcohol? And if those blood tests turn up negative, then what?

[Scomagia]

Here in Oregon, it's like this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 33669.html

Tldr; You can receive a DUII even under .08 on a breathalyzer if you fail a sobriety test, since this demonstrates that you are impaired enough to be a danger. This is how it should be in every state.

So, for the scenario in the OP: Let's say you fail the sobriety test but pass the breathalyzer in Oregon with a .06. You are going to jail for sure because you have drunk some measure of alcohol and, though your Blood Alcohol Level is below the legal limit, it has impaired you to the point of being unable to safely operate a vehicle. Any other system is frankly nonsensical.

And if your blood alcohol is .00, then what? Do they assume you were on something other than alcohol? And if those blood tests turn up negative, then what?

Yes. No doubt in addition to the sobriety test, the police would be checking for abnormal pupil size and response, slurred speech, and difficulty concentrating. If you appear to be intoxicated but not on alcohol, then a blood test would be the next logical step. If the blood test is negative, there's no realistic reason to charge you with a DUII.