Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the
time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to
see what happened.
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the
time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to
see what happened.
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the
time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot >>about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to
see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a
commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the
time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot >>> about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to
see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a
commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned
period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off
duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a
separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory?
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:In most driving cases, you can turn down sobriety tests, but it means you lose your license. They canrCOt force you to take the test, but you suffer the full penalty if you donrCOt.
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the >>>> time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot >>>> about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to >>>> see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a
commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned
period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off
duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but
failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a
separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory?
On Sep 29, 2026 at 9:25:03 AM PDT, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the >>>>>time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot >>>>>about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to >>>>>see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a >>>>commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned >>>period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off >>>duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but >>>failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a >>>separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory?
In most driving cases, you can turn down sobriety tests, but it means you >>lose your license. They canrCOt force you to take the test, but you suffer >>the full penalty if you donrCOt.
There's no penalty for refusing the roadside circus act, but if you refuse the >blood or breath tests, that's where they can hit you.
On Sep 29, 2026 at 9:25:03 AM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:blood or breath tests, that's where they can hit you.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:In most driving cases, you can turn down sobriety tests, but it means you
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the >>>>> time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot >>>>> about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to >>>>> see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a
commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned
period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off >>> duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but
failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a
separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory?
lose your license. They canrCOt force you to take the test, but you suffer >> the full penalty if you donrCOt.
There's no penalty for refusing the roadside circus act, but if you refuse the
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 2026 at 9:25:03 AM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>blood or breath tests, that's where they can hit you.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:In most driving cases, you can turn down sobriety tests, but it means you >>> lose your license. They canrCOt force you to take the test, but you suffer >>> the full penalty if you donrCOt.
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the >>>>>> time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot
about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to >>>>>> see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a
commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned
period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off >>>> duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but >>>> failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a
separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory? >>>>
There's no penalty for refusing the roadside circus act, but if you refuse >> the
The cop camera videos I see on Facebook from various random states. Say
that if you refuse the roadside circus act (I like that phrase) you go straight to jail.
On Sep 29, 2026 at 5:11:33 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 2026 at 9:25:03 AM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>>blood or breath tests, that's where they can hit you.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:In most driving cases, you can turn down sobriety tests, but it means you
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the >>>>>>> time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot
about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to >>>>>>> see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a
commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned >>>>> period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off
duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but >>>>> failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a >>>>> separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory? >>>>>
lose your license. They canrCOt force you to take the test, but you suffer
the full penalty if you donrCOt.
There's no penalty for refusing the roadside circus act, but if you refuse
the
The cop camera videos I see on Facebook from various random states. Say
that if you refuse the roadside circus act (I like that phrase) you go
straight to jail.
As both a former law enforcement officer and an attorney, I would advise to never do field sobriety tests. By the time a cop has you out of the car and is
asking you to do the circus act on the side of the road, he has almost 100% already decided to arrest you. You're not going to perform your way out of it.
The purpose of putting you through the tests is to get you to help them build a case against yourself. Prosecutors have found that juries tend to convict on
DUIs a lot more often if they have video of the defendant staggering around on
the side of the road. You'd think the breathalyzer results would be the most convincing hard cold factual evidence, but people are visual creatures and juries want to see it, not just have a bunch of numbers and percentages read to them. So the FSTs are never in your best interest. You're going to the station in handcuffs anyway. Don't give them a bunch more evidence for them to
use against you on top of it.
There is no state in the United States where mere refusal to perform field sobriety tests results in an automatic license suspension. I knew this myself and I just checked Grok AI to confirm it. It would be legally impossible for a
state to have such a law given the wide array of physical injuries, disabilities, and simple things like balance issues that are common in the population. For example, there are people who drive who can't even walk. The law can't require you to perform physical acts that you don't have the ability
to perform, then punish you for not doing it.
On 2026-09-29 8:44 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
. . .
As both a former law enforcement officer and an attorney, I would
advise to never do field sobriety tests. By the time a cop has you out
of the car and is asking you to do the circus act on the side of the
road, he has almost 100% already decided to arrest you. You're not
going to perform your way out of it. The purpose of putting you
through the tests is to get you to help them build a case against
yourself. Prosecutors have found that juries tend to convict on DUIs a
lot more often if they have video of the defendant staggering around
on the side of the road. You'd think the breathalyzer results would be
the most convincing hard cold factual evidence, but people are visual >>creatures and juries want to see it, not just have a bunch of numbers
and percentages read to them. So the FSTs are never in your best
interest. You're going to the station in handcuffs anyway. Don't give
them a bunch more evidence for them to use against you on top of it.
There is no state in the United States where mere refusal to perform
field sobriety tests results in an automatic license suspension. I
knew this myself and I just checked Grok AI to confirm it. It would be >>legally impossible for a state to have such a law given the wide array
of physical injuries, disabilities, and simple things like balance
issues that are common in the population. For example, there are
people who drive who can't even walk. The law can't require you to
perform physical acts that you don't have the ability to perform, then >>punish you for not doing it.
The police definitely have skills at coaxing you into doing things that >*seem* to be in your interests rather than in theirs.
Field sobriety tests are certainly in that category. They let you think
that this will help you by persuading them that you're sober enough but
it's really all about helping *their* case with visible evidence of >impairment. Also, I've seen videos of doing those tests where the
suspect actually appeared to pass yet they still went to jail anyway
(and were proven to be intoxicated by the eventual blood test). But if I >were the officer and really thought the tests were credible, I'd have
likely let the person go.
The other way is by imploring you to be honest with them during--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
interviews at the police station. They assure you that this will help
you, yet it seldom does: it just makes *their* job easier. Instead of >spending multiple hours trying to dig the truth out of you, they
persuade you to just tell them the truth straight out. Having seen a
number of these interrogations, the suspect is often not too bright or
is impaired either temporarily with booze or drugs or permanently with >mental health issues. They are definitely not in a position very often
to give plausible explanations for things and resort to lies, usually
clumsy and easily disproven ones. Even a lawyer with only moderate
skills could have saved these suspects, even when guilty.
One other thing on Field Sobriety Tests, I decided to try some of those >tests myself. I couldn't do the Nystagmus test on myself - the one where
you have to follow the tip of the pen with your eyes - but I tried the >heel-to-toe walk and the holding your foot in the air test. I failed
both! I was stone cold sober at the time - I've never consumed booze in
my life and my one use of marijuana was in the early 80s - so I was >definitely NOT impaired. But I've sprained my right ankle three separate >times so that may be an issue. Or maybe my shoes are too worn. Or I'm
just getting old. In any case, I'd fail those tests and get myself a
trip to the pokey (or the hospital) to do either a breathalyzer or blood >test. I'm surprised by how uncommon it is for American police to have >breathalyzers in their cars; I had the impression our cops have them but >that may be mistaken.) Honestly, if any officer asked me to do the FSTs,
I would just ask to go to the hospital or police station to do the more >conclusive tests now that I know I would fail the FSTs.
No. You wouldn't.
You may have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. You may believe
you are there to protect and serve. But once you have made a traffic
stop, you are an adversary, not the driver's lawyer.
Truly, your bosses DON'T want you to find the body in the trunk. Drunk driving comes with great big fines, whereas a murder investigation might
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a million, with no fine revenue at the end.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-29 8:44 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
. . .
As both a former law enforcement officer and an attorney, I would
advise to never do field sobriety tests. By the time a cop has you out
of the car and is asking you to do the circus act on the side of the
road, he has almost 100% already decided to arrest you. You're not
going to perform your way out of it. The purpose of putting you
through the tests is to get you to help them build a case against
yourself. Prosecutors have found that juries tend to convict on DUIs a
lot more often if they have video of the defendant staggering around
on the side of the road. You'd think the breathalyzer results would be
the most convincing hard cold factual evidence, but people are visual
creatures and juries want to see it, not just have a bunch of numbers
and percentages read to them. So the FSTs are never in your best
interest. You're going to the station in handcuffs anyway. Don't give
them a bunch more evidence for them to use against you on top of it.
There is no state in the United States where mere refusal to perform
field sobriety tests results in an automatic license suspension. I
knew this myself and I just checked Grok AI to confirm it. It would be
legally impossible for a state to have such a law given the wide array
of physical injuries, disabilities, and simple things like balance
issues that are common in the population. For example, there are
people who drive who can't even walk. The law can't require you to
perform physical acts that you don't have the ability to perform, then
punish you for not doing it.
The police definitely have skills at coaxing you into doing things that
*seem* to be in your interests rather than in theirs.
Field sobriety tests are certainly in that category. They let you think
that this will help you by persuading them that you're sober enough but
it's really all about helping *their* case with visible evidence of
impairment. Also, I've seen videos of doing those tests where the
suspect actually appeared to pass yet they still went to jail anyway
(and were proven to be intoxicated by the eventual blood test). But if I
were the officer and really thought the tests were credible, I'd have
likely let the person go.
No. You wouldn't.
You may have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. You may believe
you are there to protect and serve. But once you have made a traffic
stop, you are an adversary, not the driver's lawyer. Yeah, quotas are unconstitutional, but you are part of the fining regime. Your job is to gather evidence without being "unreasonable", and with probable cause.
It's a dance, hoping the person being detained doesn't ask if he's being detained so you have to justify it, and hope he is unaware that some of
the orders you give he can refuse.
Truly, your bosses DON'T want you to find the body in the trunk. Drunk driving comes with great big fines, whereas a murder investigation might
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a million, with no fine revenue at the end.
--The other way is by imploring you to be honest with them during
interviews at the police station. They assure you that this will help
you, yet it seldom does: it just makes *their* job easier. Instead of
spending multiple hours trying to dig the truth out of you, they
persuade you to just tell them the truth straight out. Having seen a
number of these interrogations, the suspect is often not too bright or
is impaired either temporarily with booze or drugs or permanently with
mental health issues. They are definitely not in a position very often
to give plausible explanations for things and resort to lies, usually
clumsy and easily disproven ones. Even a lawyer with only moderate
skills could have saved these suspects, even when guilty.
One other thing on Field Sobriety Tests, I decided to try some of those
tests myself. I couldn't do the Nystagmus test on myself - the one where
you have to follow the tip of the pen with your eyes - but I tried the
heel-to-toe walk and the holding your foot in the air test. I failed
both! I was stone cold sober at the time - I've never consumed booze in
my life and my one use of marijuana was in the early 80s - so I was
definitely NOT impaired. But I've sprained my right ankle three separate
times so that may be an issue. Or maybe my shoes are too worn. Or I'm
just getting old. In any case, I'd fail those tests and get myself a
trip to the pokey (or the hospital) to do either a breathalyzer or blood
test. I'm surprised by how uncommon it is for American police to have
breathalyzers in their cars; I had the impression our cops have them but
that may be mistaken.) Honestly, if any officer asked me to do the FSTs,
I would just ask to go to the hospital or police station to do the more
conclusive tests now that I know I would fail the FSTs.
Adam H. Kerman wrote in article <119jbl5$cj43$1@dont-email.me>:
No. You wouldn't.
You may have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. You may believe
you are there to protect and serve. But once you have made a traffic
stop, you are an adversary, not the driver's lawyer.
It's true. When a cop pulls someone over, he has already decided
to cite or arrest.
My home state built this into the process, ages ago. Cops would
pull people over for speeding or similar, the drivers would
explain, and the cops would often let them go with an informal
warning. Not enough money came in, so the process was changed:
cops called in the stop before ever approaching the driver, so
that they had to explain why they weren't pursuing the ticket.
Ticket rates went up satisfactorily.
Truly, your bosses DON'T want you to find the body in the trunk. Drunk >>driving comes with great big fines, whereas a murder investigation might >>cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a million, with no fine >>revenue at the end.
Well, there's such a thing as a glory bust. The DA would probably
like that, if it were a literal murder in an area which doesn't
have many.
On 2026-09-29 8:44 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 29, 2026 at 5:11:33 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 2026 at 9:25:03 AM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:blood or breath tests, that's where they can hit you.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:In most driving cases, you can turn down sobriety tests, but it means you
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the
time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot
about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to
see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a >>>>>>> commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned >>>>>> period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off
duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but
failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a >>>>>> separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory?
lose your license. They canrCOt force you to take the test, but you suffer
the full penalty if you donrCOt.
There's no penalty for refusing the roadside circus act, but if you refuse
the
The cop camera videos I see on Facebook from various random states. Say >>> that if you refuse the roadside circus act (I like that phrase) you go
straight to jail.
As both a former law enforcement officer and an attorney, I would advise to >> never do field sobriety tests. By the time a cop has you out of the car and >> is
asking you to do the circus act on the side of the road, he has almost 100% >> already decided to arrest you. You're not going to perform your way out of >> it.
The purpose of putting you through the tests is to get you to help them
build
a case against yourself. Prosecutors have found that juries tend to convict >> on
DUIs a lot more often if they have video of the defendant staggering around >> on
the side of the road. You'd think the breathalyzer results would be the most
convincing hard cold factual evidence, but people are visual creatures and >> juries want to see it, not just have a bunch of numbers and percentages read
to them. So the FSTs are never in your best interest. You're going to the >> station in handcuffs anyway. Don't give them a bunch more evidence for them >> to
use against you on top of it.
There is no state in the United States where mere refusal to perform field >> sobriety tests results in an automatic license suspension. I knew this
myself
and I just checked Grok AI to confirm it. It would be legally impossible
for a
state to have such a law given the wide array of physical injuries,
disabilities, and simple things like balance issues that are common in the >> population. For example, there are people who drive who can't even walk. The
law can't require you to perform physical acts that you don't have the
ability
to perform, then punish you for not doing it.
The police definitely have skills at coaxing you into doing things that *seem* to be in your interests rather than in theirs.
Field sobriety tests are certainly in that category. They let you think
that this will help you by persuading them that you're sober enough but
it's really all about helping *their* case with visible evidence of impairment. Also, I've seen videos of doing those tests where the
suspect actually appeared to pass yet they still went to jail anyway
(and were proven to be intoxicated by the eventual blood test). But if I were the officer and really thought the tests were credible, I'd have
likely let the person go.
The other way is by imploring you to be honest with them during
interviews at the police station. They assure you that this will help
you, yet it seldom does: it just makes *their* job easier. Instead of spending multiple hours trying to dig the truth out of you, they
persuade you to just tell them the truth straight out. Having seen a
number of these interrogations, the suspect is often not too bright or
is impaired either temporarily with booze or drugs or permanently with mental health issues.
They are definitely not in a position very often
to give plausible explanations for things and resort to lies, usually
clumsy and easily disproven ones. Even a lawyer with only moderate
skills could have saved these suspects, even when guilty.
One other thing on Field Sobriety Tests, I decided to try some of those tests myself. I couldn't do the Nystagmus test on myself - the one where
you have to follow the tip of the pen with your eyes - but I tried the heel-to-toe walk and the holding your foot in the air test. I failed
both! I was stone cold sober at the time - I've never consumed booze in
my life and my one use of marijuana was in the early 80s - so I was definitely NOT impaired. But I've sprained my right ankle three separate times so that may be an issue. Or maybe my shoes are too worn. Or I'm
just getting old. In any case, I'd fail those tests and get myself a
trip to the pokey (or the hospital) to do either a breathalyzer or blood test. I'm surprised by how uncommon it is for American police to have breathalyzers in their cars;
. . .
I don't know what breathalyzers cost but I'm under the impression that
they are widely regarded as accurate so it seems to me that, unless
they're crazy expensive, it would simply be more efficient to put one in >every patrol car and simply administer that test when they suspect >impairment.
. . .--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I don't know what breathalyzers cost but I'm under the impression that
they are widely regarded as accurate so it seems to me that, unless
they're crazy expensive, it would simply be more efficient to put one in
every patrol car and simply administer that test when they suspect
impairment.
You and I watch the same videos as fed by YouTube. The field
breathalyzer test must be calibrated repeatedly and the patrol officer
has difficulty. The test administered at the station by a well-trained technician who maintains it is far more accurate. Most accurate is
testing blood by a lab.
Also, the driver wants to be taken to the station.
The test is delayedI was surprised to learn that blood alcohol doesn't always decrease with
and more alchohol has been metabilized.
. . .
On 2026-09-30 1:39 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I don't know what breathalyzers cost but I'm under the impression that >>>they are widely regarded as accurate so it seems to me that, unless >>>they're crazy expensive, it would simply be more efficient to put one in >>>every patrol car and simply administer that test when they suspect >>>impairment.
You and I watch the same videos as fed by YouTube. The field
breathalyzer test must be calibrated repeatedly and the patrol officer
has difficulty. The test administered at the station by a well-trained >>technician who maintains it is far more accurate. Most accurate is
testing blood by a lab.
Also, the driver wants to be taken to the station.
Really? I haven't seen that in any of many dozens of videos.
The test is delayed
and more alchohol has been metabilized.
. . .
I was surprised to learn that blood alcohol doesn't always decrease with >time; it can also increase. I had assumed that blood alcohol just
decreased after you stopped drinking but it can apparently go up for a >while. Perhaps this is something to do with digestion? In any case, the
time lapse between making the stop and getting the blood or breathalyzer >test at the station or hospital may actually work *against* the driver
in some cases.
On Sep 30, 2026 at 5:00:17 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-29 8:44 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Sep 29, 2026 at 5:11:33 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>>
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 2026 at 9:25:03 AM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:blood or breath tests, that's where they can hit you.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:In most driving cases, you can turn down sobriety tests, but it means you
Rhino wrote in article <119ek7t$2lspk$3@dont-email.me>:
Cops investigate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) situations all the
time but this video is decidedly different: it involves an airline pilot
about to take off for a commercial flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNsoFxfLZk [29 minutes]
It doesn't end well for the pilot. Stay to the end (or skip ahead) to
see what happened.
I've never heard of "DUI with the willful intention to pilot a >>>>>>>> commercial aircraft." What a specific crime.
Makes sense. If one is scheduled to fly and drinks within the banned
period before going on duty, that's a crime of intent. If one drinks off
duty but then gets called to duty, there's no intent from drinking but
failure to report "I need two more hours before entering duty" is a >>>>>>> separate crime.
I really don't get why there was no blood draw. Aren't those mandatory?
lose your license. They canrCOt force you to take the test, but you suffer
the full penalty if you donrCOt.
There's no penalty for refusing the roadside circus act, but if you refuse
the
The cop camera videos I see on Facebook from various random states. Say >>>> that if you refuse the roadside circus act (I like that phrase) you go >>>> straight to jail.
As both a former law enforcement officer and an attorney, I would advise to
never do field sobriety tests. By the time a cop has you out of the car and
is
asking you to do the circus act on the side of the road, he has almost 100%
already decided to arrest you. You're not going to perform your way out of
it.
The purpose of putting you through the tests is to get you to help them >>> build
a case against yourself. Prosecutors have found that juries tend to convict
on
DUIs a lot more often if they have video of the defendant staggering around
on
the side of the road. You'd think the breathalyzer results would be the most
convincing hard cold factual evidence, but people are visual creatures and
juries want to see it, not just have a bunch of numbers and percentages read
to them. So the FSTs are never in your best interest. You're going to the >>> station in handcuffs anyway. Don't give them a bunch more evidence for them
to
use against you on top of it.
There is no state in the United States where mere refusal to perform field
sobriety tests results in an automatic license suspension. I knew this >>> myself
and I just checked Grok AI to confirm it. It would be legally impossible >>> for a
state to have such a law given the wide array of physical injuries,
disabilities, and simple things like balance issues that are common in the
population. For example, there are people who drive who can't even walk. The
law can't require you to perform physical acts that you don't have the >>> ability
to perform, then punish you for not doing it.
The police definitely have skills at coaxing you into doing things that
*seem* to be in your interests rather than in theirs.
Field sobriety tests are certainly in that category. They let you think
that this will help you by persuading them that you're sober enough but
it's really all about helping *their* case with visible evidence of
impairment. Also, I've seen videos of doing those tests where the
suspect actually appeared to pass yet they still went to jail anyway
(and were proven to be intoxicated by the eventual blood test). But if I
were the officer and really thought the tests were credible, I'd have
likely let the person go.
There have been cases where the subject performed the tests without a problem on the body cam, but the cop's "special training" supposedly allowed to detect
subtle clues of intoxication, only for the guy to blow 0.0 on the breath test and negative for drugs on the blood test.
In other words, the cop's "special training" led him to arrest an innocent and
completely sober person. And they don't even apologize for putting you through
it when their super-duper training fucks up your life.
That's the other reason the FSTs can't be mandatory: because they're not based
on anything scientific. It's just the personal opinion of the cop on the side of the road whether you pass the tests or not.
The other way is by imploring you to be honest with them during
interviews at the police station. They assure you that this will help
you, yet it seldom does: it just makes *their* job easier. Instead of
spending multiple hours trying to dig the truth out of you, they
persuade you to just tell them the truth straight out. Having seen a
number of these interrogations, the suspect is often not too bright or
is impaired either temporarily with booze or drugs or permanently with
mental health issues.
I never understand how local cops get away with interrogating people who are under the influence. We can't do that on the federal level. Judges have ruled that just like with consent to sex, being intoxicated renders consent to waive
Miranda meaningless. I always had to wait for someone to sober up before I could legally have them waive Miranda and talk to me.
They are definitely not in a position very often
to give plausible explanations for things and resort to lies, usually
clumsy and easily disproven ones. Even a lawyer with only moderate
skills could have saved these suspects, even when guilty.
One other thing on Field Sobriety Tests, I decided to try some of those
tests myself. I couldn't do the Nystagmus test on myself - the one where
you have to follow the tip of the pen with your eyes - but I tried the
heel-to-toe walk and the holding your foot in the air test. I failed
both! I was stone cold sober at the time - I've never consumed booze in
my life and my one use of marijuana was in the early 80s - so I was
definitely NOT impaired. But I've sprained my right ankle three separate
times so that may be an issue. Or maybe my shoes are too worn. Or I'm
just getting old. In any case, I'd fail those tests and get myself a
trip to the pokey (or the hospital) to do either a breathalyzer or blood
test. I'm surprised by how uncommon it is for American police to have
breathalyzers in their cars;
The ones they carry in their cars are not legally admissible. They don't have the accuracy or the technological protocols-- clearing the tube between each breath so one blow doesn't contaminate the next, etc.-- so they don't meet evidentiary standards.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-30 1:39 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I don't know what breathalyzers cost but I'm under the impression that >>>> they are widely regarded as accurate so it seems to me that, unless
they're crazy expensive, it would simply be more efficient to put one in >>>> every patrol car and simply administer that test when they suspect
impairment.
You and I watch the same videos as fed by YouTube. The field
breathalyzer test must be calibrated repeatedly and the patrol officer
has difficulty. The test administered at the station by a well-trained
technician who maintains it is far more accurate. Most accurate is
testing blood by a lab.
Also, the driver wants to be taken to the station.
Really? I haven't seen that in any of many dozens of videos.
BTR1701 explained to you how bad field breathalyzer tests are.
The test is delayed
and more alchohol has been metabilized.
. . .
I was surprised to learn that blood alcohol doesn't always decrease with
time; it can also increase. I had assumed that blood alcohol just
decreased after you stopped drinking but it can apparently go up for a
while. Perhaps this is something to do with digestion? In any case, the
time lapse between making the stop and getting the blood or breathalyzer
test at the station or hospital may actually work *against* the driver
in some cases.
From Quincy, I was aware that it increased after death. I knew there
were some diseases that could make it rise.
But everybody?
If that's true, then even a blood test isn't evidence of having exceeded
the threshold while driving.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-30 1:39 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I don't know what breathalyzers cost but I'm under the impression that >>>> they are widely regarded as accurate so it seems to me that, unless
they're crazy expensive, it would simply be more efficient to put one in >>>> every patrol car and simply administer that test when they suspect
impairment.
You and I watch the same videos as fed by YouTube. The field
breathalyzer test must be calibrated repeatedly and the patrol officer
has difficulty. The test administered at the station by a well-trained
technician who maintains it is far more accurate. Most accurate is
testing blood by a lab.
Also, the driver wants to be taken to the station.
Really? I haven't seen that in any of many dozens of videos.
BTR1701 explained to you how bad field breathalyzer tests are.
The test is delayed
and more alchohol has been metabilized.
. . .
I was surprised to learn that blood alcohol doesn't always decrease with
time; it can also increase. I had assumed that blood alcohol just
decreased after you stopped drinking but it can apparently go up for a
while. Perhaps this is something to do with digestion? In any case, the
time lapse between making the stop and getting the blood or breathalyzer
test at the station or hospital may actually work *against* the driver
in some cases.
From Quincy, I was aware that it increased after death. I knew there
were some diseases that could make it rise.
But everybody?
If that's true, then even a blood test isn't evidence of having exceeded
the threshold while driving.
. . .
Then under *my* rules, they'd all go to the station for the good >breathalyzers or to the hospital for blood draws.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
Then under *my* rules, they'd all go to the station for the good
breathalyzers or to the hospital for blood draws.
Depending on circumstances, one or both are mandatory under
state/provincial law. The legal theory is that driving is a privilege,
not a right, so testing regimes have been ruled constitutional.
It took years to get testing mandates to be found constitutional till
the privilege argument passed muster.
You might think the common law right to travel precludes the privilege argument but you aren't a federal judge and your opinion doesn't count.
Sep 30, 2026 at 12:29:03 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
Then under *my* rules, they'd all go to the station for the good >>>breathalyzers or to the hospital for blood draws.
Depending on circumstances, one or both are mandatory under >>state/provincial law. The legal theory is that driving is a privilege,
not a right, so testing regimes have been ruled constitutional.
It took years to get testing mandates to be found constitutional till
the privilege argument passed muster.
The privilege argument only applies to the imposition of administrative >sanctions, like revoking the driver license. If they want to impose criminal >penalties, they still have to conform to constitutional requirements.
You might think the common law right to travel precludes the privilege >>argument but you aren't a federal judge and your opinion doesn't count.
You have the right to travel. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right >to use all methods of travel. Revoking your driver license or putting you on a >no-fly list doesn't stop you from walking or riding a bike or taking a boat.
On 2026-09-30 1:38 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
While an apology would be the gentlemanly way to go, I can imagine that
There have been cases where the subject performed the tests without a
problem
on the body cam, but the cop's "special training" supposedly allowed to
detect
subtle clues of intoxication, only for the guy to blow 0.0 on the breath
test
and negative for drugs on the blood test.
In other words, the cop's "special training" led him to arrest an innocent >> and
completely sober person. And they don't even apologize for putting you
through
it when their super-duper training fucks up your life.
the police protocols frown on that. They probably view it as weakness to admit to error, weakness that undermines them in some vague way.
But if the tests show 0 alcohol in the driver's system, I don't see how
that can fuck up their lives. Sure, it inconveniences them and
potentially embarrasses them in front of their passengers but that would seem to be the worst of it.
On Sep 30, 2026 at 12:05:47 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-30 1:38 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
While an apology would be the gentlemanly way to go, I can imagine that
There have been cases where the subject performed the tests without a
problem
on the body cam, but the cop's "special training" supposedly allowed to >>> detect
subtle clues of intoxication, only for the guy to blow 0.0 on the breath >>> test
and negative for drugs on the blood test.
In other words, the cop's "special training" led him to arrest an innocent
and
completely sober person. And they don't even apologize for putting you >>> through
it when their super-duper training fucks up your life.
the police protocols frown on that. They probably view it as weakness to
admit to error, weakness that undermines them in some vague way.
But if the tests show 0 alcohol in the driver's system, I don't see how
that can fuck up their lives. Sure, it inconveniences them and
potentially embarrasses them in front of their passengers but that would
seem to be the worst of it.
Ah, Rhino. So naive. You think just because they pass all the tests that means
they release the guy with no charges?
Nope. The guy still has to spend a day or so in jail, make bond, hire a lawyer, and fight the charges in court, which is where the charges are actually dropped in most cases. Maybe the D.A. drops them before court, but that still leaves a lot of time and expense for an innocent person to deal with.
If I was a defense attorney with a client who was arrested for DUI and who had
stupidly decided to do those FSTs, the first thing I would do is research the arresting officer's previous cases for any instance where a driver had failed the FSTs but had then subsequently blown 0.0 on the breathalyzer. And if I found one, impeachment on the stand would be simple and fun.
(And before anyone jumps in and points out that I'm asking leading questions, this would be cross-examination so those are allowed.)
ME: Officer, you say this video shows my client exhibiting signs of intoxication?
COP: Yes.
ME: What qualifies you to make that determination?
COP: As I testified on direct, it's based on my training and experience.
ME: Oh, yes, yes. I remember. Officer, do you remember arresting a man named John Smith for DUI on -- -- -- date?
COP: Umm... yes, I think so.
<pause to wait for the D.A. to throw a fit over relevance>
ME: Your honor, the witness made it relevant when he said he was relying on his training and experience. We're entitled to explore the depth and breadth of that training and experience as well as its accuracy in past cases.
JUDGE: Overruled. You may proceed.
ME: Officer, did you testify in that case that you based your arrest of Mr. Smith on his performance of the FSTs?
COP: Yes...
ME: And your determination that his performance indicated intoxication was also based on your training and experience?
COP: (uncomfortable now) Yes.
ME: And did you subsequently conduct a breathalyzer test on Mr. Smith?
COP: Yes.
ME: And do you remember the results?
COP: No, I do a lot of them.
ME: <pulls out a record> Let me refresh your memory. Your honor, I'd like to submit the results of Mr. Smith's breathalyzer test as Defense Exhibit 1.
<prosecutor has another aneurysm that's overruled>
JUDGE: So ordered.
<I hand copies to the judge and the D.A. and one to the cop>
ME: Officer, is this a true and correct copy of Mr. Smith's breathalyzer results to the best of your recollection?
COP: It looks like it, yes.
ME: Please read the highlighted portion.
COP: (stares daggers at me, then grudgingly reads) "Blood alcohol content: 0.0%"
ME: So, officer, when it came to Mr. Smith, you're much-lauded training and experience led you to arrest a man for DUI who was stone-cold sober, is that right?
COP: Well, you see--
ME: It seems to me that your training and experience leaves a lot to be desired and isn't something anyone should take seriously. Certainly not something that would sustain a criminal conviction for DUI, wouldn't you say?
<prosecutor furiously screams "Objection! Badgering! Argumentative!" and literally has kittens in the courtroom>
ME: Withdrawn. Nothing further your honor. I'm done with this well-trained and
highly experienced officer.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 120:07:12 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,002 |