Yeah LMAO man!!! You obviously either don't understand the law or don't understand what I said. A field BAC test cannot be used as evidence against you at trial. It is solely used to establish probable cause so they can arrest you and then at the station they gather the evidence against you. If the officer already smelled alcohol, he had his probable cause right there. He didn't need anything else to arrest him. So maybe your friend had a few beers and was still below the legal limit. The officer gave him the opportunity to prove that he was not impaired. That is the good that I was speaking of. Now, what good came from denying it? Absolutely nothing. He still got arrested. And if he was offered and refused the real test at the station, he probably lost his license. In WA it is an automatic 1 year suspension of driver's license. I'm not sure about TX, but some states can give jail time for refusal.
I agree with you somewhat here. I believe that it is perfectly okay for some people to have a few beers in a period of time and drive. The reason the law is like that is because of way too much ambiguity with BAC tests. I don't doubt that your friends can drive after a few beers because they probably have higher tolerance than other people. So their BAC doesn't reflect the level that they are impaired. For some people, a few beers does indeed put them beyond being able to drive responsibly. So if you have a few beers and get pulled over you may or may not want to take the opportunity to prove that you are not impaired. I was pulled over once after having a couple beers with dinner. The officer smelled it on me and asked if I would perform a field sobriety test. I did, passed with flying colors and he gave me a ticket for not stopping for long enough at a stop sign and went on his way. Had I not cooperated with him, he would have arrested me.
Also, you can be charged with DUI even if you are blow below the legal limit. It is the officer's discretion whether or not you are impaired. I rememebr a few years ago a baseball player in Seattle named Richie Sexson was charged with DUI after blowing a .06.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not up to the officer. That would be up to the jury if you were to go to trial. Like I've said a few times already, field tests are solely used to establish probable cause to arrest a person. If the officer could smell beer on the breath of a person, they could establish probable cause.
I don't deny that in many cases, the field tests should be refused. There is just too many variables and too much ambiguity to say, "No one should ever take a field test". Probably in most cases, however if your friend wasn't impaired like you say, why didn't he walk the line and prove it?
I agree with you somewhat here. I believe that it is perfectly okay for some people to have a few beers in a period of time and drive. The reason the law is like that is because of way too much ambiguity with BAC tests. I don't doubt that your friends can drive after a few beers because they probably have higher tolerance than other people. So their BAC doesn't reflect the level that they are impaired. For some people, a few beers does indeed put them beyond being able to drive responsibly. So if you have a few beers and get pulled over you may or may not want to take the opportunity to prove that you are not impaired. I was pulled over once after having a couple beers with dinner. The officer smelled it on me and asked if I would perform a field sobriety test. I did, passed with flying colors and he gave me a ticket for not stopping for long enough at a stop sign and went on his way. Had I not cooperated with him, he would have arrested me.
Also, you can be charged with DUI even if you are blow below the legal limit. It is the officer's discretion whether or not you are impaired. I rememebr a few years ago a baseball player in Seattle named Richie Sexson was charged with DUI after blowing a .06.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not up to the officer. That would be up to the jury if you were to go to trial. Like I've said a few times already, field tests are solely used to establish probable cause to arrest a person. If the officer could smell beer on the breath of a person, they could establish probable cause.
I don't deny that in many cases, the field tests should be refused. There is just too many variables and too much ambiguity to say, "No one should ever take a field test". Probably in most cases, however if your friend wasn't impaired like you say, why didn't he walk the line and prove it?
Comment