One should have right to demand a blood test.To many people can't pass field with out having a drink or smoke.To many have disabilities,old,whatever.
And I don’t have a source, so it’s anecdotal but one of those things where you read enough of these cases and even see how cops are trained that the intent for most stops unrelated to genuine traffic violations is to get cause to search the vehicle.
I think back to some of those corridors within the United States where law enforcement abuse cash forfeiture laws to take peoples money.
Might I suggest that you research it and post what you find.
Think of a field sobriety test. Now think of if that actually tests for sobriety. There, there's your source.
I am neither left nor right, but I feel like I need to say this much more in spaces that heavily lean left -- I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
And note that “involving” is very much not the same thing as “caused by”. Yes, “caused by” will be a big chunk of it, but there's a reason the latter term is not used.
The right to demand a blood test or other mechanism of having the state own the burden of proof might be inconvenient but it's integral to a fairly operating system, just like the right to demand a lawyer or representation.
They have breathalyzers and blood tests. Field sobriety tests are not there to help police arrest drunk drivers, they're there to help police arrest whomever they want to.
> I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
The U.S. is one of the most punishment-happy countries in the world. Nearly every politician vows to be "tough on crime". This is an incredible thing to say given the past 50 years of policing and justice in the U.S. Won't somebody please think of the children!?
> I am neither left nor right
The "center" is constantly moving and has been, on average, shifting far to the right over the last 20 years. Anyone who claims to be a centrist is therefore either changing their politics with the wind, or was far right all along.
You're wrong about that. "Sobriety" isn't limited to alcohol. You'll notice that most laws against drunk driving are actually against being "intoxicated" or "impaired". Breathalyzers and blood tests are for gathering indisputable evidence.
Field sobriety tests are there to determine if you're motor skills are impaired. If an officer observers a person driving erratically and they can't walk a straight line or touch their own nose, they shouldn't be driving. You can be arrested for DUI [of sleeping pills].
The only time police would specify a DUI was for alcohol is if a breathalyzer or blood test showed that. Even if the officer says there was a beer can on the floor and they smelled like alcohol, they could be under the legal limit and be on any number of other substances so the DUI wouldn't specify alcohol.
There are plenty of reasons that someone might not be able to demonstrate this to the subjective opinion of an officer and be completely unimpaired and competent at driving. e.g. people with atypical minds or bodies
Police generally ask people to do these tests when they have already made up their mind about someone being impaired. The only point of the test, practically, is generate standardized documentation. It is a dog and pony show.
Other countries that have serious anti-driving-impairment programs don't use these types of subjective tests -- they test people for using the substances directly.
These days, so much of that will be recorded on video, from the dash cam to the body cam, it's usually cut and dry that the person accused is under the influence of something.
> people with atypical minds or bodies
This is a reasonable concern so I don't want to dismiss it but this isn't even close to the typical situation and, to emphasize, the reason for the stop is usually bad driving and the officer is looking for an explanation. Before a sobriety test is administered, there is already a cause for being pulled over. So people who can't pass a sobriety test because they have a physical or mental reason they can't only have that one piece of evidence against them removed.
I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons.
Not only does it cause significant problems for people who are unjustly jailed and charged for crimes they didn't commit -- but it also lets drunk drivers off the hook when the flimsy evidence fails to convict. These aren't hypotheticals, both are very common.
Police in the US simply need to be equipped with roadside chemical tests for substances. They exist, they just simply don't use them.
Here's is an example of what other countries do:
https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/
> The officer takes a sample of your saliva by placing an absorbent collector in the mouth or on the tongue. The sample is then analysed at the roadside. If the test is positive, it must be confirmed by laboratory testing before charges can be laid.
Doesn't that sound like a better solution than: "The officer makes you stand on one leg and say the alphabet backwards, if they don't like they way you did it, you are charged with DUI"?
> I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons.
The more common, and even more scary issue, is that sometimes people undergoing medical emergencies are arrested for DUI and sent to jail instead of a hospital. Which is again another situation that would be avoided entirely by roadside testing. This is such a common issue for diabetics that police normally do train to recognize the difference, but since they are not medical professionals and don't have adequate equipment, they still often confuse the two.
Watch this dashcam video: https://www.wsmv.com/2025/10/02/retired-deputy-arrested-dui-...
I feel like you're not getting my point.
> Doesn't that sound like a better solution than: "The officer makes you stand on one leg and say the alphabet backwards, if they don't like they way you did it, you are charged with DUI"?
No, it doesn't. DUI isn't a law that lists a bunch of chemicals that are illegal to drive while using. The purpose of the tests is to prove you shouldn't be driving, not what drugs you're on.
You could be over-tired and get a DUI and I think that's justified.
Part of the criminal element of DUI is someone's choice to alter their body intentionally. I don't think many would think it would justly apply to natural processes like sleepiness or medical emergencies. That's not to say there shouldn't be penalties for failure to operate a vehicle safely, but those situations are clearly very different than DUI.
The relevant section of the law here is:
(f) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle.
> And it absolutely does have a list of what qualifies... and that list basically includes all drugs and alcohol.
Does it state that the list is the exhaustive list? I have a hard time believing that someone could be pulled over, obviously inebriated but get off because they were actually on some new synthetic marijuana that wasn't on that list.
And most laws in the US work this way (e.g. they are not strict liability). We often treat people differently based on why a thing happened because doing a bad thing for a bad reason is worse than doing the same thing for any other reason. For example, the penalty for killing a person might range from "absolutely nothing" to "life in prison or death" depending on why it happened.
> Does it state that the list is the exhaustive list? I have a hard time believing that someone could be pulled over, obviously inebriated but get off because they were actually on some new synthetic marijuana that wasn't on that list.
They thought of this -- the list itself includes any "chemical" that is "mind altering", as well as specific drugs.
What it doesn't include is any reason that isn't drugs or alcohol related.
Yeah, good point, they were probably pulled over for being black.
Maybe. Or they were pulled over for being black, or having tattoos, or being really hot, or because they criticized police brutality on social media, or because the officer needs to hit their arrest quota by the end of the month, or because they're driving an expensive car and the officer thinks they'll have lots of cash they can legally rob via civil asset forfeiture. We have far, far too many examples of all of these happening to say with any certainty that the police officer actually suspects anyone of an actual crime.
By the way, I have called in drivers who were badly impaired before. One kept driving up onto the curb, on the sidewalk and grass (next to a school!), then swerving back nearly into the oncoming lane, then stopping in the middle of the road, etc. Another kept swerving toward the concrete barriers on the highway, and when I passed them, they looked visibly asleep. Both times, the cops didn't care. They didn't send anyone. They sounded annoyed that I was bothering about that crap. The police do not care whether people are driving drunk or not, just like they do not care whether an active shooter is gunning down kids in an elementary school. They don't care if a violent dad with a restraining order has kidnapped his kids and is about to murder them, even when the mom tells them exactly where he has taken them. Their interests are orthogonal to the just enforcement of the law.
At any rate, the solution is to fire all of the corrupt cops and strictly enforce ethical and legal rules. Everything considered to be evidence needs to have an actual scientific basis for it. No more arresting people for being drunk because an officer with three months of training is considered to be an expert judge in impairment. Officers caught lying about the basis for an arrest should be imprisoned. Enforce the law, but do it in both directions.
Having criminal police is possibly worse than having no police. "First, do no harm" right?
I have tremendous respect for the work that good police do. I support laws that have higher penalties for crimes against police and other public workers. But respect is a two-way street. I also support higher penalties for crimes committed by police and other public workers.
To support the societal belief in law and order, it is much more important to punish the meta issues where the government is itself causing harm. It's not that there should magically be no crime committed by police officers. But rather every single crime should be investigated and prosecuted to the utmost extent.
Should be illegal.
In California, you are required to submit to chemical testing (breath, urine, or blood — I don’t recall the rules for which applies in which situations). However, you are not required to otherwise talk to or perform the absurd procedure of the field sobriety test (“you have the right to remain silent”).
For example, https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-righ....
I took OpenAI's references as correct without checking legislation as I'm on my phone.
If the police decide to have you exit the car and do the field tests, the odds are high they have already decided to arrest you. At that point, it's best to refuse all unless you have had absolutely zero drugs/alcohol. And then the question has to be why did they have you get out the car.
A positive result will get you arrested and taken to the station, where they have the (non-portable) court admissible calibrated kit.
And if giving every cop a calibrated breathalizer is too expensive: give them a reasonably-accurate one for in the field, then take everyone who fails it to the station for a retest on an expensive calibrated one.
Look for “if cops say I smell Alcohol, say these words” on YouTube, gives you tips on how to respond if asked about alcohol use or doing a sobriety test.
Of note, in my state implied consent applies after the arrest. I believe this limits the information the officer gets for free before making the judgement for your arrest. It's easier in her book to defend a case where they have to show probable cause for the arrest without that free information. I have never driven under the influence, I used her for a "I don't know how fast you were going but it was fast so here's a reckless driving ticket" before and this was the card she gave me. I wonder if this approach lets her use fruit of the poisoned tree approach to dismiss cases where the cause for the arrest was flimsy gets any evidence afterwards inadmissible. Again, I only watched her work one case. The judged called the case, she asked to confer with the prosecutor, then the prosecutor dropped all charges. Took five minutes.
Note, I am not a lawyer and I am recollecting information from 20 years ago. Things may have changed. Consult your lawyer, not YouTube.
> To Washington State Law Enforcement Agents Who Have Stopped, Detained, or Arrested Me.
> I want an attorney and help contacting one. I will not answer questions or speak to you except for identification purposes. I do not consent to detention or search of my person, belongings, automobile, or any other item or place. Since they are voluntary, I will not perform field sobriety tests or take the portable breath test (PBT). I will consent to take a breath or blood test at the station, unless my attorney advises me not to. I understand that if I refuse, DOL will suspend my license for at least 1 year.
More or less what I recalled, but written in a way that's both for the officer and yourself.
I said I hadn't and didn't know anybody who did. It's true that I don't and had not been around any and there's no way my car smelled like drugs. I think I was on the verge of heat stroke and basically didn't respond with any level of stress to anything he said. I was being pulled over for driving without a seatbelt, which I almost never do, but it was 95 degrees and my AC was broken and I couldn't bring myself to put my back against the chair (plus I was in the middle of nowhere).
Another cop also showed up reasonlessly to hang around behind the other one with his lights on after awhile (I'd pulled into a gas station), which I think was also supposed to freak me out. I ended up excusing myself to go stand in the gas station to cool down and when I came back they were gone
But your car still gets towed even if you pass the tests at the station and don't ultimately get charged because you refused the field test.
Per the article, he refused the old walk-along-a-straight-line-without-swaying, not a blood test (nor even a breathalyser).
Blood tests are not administered in the field, they would be administered at a nearby medical facility, later in this process.
He refused the blood draw as was his right.