The police will break any law they can to steal your money 🤑. And if you call them out on it, they can fight it in court with millions of your dollars. What a racket!
"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..." - PC is required to obtain a Warrant, not permission to arrest. Felons (cops) don't care what the law is. They will arrest you if they think they can get away with it. IMMUNITY breeds Psychopathy... Meaning people who are not held accountable are EMBOLDENED and become more psychotic. Any BAR member issuing Warrants as a "Judge" is committing a Felony as he has a conflict of interest. The function of the BAR is to undermine the Constitution.
There are cops out there that are determined to make a DUI arrest even if the subject has not had a drink in years. I had this happen to me. I was on my way home late one night. I was a bit over the speed limit (62 in a 55 zone), and cop was hiding behind a bridge. He stopped me, and was DETERMINED to "get me" for DUI. Her had me doing all sorts of field sobriety tests (which I did not know at that time that I could refuse). He kept asking me to say that I had been drinking. I had not had a drink of ANY alcoholic beverage in about 10 years. At one point, I got a bit vocal and told him that he was harassing me, and that if he was intent on arresting me, then LET'S DO IT!!! Turned out that he was a rookie, and his sergeant was sitting in the cruiser. Again, I said loudly to either arrest me or let me go. if he was going to write me a ticket, then GET BUSY AND DO IT! Finally, he wrote me the ticket and let me go. One more reason that I despise cops.
Multiple your experience by a million a year and you understand why cops are no longer the "good guys" they used to be. When respect for authority fails, (for whatever reason, justified or not) civilization falls.
Maybe he thought that you had been drinking. At least he didn't lie about your performance on the field sobriety test. When all is said and done sounds like he still stayed within the confines of the law. He's allowed to try and get you to "admit" to the crime, and he's allowed to ask you to voluntarily perform acrobatics maneuvers as well. Unfortunately, they're also allowed to be abrasive assholes and some of them embrace that prerogative too frequently. Did you ask him why he thought you had been drinking?
@@davidreed3021 He was a rookie and was determined to impress his superiors by making DUI arrest(s). He also spoke as if he had just been out of the academy yesterday. I did not ask him why he thought I had been drinking. I was adamant about telling him that I had not had a drink in over a decade. He was just as adamant about thinking I had been drinking. Had he not been wearing a uniform, I would have knocked him on his ass.
Hidalgo sheriff just said -we’ll have extra officers out but they’re not going on calls (aka requests/needs for assistance) and instead focus solely on a cash grab assuming everyone on the road is a criminal.
@RovvyWade What I meant to say is the funding for these dui enforcement patrols comes from a grant that directs these officers to only target intoxicated drivers. I wasn't clear on that.
Indeed anyone who has this happen to them should get the name and hospital that the nurse works at, and be sure to inform them that *they plan to sue the nurse and the hospital in civil court for assault.* Bet that nurse's eyes opens real wide...
It was in the news recently that they gave a civil engineer qualified immunity when he impersonated the police and detained two work trucks on public property.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 yep...the psycho cop attacked her for not bowing down to his illegal cover up for his drunken cop friend. The nurse eventually sued the county but the rabid animal should have been put down regardless of the costume.
@@WitnessingTyranny That civil engineer was a government employee which if why he qualified. If the nurses are employed by the city or state they might qualify too. But if they are working for a private sector hospital they won't. I've also heard of school principals and social workers being granted qualified immunity but in all cases they are government employees.
This is a great example of what makes me incredibly cynical about police: they routinely-and without compunction-use lies, deceit, and manipulation to achieve their end. And then I have to pay to be lied to. It's ethically deplorable.
"Don't drink and drive, get a designated driver and you won't ever need any of this advice" I WISH that was true. Previous video of the kid who blew 0.0, passed all the twirly hand stands, hadn't had any substances whatsoever, and was still arrested demonstrates otherwise, sadly.
Some of us don't drink and drive but still have needed the advice. There are reasons why you're driving at 3am other than you were at a bar that just closed for the night, but some cops think that's enough probable cause to pull you over
@@rdizzy1 Yep and the first God-damned item is always "where are you coming from", so if you refuse to answer they can "deem" that suspicious, and if you answer truthfully, it might be twisted against you somehow.
@@no_rubbernecking suspicion isn't proof and without proof there is no probable cause. That's what we need to relearn ourselves and then teach those imbeciles who try to use those absurd accusations. You can be as suspicious as you want and until a criminal act can be proven, they have a short amount of time to detain you and write the ticket and release you and they need to be made constantly aware of that. Don't answer their questions, ask them over and over again, "am I free to go". Every new question they ask remind them you dont answer questions and you don't talk to police and ask again if you are free to go. Wash, rinse, repeat. Don't argue, just repeat incessantly and if they do anything else then you start to have legitimate grounds for a lawsuit. But it's hard to do. I find myself trying to figure out a smartass way to answer them and just starting an argument. Then it becomes a dick measuring contest and they have vowed to their overlords to never lose an argument no matter whose life it costs
The judge being on-site changes nothing. There had better be some form of reasonable suspicion. Just because he's a judge doesn't mean he can write warrants for willy-nilly. A refusal isn't reasonable suspicion by itself. That's just standing up for your rights.
Vampire weekends in Texas. So does the judge have to answer to the Supreme Court and state bar for signing off on the blood draw warrants that come back negative for alcohol and substances? How is a check point probable cause? What if someone has a blood disorder such as hemophilia? Are they punished for refusing a potentially life threatening invasion of their body? So many questions.
@@keithmarlowe5569 exactly thats how check points started out to begin with but then why cant they just stop and search everyone to see if they are carrying a gun ?
@@stargirlzx Actually the courts set guidelines for checkpoints that they are supposed to adhere to in order for them to be constitutional. They are supposed to issue a public announcement giving the public sufficient warning about exactly when and exactly where they are going to be conducting checkpoints. The checkpoints are also supposed to be voluntary. They are required to set them up in a location and in such a manner that there is ample opportunity for a driver to make a valid turn or to turn around within the distance that a checkpoint is clearly visible. And the fact that a driver chose to avoid the checkpoint or that they made an illegal u-turn because no valid opportunity to avoid the checkpoint was provided is expressly prohibited from being used as a basis for chasing down and initiating a stop on that vehicle. Of course in practice they usually violate almost all of those guidelines. But very few people even know those guidelines exist, which is what they count on.
@@Rowgue51 in nj the police are Supposed to select cars randomly ... what they do is ... a cop walks down the line and approaches EVERY vehicle waiting in line and offers the driver a pamphlet on why theres a checkpoint. This allows them toI interact with EVERY driver. If you refuse to lower your window to accept the pamphlet you are automatically randomly selected
"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..." - PC is required to obtain a Warrant, not permission to arrest. Felons (cops) don't care what the law is. They will arrest you if they think they can get away with it. IMMUNITY breeds Psychopathy... Meaning people who are not held accountable are EMBOLDENED and become more psychotic. Any BAR member issuing Warrants as a "Judge" is committing a Felony as he has a conflict of interest. The function of the BAR is to undermine the Constitution.
@@stargirlzx in my area (Kansas) I believe they are required to follow a predetermined pattern like every 3rd car or every 4th or something. Letting police choose "randomly" is clearly wide open for abuse.
It's not a violation of your rights for them to ask a judge for a warrant if you refuse to provide a breath specimen. Generally speaking they won't go through the trouble, and will just lay their case on your performance of physical tests or things like slurred speech and/or erratic driving. On a "no-refusal" weekend they will go "through the trouble" 100% of the time. Courts have generally found DUI checkpoints to be fair game as well.
It's also important to note that you can still refuse a blood draw for testing purposes even with a warrant being issued. You're guaranteed to be charged with and almost certainly convicted of some form of contempt or obstruction charge. But they cannot forcibly administer a medical procedure against your will, and even if they could very few hospitals would be willing to go along with it because of both the ethical concerns as well as the risk of exposing themselves to legal liability.
@@goofballbiscuits3647 they cannot forcibly remove blood from your own body. Any police department that does so is only biding it's time for an attorney to nuke them from orbit as soon as they catch wind of it.
As others have stated, they want blood so they can test for other substances, including legal ones. For example, people have been convicted for impaired driving for having Benadryl in their system. They are literally fishing in your own blood for a reason to charge you.
I refused any field testing on a stop in Nevada. The cop said he have to arrest me since he "smelled alcohol. I politely said "yes sir, I understand ". At the station I was forced to sign a consent for the blood test which I did but I wrote on the form next to my signature that I do not consent to the blood test. The blood test came back as borderline fail and I was charged but my attorney got the case dismissed.
As a Texas resident, this is great info! Of course, I don't drink or do any drugs...so I don't really worry about it, but the same thing applies...if asked "I'm sorry officer, my lawyer friend says I shouldn't talk with you".
Well, police can smell alcohol coming out of your car from 30 miles away and everyone's eyes are always glassy. So I expect they'll arrest you anyway if you refuse.
No alcohol is an odorless and colorless liquid. What they mean to say is alcoholic beverage. If the cop says just "alcohol" this would be first question on the stand: So what does an odorless liquid smell like?
When the hospital nurse asks for your consent to draw blood, I assume she hands you a form to sign, and the hospital fully intends to charge you for the procedure whether you test positive or negative for alcohol or any controlled substances. I like the footage you used where it shows that college football player who blew below a 0.00 on the Breathalyzer and the officer still arrested him.
Also submitted to the field sobriety test and they tried to hold that over his head despite the fact he was taking it in the middle of the night in the pouring rain.
0:50 I have to correct you here. You say they can only arrest you if they have PC. The reality is cops can arrest you for looking at them funny. Or not looking at them. Or laughing. Or sneezing. They can only LAWFULLY arrest you if they have PC. There's a big difference.
This mean the city's coffers are running dry, the city needs the income. In my opinion this is predatory in nature and a direct violation of individual rights and the Constitution of The United States. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin.
There was a scary video about cops attending a 2 hour seminar and becoming experts in judging intoxication and weed use thru use of keen eyesight and "brains". Using some cockeyed "walk the line" and touch your ass type tests Invariably, however, the slower blood test later proves zero alcohol or substance in the person's blood but after 1-2 days in jail and paying the cost of having the car towed. These officers compete to win medals, increments! To serve their interests and to protect the deptt
In Louisiana, the cops set up check points and they conveniently have a van set up with a breath test machine (like you would have at the station). If you are under the influence, they have got you. Some folks claim that this is entrapment, but I have never heard of anyone getting out of it. BTW, if they take a blood test, don't they swab your arm with alcohol before they stick you?
Cannabis metabolites do not stay in blood very long, a few days at most. You are thinking of the time it stays in urine. (upwards of 30-60+ days in long term smokers) Although this is largely irrelevant, because even at a few days it has no effect on whether you are high at that given time, since the high only really lasts for 2-3 hours at most.
@DMac I'm saying that drivers aren't dui just because they have Marijuana in there blood it stays in 30 days so cops use this fact to get people on false dui that is almost impossible to defend in court . I'm saying the cops are dirty
I dont drink, but even then I will not take a breath test. I will consent to a blood test provided they take me to the hospital to do it, and they agree to pay the bill. There is no way I would willingly agree to a blood test at a police station, being taken by someone that may or not be an actual nurse where blood samples could be mixed up. I don’t have much faith in law enforcement anymore
The obvious problem with all of this: After a while, new officers will come to believe that it really can't be refused. Then they start "punishing" people for refusing. It's the same thing that happened with ID. Police were trained to ID everybody they come in contact with. ID as many people as possible, because it helps grow the database. Now they think "I got a call, that means I need to ID you." or "This is a valid traffic stop, so I need to ID everybody in the car." Then they arrest people for not providing ID. SOMETIMES they will get to court and learn about the 4th amendment, but not always. Some cops go their whole career thinking that if he asks for ID, you must provide it.
We've had "no-knock weekends" where a judge signs off on a stack of hundreds of warrants without even reading them, and what do you know innocent people end up getting hurt over typos.
I just seen that Canada can now go to your home up to 3 hours after you drove and do a test then charge you for impaired, So Friday night get home at 6 have a few and at 9 the cops can arrest you for DUI
As ridiculous as it sounds it's 100% real. And the law doesn't even attempt to contend that they are testing you to determine if you were impaired at the time you were actually driving. It flat out says that you're breaking the law if you're over the limit two hours after you drove, regardless of when you actually consumed the alcohol. Make no mistake though, this happens in the US too. There are at least half a dozen videos right here on youtube of people getting knocks on their door and being asked to submit to FSTs. DUI guy has a trial on his channel that involves this very thing. The main difference being that in the US it's going to require some reasonable indication that the person was impaired while driving and that they were driving very recently. And proving a case like that is much more difficult because asserting that you weren't drinking prior to getting home is a valid defense against the charge if the jury believes you. In canada that defense isn't valid because under the law it's irrelevant whether you were actually impaired while driving. It's literally against the law to be impaired hours after driving.
This is going to sound crazy but, why not just convict people for actual crimes or traffic infractions and not for the potential to commit them. If a drunk driver gets into an accident or kills someone, charge them. If they drive perfectly fine down the road, let them be. No victim, no crime.
You're leaving money on the table!!! It's not about protecting and serving the community, it's about grabbing all the money you can. For instance there was a video recently of a place I believe in Delaware that cops had a speed trap. A citizen took a piece of cardboard and wrote " speed trap ahead " to warn the other drivers. Two highway patrol officers quickly came to intimidate him , steal his sign and destroy it. Now if it was really about making people slow down the cardboard sign worked, it's protected under the first amendment etc. But it's not about making the roads safer at all. .. and the cops were happy to violate the rights of a citizen to prove it..
As a Texas police officer, when Texas says a no-refusal-weekend, it means they will not allow you to refuse the breath test without them getting a warrant. It has nothing to do with the SFST in the field. And they do not need the weekend, they can get the warrant any time (and some departments do). But there is a bigger legal question to this, IMO. It is generally considered duress if I obtain consent to search by saying otherwise I will get a warrant. The search then becomes illegal because the consent wasn't freely given. Doesn't that apply here?
@@Car_Buyer_Class Nope. Those torture chairs cannot legally be used for that. Even if they could, they don't hold an arm still enough for a blood draw.
Oh, they're quite happy to help you with that. You will likely receive several officer's help in rendering you into an unconscious state, possibly permanently.. it happens all the time...
@@jonathanjohnson8656 I doubt beating a man unconscious simply for refusing a blood draw is a legal option. That said, you are correct. It does happen all the time, but not for a blood draw.
@@iwineverygame1995 They hold you down and take your blood, I've seen it happen. That is why the judge is there in that room rubber stamping warrants. They are protected if they need to take it by force.
Last part of the video is the most important. It astounds me, how many people still don't (want to) understand how much safer and cheaper it is to Uber than to drive drunk.
Not being drunk or high means almost nothing. There's been many cases of completely sober people being stitched up by revenue dogs that wouldn't just let it go. Cops are liars, and they WILL lie about literally everything.
It's almost like their decision making is literally and legally impaired, despite laws that say they are responsible anyway. It's illegal for a bartender to sell a drink to an intoxicated person. It's illegal for a lawyer to engage in a contract agreement with an intoxicated person. It's illegal to have sex, with an intoxicated person. But suddenly when they are driving, the person is perfectly capable of making that decision, in the eyes of the law.
@@Tijuanabill That's a weak excuse, unless you're coming from the angle of somebody whose coffee or cola was spiked without their knowledge. Otherwise, you know you are going to drink, you plan to avoid driving. If you get to a place and suddenly decide to drink, suddenly make alternative transportation arrangements, or suddenly decide not to drink. None of this is rocket science.
@@jreese46 But then why the double standard? The reason is the victimhood is changing from the intoxicated to the not intoxicated. But the law argues both sides of the issue at hand; in one instance you are responsible, in others you are not. In reality, human society has let these people down, when simple steps could be taken to solve the safety issue, other than just putting people in jail who can't control themselves. We are letting people operate dangerous machinery, then saying they are the irresponsible ones. Sure, they are are; but the effectiveness of the solution, given the cost of it, is wildly expensive. Or we could stick a breathalyzer in every car for 20 bucks instead, and save all the lives of the people killed by drunk drivers that don't get caught until an accident happens. But you know, moral preening first, safety second....or never. Put one bad man in bad place, while ignoring the hundreds of others running around every night.
So because I drive and have medications that make my eye fail the "eye test" and have balance problems, but I have no problem driving, that I must submit to faulty DUI field tests during a checkpoint? No thank you!
Seems like there are federal felonies in the US Code that criminalizes violations of rights under the color of law, and also, conspiracy to violate rights. Seems like the Texas LEO's and the judge could and should be brought before a federal judge to face these charges. Lies to violate rights under the color of law...
I prefer not to be arrested because even if you get the arrest record purged, it still might be out there and you have to legally answer that question when applying for a government job that requires TCS clearance.
What if you have a CDL and are in your personal vehicle? We are told the we "cannot refuse" any test. Is that true? As a disabled driver I can refuse the field test, but not a breath test.
If taking blood and you are at a hospital and don't voluntarily agree to having a sample taken for testing., i doubt a hospital would strap you to a table and take blood from your arm due to the possibility of being sued. However, could the police then charge you with obstruction? If they in fact had a warrant? Seems like being charged for obstruction would be far less costly than a DUI or DWI.
They have warrants, what do you think the judge in plain clothes in that room is rubber stamping? Warrants. Also there are instances of people that are not police, but are working for the police (directly or indirectly) getting the same qualified immunity that they have to protect them from lawsuits, specifically for this purpose.
@@rdizzy1 some places charge the accused for the cost of the blood draw. I would think that would mean they are working for the accused not for the police.
I try to avoid check points as I am disabled and don't want to be put through the hassle. I can't do the field tests and have had cops tell me no crutches as they could be a weapon.
Thirty years ago when stationary stop locations were common in VA, I used to live near where they often set up Friday and Saturday nights every summer. Since I had printed and laminated the 10,000 or so "implied consent" & "Miranda" cards the police used, I knew about VA's implied consent law. I declined the field sobriety tests, saying I was happy to volunteer for a breathalyzer instead. They always made a face and told me I was free to go.
Some countries skip the FST completely because it is subjective BS. Just breathalize for indication.. then blood for evidence. I suppose some places in the USA are so poor and the people utter peasants that is not worth spending money on equipment and tests for them. They are so worthless that they dont care about banging them up in jail either.. although this seems expensive.
One very important thing to note in Texas. One of our conditions of having a license is to agree to the field sobriety test. If you say no, it is revoked and you need to figure out the process of getting a new one. This I have heard is way easier than dealing with a DWI. In Houston, I’ve been fortunate that I have had no circumstances where a DWI was in question. As a side note, I wound up drinking a beer in front of a DWI task force lieutenant. I went in for jury duty and in Houston, you get a free bus ride for it. Went in, got dismissed and decided to get lunch at Treebeards. Not driving, may as well have a beer. Not a single table open… so I ask a guy that was sitting alone if I could join him. We start chatting and he lets me know what he does for a living. DWI lieutenant. I immediately tell him I’m taking the bus as I am drinking a beer. We both laughed.
Can I refuse a FSB and insist on a breathalyzer or blood test instead? I'm an old diabetic guy, pretty sure I couldn't pass a FSB if I was sober. Some of us just have bad balance.
I have physical limitations after a motorcycle accident years ago left me with a cervical spine fusion and my ankles, knees etc have severe arthritis that affects my movement. If they take me to do a blood sample I'm pretty sure my vehicle will be towed in retaliation for " doing things the hard way.." My career ended after my fusion and I am trying to get by on a small fixed income. It worries me how quickly things could get worse for me and I don't even drink.
*Depending on the jurisdiction,* if you expect you will fail the test, I would think a different charge would be preferable to a DUI on your record for insurance, etc. Here, if they get a warrant, making them go through the motion buys you time and a chance you level will sufficiently drop, and provide more opportunities for your lawyer to challenge.
You can NOT CONSENT, meaning they CANNOT take bodily fluids or materials without your consent, if they do it is assault and battery! You are not refusing you are just exercising your right to remain silent and still, you CANNOT be made to say or do ANYTHING that can be used for or against you! Seizure of your bodily fluid and parts, is coercion and entrapment! You have an UNALIENABLE RIGHT to NOT CONSENT! Do not "resist" just do not consent, that means they must take it which is unlawful tainted evidence, it violates your rights at every level! 😱😝😁🤪🤣👍👍🇺🇲
So much for the presumption of inoccents. Most police and court's judge's and lawyer's go to Hell. Follow them and find out. Or repent and seek God's forgiveness.
Being drunk is different for drivers with a cdl, than a regular license. Using Scope mouthwash would make me a drunk according to the law, even while driving my car. Maybe these cops should focus on the erratic drivers. Sit in the cab of a truck with a camera and radio. Actually get the bad drivers off the road.
Here in New South Wales Australia, we have mobile and static breath testing. If you a refuse a breath test you automatically lose your licence. The roadside test is only a guideline and if you fail the first test you are given twenty minutes before a second test is given. If you fail the second test you will be taken to the nearest police station to be put on the proper blood alcohol machine. If they fail to have the authorised (BAS) operator get your sample within two hours they have to let you go. If you refuse to use the machine they will take aa blood sample.
If only the cops would go after known criminals with such fervor. If they have Proof of dui enough to pull you over, they have enough to arrest and charge. Wrangling the legal system to end up performing invasive procedures is unconstitutional These catch-all checkpoints are unconstitutional on their face.😢
No, they can't. But they get around it by saying things like, "I smell the odor of alcohol coming from you. You have bloodshot, glassy eyes, and you're unsteady on your feet." Basically, they make up probable cause to arrest you after a refusal. Then they tell those lies to a judge who grants a warrant without asking any questions. By the way, isn't that an "ex-parte" hearing? Which would make the warrant illegal???
And what does an odorless liquid like alcohol smell like officer? Where did you get your training in Smells 101? Was the course taught by a certified smells expert? Do you have proof you finished the course? I only ask since they don't teach this course at any police academy. And you are aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that smells are NOT probable cause? My lawyer will have a field day with the idiot that tries that with me
Those last few sentences seemed pretty out of character, since you ought to be more than aware that simply being sober won’t stop the cops from pulling you over in the first place and possibly still arresting you.
Lol you should check out the law on this in Alabama. It don't matter, they still gonna find a way to screw you over. If I recall correctly, they can even suspend your license just for refusal even if the dui charge was ultimately dismissed. It's 90 days for the first refusal and 1 year for the 2nd. It's really interesting to me how each state is supposed to be bound by the constitution but ultimately can just throw that shit out the window and ignore it.
We definitely have our share of crooked courts and cops. From the case of Brookside that got national attention last year for cops having tow trucks pull up immediately at traffic stops and other shenanigans to the town of Valley who recently arrested an 82 year old woman for an unpaid trash collection bill ( they arrested her on the weekend so she would have to spend even more time in jail, and laughed while doing it. ) to the Etowah county sheriff's department who arrested a woman for allegedly endangering a baby she was carrying, but in jail she provided definitive "proof" she was not pregnant and was denied feminine hygiene products by the department and forced to sleep on the floor of the jail ( that would have been bad for the baby, but nevermind... ) . To Walker county where they allegedly put an inmate in a freezer and when it went too far they were caught in a cover up carrying him to a patrol vehicle ( they claimed he walked) . The dr said after a rectal temperature test that he couldn't explain the temperature of the body.. and this is all in about the past 6 months or so...
In all but 8 states you can refuse portable breath tests, and Alabama isn't one of the 8 and literally every state you can refuse field sobriety test. Cops Willie to saying you have to do it but If they give you charge you for dui or dwi without taking you down to the station to do a breath test there or a blood draw then it's a violation of 4th amendment and you can fight it in court.
@@jonathanjohnson8656 Don't forget the old ladies that got arrested in Wetumpka for rescuing stray cats in a public park. Because as we all know the biggest threat to the community is an elderly woman with some felines
@@jonathanjohnson8656 Also, if I am not mistaken, in regards to the shenanigans in Valley; Lanett is currently being sued for doing the very same thing.
@@JohntheFancy Thanks!!! How could I forget those sweet ladies helping to solve the problem of feral cats out of their own money? They weren't hurting anything or breaking any laws. . Alabama has wonderful people and I am proud of a lot of things from here but our judicial system is always trying to make things worse it seems. I don't hate cops or the courts, but I'm really sad to see people who deserve better getting dragged down by a system that simply want to tax ( penalize) those who are already struggling or have made a mistake and are trying to pay for it while elites are never held accountable.. But it's probably the same everywhere I suppose.. isn't that a sad thought ?
"We have a judge on hand in the police station" Wasn't there this thing called separation of powers? So much for that. Just like when the cops told this guy he's under arrest 4 or 5 times, implied he can avoid going to jail by talking, didn't read him his rights - and the colorado state supreme court declared that they'll still use what he said against him because he wasnt under "formal" arrest.
You have no idea what the phrase "separation of powers" means, do you? The US Supreme Court met in the Capitol from 1800 to 1935. No serious constitutional scholar would suggest their rulings during that time were invalid because of it.
Here in Idaho you don't have to submit to any tests, but refusal to do so will result in a suspended license. I believe that is a violation of the 9th and/or 10th amendments. It's one of the only only things that irritates me about this state besides the mass influx of blue hair from California.
Evidentiary testing is defined as "procedure or test or series of procedures or tests utilized to determine the concentration of alcohol or the presence of drugs" of which a field sobriety test would fail to determine the concentration. And police have to have "reasonable grounds" you are driving in violation. Otherwise your attorney can argue within 7 days they didn't have reasonable ground.
@jcadult101 I will preface this with I don't drink and drive but, my job requires me to drive. It's the major component to my work. If I can't drive I can't do my job. If the state wants to issue a license to drive then hold that over people's head and violate my freedoms to travel and do my job in violation of my 9th/10th amendment rights is absolutely wrong. I have disabilities that could affect the outcome of a roadside test. I don't understand how people support that. "If you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about" is a bs argument. There are plenty of cases of people who weren't doing anything wrong who suddenly had something to worry about. It's why we have a right to counsel. If all it takes is one hothead/ignorant cop to ruin my income for a week or more I think I have reason to be concerned over such extortion. Sure, there are legit reasons for a license to be suspended, but this is not one as far as I can tell.
Australia the Uber driver has been pulled over several times JUST to do the test. One time he asked the cop if he did something and the cop said "no, you're just the only one on the road".
I am reminded of OJ Simpson's lawyer, Kardashian, talking the police into drawing blood from Simeon after he saw the cut on Simpson's hand. So he could later tell the jury that the police had the means to plant blood stains at the murder scenes.
"Get a designated driver and you won't t need this advice" is not bullet proof either. The young man used in the editing when narrating the "refuse roadside tests" part of this video, was 100% sober passed a breathalyzer and was still arrested.
Andrew, I don't know how I stumbled across your videos but I can't get enough. You are the friendly lawyer we all wish we knew and I have learned so much from your videos, thank you for being awesome! ✌
"don't drink and drive and you won't need any of this advice" but you repeatedly show clips of the guy who didn't refuse the physical test, blew a 0.0, and got arrested anyway on the basis of the officer lying about his performance on the physical test.
This is the problem. It's Catch-22. If you agree to the tests, you'll probably fail. They're designed for you to fail. The field sobriety tests are difficult even if you're sober. Plus, they're very subjective. Their real purpose is for the cops to add evidence to their notion that you're impaired, justifying your arrest. But if you refuse tests, which is your right, the cops will assume you have something to hide and probably arrest you anyway. I'd still refuse the tests. Why provide evidence to help the cop in arresting you?
@@RicardoRoams In Colorado refusal is an automatic 1 year suspension and they will get a warrant for your blood anyway. and charge you with obstruction as well. they claim it is a priviledge not a right. .. though cops here in Colorado have no qualified immunity anymore (thank God) so if the blood test comes back clean and sober you can sue them personally (not the department) for harrasment as of last year for $25.000 . So most cops think long and hard before charging you on suspicion alone.
@@thomasyunick3726 , is that punishment for refusal along the highway? Or after being arrested and taken to jail? My understanding is you can refuse road side sobriety tests along the highway in all states. There are a few states who punish you if you refuse the breathalyzer along the highway. It’s only after you’re arrested and taken into custody where you would be punished for refusal a breath test or blood test.
@@RicardoRoams Yes on the highway. The cop has to remind you ( tell you if you are from out of state) about the suspension law after you refuse and you are given a second chance to comply.. You sign a form before you are given your colorado drivers license that states no exceptions to blood testing if you refuse. You have no rights it is a priviledge here.. Most people comply with the breath and roadside test because the are dirty for weed and can still pass the road side test and drive away ...and avoid that blood draw which will result in a conviction.
@@RicardoRoams Can I Refuse to Take a Field Sobriety Test? In the state of Colorado, field sobriety tests are voluntary. You have a right to refuse them, and we recommend doing so with politeness and firmness. However, you do NOT have the right to refuse chemical testing-blood, breath, or urine analysis-if the officer asks it of you. Express consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment and Article II Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution. See generally Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563 (Colo. 2007). A chemical test completed pursuant to express consent is a search that every person “consents” to by operating a motor vehicle in the state of Colorado
Wouldn't that then mean that you could sue the cops on these "no-refusal weekends" for intimidation (threat of arrest) for declining their desire to do these tests on you? Wouldn't just the fact that they write that you can be arrested for saying no - an intimidation tactic to scare the public into compliance?
This is all a VIOLATION of The Constitution! No lawmaker, no Congressman, no senator, no judge, no Supreme Court, no President, no one can make a law or pass a law that VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION ! The judge cannot give out such a warrant. Does the judge really want to lose his job over that and get sued on a personal level ? I don't think The Judge will put himself in that kind of hot water. I would sue every involved; from the arresting police officer to the judge who issued such a nonsense warrant, including the nurses to performed the blood test. Everybody's getting sued on a personal level. People, don't start fooling around with The Constitution ! You will get sued on a personal level. We The People, We elect Our Government Officials into Office to Uphold and Defend The Constitution.
The No refusal weekend is just PR. The blood test will show drugs in your system. Of course the handling of the specimen, chain of custody etc is more involved.
Auditors and Constitutional citizens should have our counter: 1) this is our No Blow Weekend, officer! Now, be abundantly cautious to have no drinking, ensure your car is inspection ready! Check your tint. Give them nothing. 2) Have your Constitutional supporting 4A Attorney on standby. Organize this up! Have your bail cash in hand! 3) Challenge the sheriffs in court! Put them on notice that we Will elect a sheriff who upholds The Highest Law in the land First: our Constitution & thus our rights! 4) auditors can organize a protest convoy. Swamp them with a full cue of refusals!
I agree, don't drink and drive, but don't believe that a cop won't test you regardless of whether you've been drinking or not. So exercise the 4th and refuse, innocent or guilty. Know your rights, and stand up for them if for no other reason than to remind the cops that citizens have rights and that they cops cannot simply steam roll over those rights without consequences. Rolling over for them and complying to their BS simply affirms in their minds that they don't have to abide by the constitution.
Our city LEO desk sargent has a printed list of Magistrates (Judges) with the type of "crime" they will readily issue search/seizure warrants for. Little time is wasted hunting for the proper paper.
In Virginia, would you be able to request a blood test instead of the post-arrest breathalyzer test? Could you then refuse to waive liability at the hospital and then consent to the breathalyzer, thereby buying time for your BAC to fall below the legal limit as you would be driven to the hospital and then back to the station?
the key phrase from the VA guy was "plea deals" you don't have to prove shit if you can scare them into incriminating themselves for a "reduced" sentence
But to be fair, if you refuse, you WILL be arrested. You will just have to spend a night in jail and fork out tens of thousands in legal fees to get charges dropped.
You can refuse, but they will threaten to abuse you; your rights; your property; your liberty; and their office power and authority in acts of malfeasance in office and treason.
They do not do checkpoints either in Texas. These weekends are legally mandated to be announced when and where so drivers have ample notice to avoid them. Therefore, going through the checkpoint is almost voluntarily done.
I have a question about this. If you have a CDL, there are stricter rules and laws you have to follow. So if you have a CDL, do you have to comply with road side sobriety tests or can you legally refuse them like any other driver?
You don't surrender your 4A rights, simply because you have a CDL. As part of compliance with FMCSA and state DOT regulations, you are obligated to allow cops to: - inspect your ELD, - inspect DOT medical certificate, weigh station certificates, etc... - inspect your load - inspect associated documentation (i.e. HAZMAT papers) , etc... all related specifically to your profession. But you still have right to: - refuse field sobriety tests, - refuse unwarranted search / inspection of your vehicle (not related to load inspection), - refuse to talk to the police (beyond the above listed obligations) without legal representation
The police will break any law they can to steal your money 🤑. And if you call them out on it, they can fight it in court with millions of your dollars. What a racket!
Ain't it?
But hey! "Defund the police!" Amirite?
Good luck with that when they can fund themselves by robbing you
The definition of a police state
The Founders wrote the Constitution to Prevent This. It is the Very Reason why the British Tried to Take Their Guns.
true how much money is this costing each state a year that is needed for real crime
If there is a judge on-site to give warrants, I'd like that judge to be evaluated.
I'd like to know what evidence that Judge considers right before signing the warrant.
@@djs12007 officer Doolittle says "he thinks"
Blame the voters.
What??? You don't even know what you're saying 🤣
"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..." - PC is required to obtain a Warrant, not permission to arrest.
Felons (cops) don't care what the law is. They will arrest you if they think they can get away with it.
IMMUNITY breeds Psychopathy... Meaning people who are not held accountable are EMBOLDENED and become more psychotic.
Any BAR member issuing Warrants as a "Judge" is committing a Felony as he has a conflict of interest. The function of the BAR is to undermine the Constitution.
I am sorry, our justice system is a HUGE joke now. A judge on sight. So they are pretty much rubber stamping everything.
The rubber stamp was even prominently featured in the video at 2:47
@@scoobasteve1086 Yeah, we have it all setup, right there, to take all the need to do the guessing out of it. A damn shame.
America is a POLICE STATE. The police make the rules as they go along, and their buddy behind the bench wearing a black robe is glad to comply.
I think the judge is on site. It is possible that the judge has no sight, but could still be a judge.
Yep. Yawn, stretch, yawn. You wanna what? Sorry, I was kinda passed out from booze. You wanna what? Okay, back to my recliner to sleep it off.
Let's make those weekends, "Answer no questions" weekends.
Or police please tell me no lies weekends.
There's also a judge (Montgomery county) who is a known drunk driver. Wonder how this weekend works there...
That's everyday
@@dentalnovember How can you get habitual liars to tell the truth?
Or middle finger weekends
There are cops out there that are determined to make a DUI arrest even if the subject has not had a drink in years.
I had this happen to me. I was on my way home late one night. I was a bit over the speed limit (62 in a 55 zone), and cop was hiding behind a bridge. He stopped me, and was DETERMINED to "get me" for DUI. Her had me doing all sorts of field sobriety tests (which I did not know at that time that I could refuse). He kept asking me to say that I had been drinking. I had not had a drink of ANY alcoholic beverage in about 10 years.
At one point, I got a bit vocal and told him that he was harassing me, and that if he was intent on arresting me, then LET'S DO IT!!! Turned out that he was a rookie, and his sergeant was sitting in the cruiser. Again, I said loudly to either arrest me or let me go. if he was going to write me a ticket, then GET BUSY AND DO IT!
Finally, he wrote me the ticket and let me go. One more reason that I despise cops.
Multiple your experience by a million a year and you understand why cops are no longer the "good guys" they used to be. When respect for authority fails, (for whatever reason, justified or not) civilization falls.
Shit girl. You look drunk now. Ease up on the booze toots
Maybe he thought that you had been drinking. At least he didn't lie about your performance on the field sobriety test. When all is said and done sounds like he still stayed within the confines of the law. He's allowed to try and get you to "admit" to the crime, and he's allowed to ask you to voluntarily perform acrobatics maneuvers as well. Unfortunately, they're also allowed to be abrasive assholes and some of them embrace that prerogative too frequently. Did you ask him why he thought you had been drinking?
@@davidreed3021 He was a rookie and was determined to impress his superiors by making DUI arrest(s). He also spoke as if he had just been out of the academy yesterday.
I did not ask him why he thought I had been drinking. I was adamant about telling him that I had not had a drink in over a decade. He was just as adamant about thinking I had been drinking. Had he not been wearing a uniform, I would have knocked him on his ass.
They are filthy crooks of a Satan-brand.
Hidalgo sheriff just said -we’ll have extra officers out but they’re not going on calls (aka requests/needs for assistance) and instead focus solely on a cash grab assuming everyone on the road is a criminal.
Then that sheriff needs to be removed from his position, as he is not protecting the rights guaranteed by our constitution and bill of rights..
Not everyone on the road, just those with burned out license plate lamps. Only drunk drivers don't check their license plate lamps.
@Justice Jones Actually these dui patrols are funded with tax dollars. Dui enforcement is all those officers are allowed to do.
@@phillijp everything officers or any government official or entity does is funded by tax dollars..what kind of point are you failing at making?
@RovvyWade What I meant to say is the funding for these dui enforcement patrols comes from a grant that directs these officers to only target intoxicated drivers. I wasn't clear on that.
Having a judge and nurse on staff seems like they are running a volume operation.
The nurse would not be protected by qualified immunity if sued.
Indeed anyone who has this happen to them should get the name and hospital that the nurse works at, and be sure to inform them that *they plan to sue the nurse and the hospital in civil court for assault.* Bet that nurse's eyes opens real wide...
It was in the news recently that they gave a civil engineer qualified immunity when he impersonated the police and detained two work trucks on public property.
See what happened to nurse Wubbells.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 yep...the psycho cop attacked her for not bowing down to his illegal cover up for his drunken cop friend. The nurse eventually sued the county but the rabid animal should have been put down regardless of the costume.
@@WitnessingTyranny That civil engineer was a government employee which if why he qualified. If the nurses are employed by the city or state they might qualify too. But if they are working for a private sector hospital they won't.
I've also heard of school principals and social workers being granted qualified immunity but in all cases they are government employees.
Funny how they have a judge and a nurse, but no defense attorney.
Whether the charges stick or not, the process is the punishment.
Yes, but a conviction is far worse. Don't give then any more evidence than they already have.
Exactly. Likely a punishment for doing nothing wrong.
This is a great example of what makes me incredibly cynical about police: they routinely-and without compunction-use lies, deceit, and manipulation to achieve their end. And then I have to pay to be lied to. It's ethically deplorable.
"Don't drink and drive, get a designated driver and you won't ever need any of this advice" I WISH that was true. Previous video of the kid who blew 0.0, passed all the twirly hand stands, hadn't had any substances whatsoever, and was still arrested demonstrates otherwise, sadly.
It's right up there with "tell me the truth, I'll go easy on you". They're allowed to lie!
Some of us don't drink and drive but still have needed the advice. There are reasons why you're driving at 3am other than you were at a bar that just closed for the night, but some cops think that's enough probable cause to pull you over
Happens quite a bit to people that work overnights driving to work, or home from work, depending on your specific hours.
You can exercise your constitutional right to travel any time of day or night and you will be punished for doing nothing if need be
@@rdizzy1 Yep and the first God-damned item is always "where are you coming from", so if you refuse to answer they can "deem" that suspicious, and if you answer truthfully, it might be twisted against you somehow.
Yup police certainly charge people who are sober, there was a recent video a guy blew 0.0 and still got arrested!
@@no_rubbernecking suspicion isn't proof and without proof there is no probable cause. That's what we need to relearn ourselves and then teach those imbeciles who try to use those absurd accusations. You can be as suspicious as you want and until a criminal act can be proven, they have a short amount of time to detain you and write the ticket and release you and they need to be made constantly aware of that. Don't answer their questions, ask them over and over again, "am I free to go". Every new question they ask remind them you dont answer questions and you don't talk to police and ask again if you are free to go. Wash, rinse, repeat. Don't argue, just repeat incessantly and if they do anything else then you start to have legitimate grounds for a lawsuit. But it's hard to do. I find myself trying to figure out a smartass way to answer them and just starting an argument. Then it becomes a dick measuring contest and they have vowed to their overlords to never lose an argument no matter whose life it costs
The judge being on-site changes nothing. There had better be some form of reasonable suspicion. Just because he's a judge doesn't mean he can write warrants for willy-nilly. A refusal isn't reasonable suspicion by itself. That's just standing up for your rights.
And do all 100s of people have the same 'reasonable suspicion'?
Vampire weekends in Texas. So does the judge have to answer to the Supreme Court and state bar for signing off on the blood draw warrants that come back negative for alcohol and substances? How is a check point probable cause? What if someone has a blood disorder such as hemophilia? Are they punished for refusing a potentially life threatening invasion of their body? So many questions.
@@keithmarlowe5569 exactly thats how check points started out to begin with but then why cant they just stop and search everyone to see if they are carrying a gun ?
@@stargirlzx
Actually the courts set guidelines for checkpoints that they are supposed to adhere to in order for them to be constitutional. They are supposed to issue a public announcement giving the public sufficient warning about exactly when and exactly where they are going to be conducting checkpoints. The checkpoints are also supposed to be voluntary. They are required to set them up in a location and in such a manner that there is ample opportunity for a driver to make a valid turn or to turn around within the distance that a checkpoint is clearly visible. And the fact that a driver chose to avoid the checkpoint or that they made an illegal u-turn because no valid opportunity to avoid the checkpoint was provided is expressly prohibited from being used as a basis for chasing down and initiating a stop on that vehicle.
Of course in practice they usually violate almost all of those guidelines. But very few people even know those guidelines exist, which is what they count on.
@@Rowgue51 in nj the police are Supposed to select cars randomly ... what they do is ... a cop walks down the line and approaches EVERY vehicle waiting in line and offers the driver a pamphlet on why theres a checkpoint. This allows them toI interact with EVERY driver. If you refuse to lower your window to accept the pamphlet you are automatically randomly selected
"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..." - PC is required to obtain a Warrant, not permission to arrest.
Felons (cops) don't care what the law is. They will arrest you if they think they can get away with it.
IMMUNITY breeds Psychopathy... Meaning people who are not held accountable are EMBOLDENED and become more psychotic.
Any BAR member issuing Warrants as a "Judge" is committing a Felony as he has a conflict of interest. The function of the BAR is to undermine the Constitution.
@@stargirlzx in my area (Kansas) I believe they are required to follow a predetermined pattern like every 3rd car or every 4th or something. Letting police choose "randomly" is clearly wide open for abuse.
Yeah make sense, let’s just have our rights suspended, but ONLY for the weekend.
It's just just for 48 hours.
No big deal 😂🤦♂️
Then maybe next weekend, WE could have a "Punch the cops in the face" weekend.......where we don't get charged with anything!
@@garyhull5617 Wait, that's only on the weekends?
@@jakegarrett8109 Don't be greedy Jake.....
It's not a violation of your rights for them to ask a judge for a warrant if you refuse to provide a breath specimen. Generally speaking they won't go through the trouble, and will just lay their case on your performance of physical tests or things like slurred speech and/or erratic driving. On a "no-refusal" weekend they will go "through the trouble" 100% of the time. Courts have generally found DUI checkpoints to be fair game as well.
It's also important to note that you can still refuse a blood draw for testing purposes even with a warrant being issued. You're guaranteed to be charged with and almost certainly convicted of some form of contempt or obstruction charge. But they cannot forcibly administer a medical procedure against your will, and even if they could very few hospitals would be willing to go along with it because of both the ethical concerns as well as the risk of exposing themselves to legal liability.
They take blood at the station.
@@goofballbiscuits3647 they cannot forcibly remove blood from your own body. Any police department that does so is only biding it's time for an attorney to nuke them from orbit as soon as they catch wind of it.
They will hold you down and take it.
@@edwardscott3262 It blows my mind that taking our blood is not a 4A.
@@edwardscott3262 Yes, with violence.
As others have stated, they want blood so they can test for other substances, including legal ones. For example, people have been convicted for impaired driving for having Benadryl in their system.
They are literally fishing in your own blood for a reason to charge you.
There was another video where this hunter said he had taken cough medicine for a cold and the warden arrested him for Hunting under the influence
I refused any field testing on a stop in Nevada. The cop said he have to arrest me since he "smelled alcohol. I politely said "yes sir, I understand ". At the station I was forced to sign a consent for the blood test which I did but I wrote on the form next to my signature that I do not consent to the blood test. The blood test came back as borderline fail and I was charged but my attorney got the case dismissed.
As a Texas resident, this is great info! Of course, I don't drink or do any drugs...so I don't really worry about it, but the same thing applies...if asked "I'm sorry officer, my lawyer friend says I shouldn't talk with you".
A judge that is on staff at the police department. Sounds like the shittiest judge position possible
The said in person or by zoom call.
But yeah, sounds like it would suck
VOTE THAT JUDGE OUT OF OFFICE.
Yeah that's gotta be against the Separation of Powers.
Well, police can smell alcohol coming out of your car from 30 miles away and everyone's eyes are always glassy. So I expect they'll arrest you anyway if you refuse.
Don't forget everybody always had to lean on their car door getting out!
No alcohol is an odorless and colorless liquid. What they mean to say is alcoholic beverage.
If the cop says just "alcohol" this would be first question on the stand: So what does an odorless liquid smell like?
When the hospital nurse asks for your consent to draw blood, I assume she hands you a form to sign, and the hospital fully intends to charge you for the procedure whether you test positive or negative for alcohol or any controlled substances. I like the footage you used where it shows that college football player who blew below a 0.00 on the Breathalyzer and the officer still arrested him.
Also submitted to the field sobriety test and they tried to hold that over his head despite the fact he was taking it in the middle of the night in the pouring rain.
0:50 I have to correct you here. You say they can only arrest you if they have PC. The reality is cops can arrest you for looking at them funny. Or not looking at them. Or laughing. Or sneezing. They can only LAWFULLY arrest you if they have PC. There's a big difference.
This mean the city's coffers are running dry, the city needs the income. In my opinion this is predatory in nature and a direct violation of individual rights and the Constitution of The United States. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin.
There was a scary video about cops attending a 2 hour seminar and becoming experts in judging intoxication and weed use thru use of keen eyesight and "brains". Using some cockeyed "walk the line" and touch your ass type tests
Invariably, however, the slower blood test later proves zero alcohol or substance in the person's blood but after 1-2 days in jail and paying the cost of having the car towed.
These officers compete to win medals, increments!
To serve their interests and to protect the deptt
They want the blood test so they can detect drugs, not just alcohol.
Good point.
Couldn't be that. That requires multiple different off site tests .
Having drugs in your system doesn't mean your driving while under the influence
@Karl Lager it does when the police lie and say you were "driving erratically"
That's what urine is for. I'll pee on their cup but that's about it. It's as clean as my blood is pure and they can't have any.
In Louisiana, the cops set up check points and they conveniently have a van set up with a breath test machine (like you would have at the station). If you are under the influence, they have got you. Some folks claim that this is entrapment, but I have never heard of anyone getting out of it. BTW, if they take a blood test, don't they swab your arm with alcohol before they stick you?
They use blood test because even if you aren't drunk it is highly likely that a high number of defendants have smoked weed in the last 30 days
And despite improved tests, they'll bust you whether you're actively stoned or not. It's BS
Cannabis metabolites do not stay in blood very long, a few days at most. You are thinking of the time it stays in urine. (upwards of 30-60+ days in long term smokers) Although this is largely irrelevant, because even at a few days it has no effect on whether you are high at that given time, since the high only really lasts for 2-3 hours at most.
@@rdizzy1 :
Which makes exactly how much difference to a lying dirtbag cop?!?!
Answer: exactly ZERO!!!!
It is not illegal to have smoked weed in the past. They can't even prove that you weren't somewhere where it was legal when you smoked it.
@DMac I'm saying that drivers aren't dui just because they have Marijuana in there blood it stays in 30 days so cops use this fact to get people on false dui that is almost impossible to defend in court . I'm saying the cops are dirty
I dont drink, but even then I will not take a breath test.
I will consent to a blood test provided they take me to the hospital to do it, and they agree to pay the bill.
There is no way I would willingly agree to a blood test at a police station, being taken by someone that may or not be an actual nurse where blood samples could be mixed up. I don’t have much faith in law enforcement anymore
The obvious problem with all of this: After a while, new officers will come to believe that it really can't be refused. Then they start "punishing" people for refusing.
It's the same thing that happened with ID. Police were trained to ID everybody they come in contact with. ID as many people as possible, because it helps grow the database.
Now they think "I got a call, that means I need to ID you." or "This is a valid traffic stop, so I need to ID everybody in the car." Then they arrest people for not providing ID.
SOMETIMES they will get to court and learn about the 4th amendment, but not always. Some cops go their whole career thinking that if he asks for ID, you must provide it.
1:44 Did one of Wilford Brimley's sons become a sheriff?
"They are trying to trick you."
Say it what it is.
The police are THREATENING you. Not all threats are violent.
In Michigan, we don't have DUI checkpoints as they have been ruled unconstitutional.
By what ruling? Please post the case so we can use it in our defense
Well, it is a pretexual stop. There is no probable cause that precipitated the stop / investigation
We've had "no-knock weekends" where a judge signs off on a stack of hundreds of warrants without even reading them, and what do you know innocent people end up getting hurt over typos.
I just seen that Canada can now go to your home up to 3 hours after you drove and do a test then charge you for impaired, So Friday night get home at 6 have a few and at 9 the cops can arrest you for DUI
I'm not familiar with the Canadain legal system. How do they prove BAC at the time of the "offense"?
That doesn't sound correct.
Canadians have no rights at all it seems.
As ridiculous as it sounds it's 100% real. And the law doesn't even attempt to contend that they are testing you to determine if you were impaired at the time you were actually driving. It flat out says that you're breaking the law if you're over the limit two hours after you drove, regardless of when you actually consumed the alcohol. Make no mistake though, this happens in the US too. There are at least half a dozen videos right here on youtube of people getting knocks on their door and being asked to submit to FSTs. DUI guy has a trial on his channel that involves this very thing.
The main difference being that in the US it's going to require some reasonable indication that the person was impaired while driving and that they were driving very recently. And proving a case like that is much more difficult because asserting that you weren't drinking prior to getting home is a valid defense against the charge if the jury believes you. In canada that defense isn't valid because under the law it's irrelevant whether you were actually impaired while driving. It's literally against the law to be impaired hours after driving.
@@TEverettReynolds He just did a video on it, it's nuts.
This is going to sound crazy but, why not just convict people for actual crimes or traffic infractions and not for the potential to commit them. If a drunk driver gets into an accident or kills someone, charge them. If they drive perfectly fine down the road, let them be. No victim, no crime.
Ohhhhh, hot take.
Because that would make them less money. They are an enemy occupation force pretending to be a legitimate government.
You're leaving money on the table!!! It's not about protecting and serving the community, it's about grabbing all the money you can. For instance there was a video recently of a place I believe in Delaware that cops had a speed trap. A citizen took a piece of cardboard and wrote " speed trap ahead " to warn the other drivers. Two highway patrol officers quickly came to intimidate him , steal his sign and destroy it. Now if it was really about making people slow down the cardboard sign worked, it's protected under the first amendment etc. But it's not about making the roads safer at all. .. and the cops were happy to violate the rights of a citizen to prove it..
Just have to treat any death/injury resulting from DUI properly. Something very similar to 2nd degree murder/attempted murder
Makes you wonder if the judge has ever refused a warrant for blood draw?
And what 'probable' cause is listed, and are all 100s of people have the same cause? That is fishing in my book
That would be an interesting statistic to track.
As a Texas police officer, when Texas says a no-refusal-weekend, it means they will not allow you to refuse the breath test without them getting a warrant. It has nothing to do with the SFST in the field. And they do not need the weekend, they can get the warrant any time (and some departments do).
But there is a bigger legal question to this, IMO. It is generally considered duress if I obtain consent to search by saying otherwise I will get a warrant. The search then becomes illegal because the consent wasn't freely given. Doesn't that apply here?
They'll have to physically knock me out cold to take my blood.
No...there's a chair for that.
@@Car_Buyer_Class Nope. Those torture chairs cannot legally be used for that. Even if they could, they don't hold an arm still enough for a blood draw.
Oh, they're quite happy to help you with that. You will likely receive several officer's help in rendering you into an unconscious state, possibly permanently.. it happens all the time...
@@jonathanjohnson8656 I doubt beating a man unconscious simply for refusing a blood draw is a legal option. That said, you are correct. It does happen all the time, but not for a blood draw.
@@iwineverygame1995 They hold you down and take your blood, I've seen it happen. That is why the judge is there in that room rubber stamping warrants. They are protected if they need to take it by force.
Last part of the video is the most important. It astounds me, how many people still don't (want to) understand how much safer and cheaper it is to Uber than to drive drunk.
Not being drunk or high means almost nothing. There's been many cases of completely sober people being stitched up by revenue dogs that wouldn't just let it go. Cops are liars, and they WILL lie about literally everything.
It's almost like their decision making is literally and legally impaired, despite laws that say they are responsible anyway. It's illegal for a bartender to sell a drink to an intoxicated person. It's illegal for a lawyer to engage in a contract agreement with an intoxicated person. It's illegal to have sex, with an intoxicated person. But suddenly when they are driving, the person is perfectly capable of making that decision, in the eyes of the law.
@@Tijuanabill That's a weak excuse, unless you're coming from the angle of somebody whose coffee or cola was spiked without their knowledge. Otherwise, you know you are going to drink, you plan to avoid driving. If you get to a place and suddenly decide to drink, suddenly make alternative transportation arrangements, or suddenly decide not to drink. None of this is rocket science.
@@jreese46 But then why the double standard? The reason is the victimhood is changing from the intoxicated to the not intoxicated. But the law argues both sides of the issue at hand; in one instance you are responsible, in others you are not.
In reality, human society has let these people down, when simple steps could be taken to solve the safety issue, other than just putting people in jail who can't control themselves. We are letting people operate dangerous machinery, then saying they are the irresponsible ones. Sure, they are are; but the effectiveness of the solution, given the cost of it, is wildly expensive. Or we could stick a breathalyzer in every car for 20 bucks instead, and save all the lives of the people killed by drunk drivers that don't get caught until an accident happens.
But you know, moral preening first, safety second....or never. Put one bad man in bad place, while ignoring the hundreds of others running around every night.
So because I drive and have medications that make my eye fail the "eye test" and have balance problems, but I have no problem driving, that I must submit to faulty DUI field tests during a checkpoint? No thank you!
Hey, it's a "No Bill of Rights Weekend."
Seems like there are federal felonies in the US Code that criminalizes violations of rights under the color of law, and also, conspiracy to violate rights. Seems like the Texas LEO's and the judge could and should be brought before a federal judge to face these charges. Lies to violate rights under the color of law...
You're right about that
I would love to pay off my house! Please arrest me!
I prefer not to be arrested because even if you get the arrest record purged, it still might be out there and you have to legally answer that question when applying for a government job that requires TCS clearance.
Just because your sober doesn't mean they won't try to give you one.
What if you have a CDL and are in your personal vehicle? We are told the we "cannot refuse" any test. Is that true? As a disabled driver I can refuse the field test, but not a breath test.
If taking blood and you are at a hospital and don't voluntarily agree to having a sample taken for testing., i doubt a hospital would strap you to a table and take blood from your arm due to the possibility of being sued.
However, could the police then charge you with obstruction?
If they in fact had a warrant?
Seems like being charged for obstruction would be far less costly than a DUI or DWI.
They have warrants, what do you think the judge in plain clothes in that room is rubber stamping? Warrants. Also there are instances of people that are not police, but are working for the police (directly or indirectly) getting the same qualified immunity that they have to protect them from lawsuits, specifically for this purpose.
@@rdizzy1 some places charge the accused for the cost of the blood draw. I would think that would mean they are working for the accused not for the police.
I think nurses have been charged with obstruction for refusing to do the blood test. 😢🤔🤓🍻
Should get some good civil rights lawyers down there during that time and get them ready to be sued multiple times.
This is why I'm subscribed to you, wish you practiced in my state because I'd know who to call. Bet a referral from you is gold
NOBODY SHALL draw my blood without my consent, or a lawsuit is imminent!
I try to avoid check points as I am disabled and don't want to be put through the hassle. I can't do the field tests and have had cops tell me no crutches as they could be a weapon.
Thirty years ago when stationary stop locations were common in VA, I used to live near where they often set up Friday and Saturday nights every summer. Since I had printed and laminated the 10,000 or so "implied consent" & "Miranda" cards the police used, I knew about VA's implied consent law. I declined the field sobriety tests, saying I was happy to volunteer for a breathalyzer instead. They always made a face and told me I was free to go.
Some countries skip the FST completely because it is subjective BS.
Just breathalize for indication.. then blood for evidence.
I suppose some places in the USA are so poor and the people utter peasants that is not worth spending money on equipment and tests for them. They are so worthless that they dont care about banging them up in jail either.. although this seems expensive.
More dependents on the government teet, means more of these BS "No Refusal" Rights Violation Weekends.
One very important thing to note in Texas. One of our conditions of having a license is to agree to the field sobriety test. If you say no, it is revoked and you need to figure out the process of getting a new one. This I have heard is way easier than dealing with a DWI. In Houston, I’ve been fortunate that I have had no circumstances where a DWI was in question.
As a side note, I wound up drinking a beer in front of a DWI task force lieutenant. I went in for jury duty and in Houston, you get a free bus ride for it. Went in, got dismissed and decided to get lunch at Treebeards. Not driving, may as well have a beer. Not a single table open… so I ask a guy that was sitting alone if I could join him. We start chatting and he lets me know what he does for a living. DWI lieutenant. I immediately tell him I’m taking the bus as I am drinking a beer. We both laughed.
Well, ain't that just unconstitutional as all hell. " sure, you can invoke your rights. But we're going to punish you for it if you do."
Can I refuse a FSB and insist on a breathalyzer or blood test instead? I'm an old diabetic guy, pretty sure I couldn't pass a FSB if I was sober. Some of us just have bad balance.
Ditto
I have physical limitations after a motorcycle accident years ago left me with a cervical spine fusion and my ankles, knees etc have severe arthritis that affects my movement. If they take me to do a blood sample I'm pretty sure my vehicle will be towed in retaliation for " doing things the hard way.." My career ended after my fusion and I am trying to get by on a small fixed income. It worries me how quickly things could get worse for me and I don't even drink.
@@jonathanjohnson8656 - never had a field sobriety test to get a license. How would I know if I could pass one?
@@anotherdave5107 the tests are very subjective so I'm going to guess you probably can't pass it. But of course I could be wrong.
I live in Texas and i have seen where they have a court order within minutes of the petition. If is so out of control down here.
*Depending on the jurisdiction,* if you expect you will fail the test, I would think a different charge would be preferable to a DUI on your record for insurance, etc. Here, if they get a warrant, making them go through the motion buys you time and a chance you level will sufficiently drop, and provide more opportunities for your lawyer to challenge.
You can NOT CONSENT, meaning they CANNOT take bodily fluids or materials without your consent, if they do it is assault and battery! You are not refusing you are just exercising your right to remain silent and still, you CANNOT be made to say or do ANYTHING that can be used for or against you! Seizure of your bodily fluid and parts, is coercion and entrapment! You have an UNALIENABLE RIGHT to NOT CONSENT! Do not "resist" just do not consent, that means they must take it which is unlawful tainted evidence, it violates your rights at every level! 😱😝😁🤪🤣👍👍🇺🇲
So much for the presumption of inoccents. Most police and court's judge's and lawyer's go to Hell. Follow them and find out. Or repent and seek God's forgiveness.
Being drunk is different for drivers with a cdl, than a regular license. Using Scope mouthwash would make me a drunk according to the law, even while driving my car. Maybe these cops should focus on the erratic drivers. Sit in the cab of a truck with a camera and radio. Actually get the bad drivers off the road.
Another great education class!
Here in New South Wales Australia, we have mobile and static breath testing. If you a refuse a breath test you automatically lose your licence. The roadside test is only a guideline and if you fail the first test you are given twenty minutes before a second test is given. If you fail the second test you will be taken to the nearest police station to be put on the proper blood alcohol machine. If they fail to have the authorised (BAS) operator get your sample within two hours they have to let you go. If you refuse to use the machine they will take aa blood sample.
Officer, I will be happy to take your field sobriety test for $1500, I’ll take the cash, now. I don’t work for free as there is no slavery in America,
If only the cops would go after known criminals with such fervor.
If they have Proof of dui enough to pull you over, they have enough to arrest and charge. Wrangling the legal system to end up performing invasive procedures is unconstitutional
These catch-all checkpoints are unconstitutional on their face.😢
The checkpoint make the police the criminals and they’re never going to arrest themselves so we don’t have a government. Just a bunch of badge gangs.
No, they can't. But they get around it by saying things like, "I smell the odor of alcohol coming from you. You have bloodshot, glassy eyes, and you're unsteady on your feet." Basically, they make up probable cause to arrest you after a refusal. Then they tell those lies to a judge who grants a warrant without asking any questions. By the way, isn't that an "ex-parte" hearing? Which would make the warrant illegal???
We have an enemy occupation force pretending to be a legitimate government. The only law they follow is might makes right
And what does an odorless liquid like alcohol smell like officer? Where did you get your training in Smells 101? Was the course taught by a certified smells expert? Do you have proof you finished the course? I only ask since they don't teach this course at any police academy. And you are aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that smells are NOT probable cause?
My lawyer will have a field day with the idiot that tries that with me
All warrant requests are ex-parte. Most search warrants would be useless if the person getting searched has warning that it's going to happen.
@@roberteltze4850 it's still illegal as hell!! Ex-parte hearings are unconstitutional on their face.
Cops are such scumbags they will try to arrest you even if you blow a 0 just cause they don't wanna admit they are wromg
In some states, don't they automatically suspend your drivers license if you won't take a test?
Indiana for sure, 1 year suspension.
Those last few sentences seemed pretty out of character, since you ought to be more than aware that simply being sober won’t stop the cops from pulling you over in the first place and possibly still arresting you.
Whoever beLIEves this deserves this..... PERIOD
Well if they can arrest you for blowing a 0.00, that advice of not drinking wont help in that case.
Lol you should check out the law on this in Alabama. It don't matter, they still gonna find a way to screw you over. If I recall correctly, they can even suspend your license just for refusal even if the dui charge was ultimately dismissed. It's 90 days for the first refusal and 1 year for the 2nd. It's really interesting to me how each state is supposed to be bound by the constitution but ultimately can just throw that shit out the window and ignore it.
We definitely have our share of crooked courts and cops. From the case of Brookside that got national attention last year for cops having tow trucks pull up immediately at traffic stops and other shenanigans to the town of Valley who recently arrested an 82 year old woman for an unpaid trash collection bill ( they arrested her on the weekend so she would have to spend even more time in jail, and laughed while doing it. ) to the Etowah county sheriff's department who arrested a woman for allegedly endangering a baby she was carrying, but in jail she provided definitive "proof" she was not pregnant and was denied feminine hygiene products by the department and forced to sleep on the floor of the jail ( that would have been bad for the baby, but nevermind... ) . To Walker county where they allegedly put an inmate in a freezer and when it went too far they were caught in a cover up carrying him to a patrol vehicle ( they claimed he walked) . The dr said after a rectal temperature test that he couldn't explain the temperature of the body.. and this is all in about the past 6 months or so...
In all but 8 states you can refuse portable breath tests, and Alabama isn't one of the 8 and literally every state you can refuse field sobriety test. Cops Willie to saying you have to do it but If they give you charge you for dui or dwi without taking you down to the station to do a breath test there or a blood draw then it's a violation of 4th amendment and you can fight it in court.
@@jonathanjohnson8656 Don't forget the old ladies that got arrested in Wetumpka for rescuing stray cats in a public park. Because as we all know the biggest threat to the community is an elderly woman with some felines
@@jonathanjohnson8656 Also, if I am not mistaken, in regards to the shenanigans in Valley; Lanett is currently being sued for doing the very same thing.
@@JohntheFancy Thanks!!! How could I forget those sweet ladies helping to solve the problem of feral cats out of their own money? They weren't hurting anything or breaking any laws. . Alabama has wonderful people and I am proud of a lot of things from here but our judicial system is always trying to make things worse it seems. I don't hate cops or the courts, but I'm really sad to see people who deserve better getting dragged down by a system that simply want to tax ( penalize) those who are already struggling or have made a mistake and are trying to pay for it while elites are never held accountable.. But it's probably the same everywhere I suppose.. isn't that a sad thought ?
"We have a judge on hand in the police station" Wasn't there this thing called separation of powers?
So much for that.
Just like when the cops told this guy he's under arrest 4 or 5 times, implied he can avoid going to jail by talking, didn't read him his rights - and the colorado state supreme court declared that they'll still use what he said against him because he wasnt under "formal" arrest.
You have no idea what the phrase "separation of powers" means, do you? The US Supreme Court met in the Capitol from 1800 to 1935. No serious constitutional scholar would suggest their rulings during that time were invalid because of it.
@@reamick That has nothing to do with anything.
This is the judiciary being in bed with the executive. This is more than just spatial interconnexion.
Here in Idaho you don't have to submit to any tests, but refusal to do so will result in a suspended license. I believe that is a violation of the 9th and/or 10th amendments. It's one of the only only things that irritates me about this state besides the mass influx of blue hair from California.
Evidentiary testing is defined as "procedure or test or series of procedures or tests utilized to determine the concentration of alcohol or the presence of drugs" of which a field sobriety test would fail to determine the concentration. And police have to have "reasonable grounds" you are driving in violation. Otherwise your attorney can argue within 7 days they didn't have reasonable ground.
@jcadult101 I will preface this with I don't drink and drive but, my job requires me to drive. It's the major component to my work. If I can't drive I can't do my job. If the state wants to issue a license to drive then hold that over people's head and violate my freedoms to travel and do my job in violation of my 9th/10th amendment rights is absolutely wrong. I have disabilities that could affect the outcome of a roadside test. I don't understand how people support that. "If you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about" is a bs argument. There are plenty of cases of people who weren't doing anything wrong who suddenly had something to worry about. It's why we have a right to counsel. If all it takes is one hothead/ignorant cop to ruin my income for a week or more I think I have reason to be concerned over such extortion. Sure, there are legit reasons for a license to be suspended, but this is not one as far as I can tell.
It's a violation of your 5th A rights.
I said before. Canukistan does not allow you to refuse without without penalty the road side test. Freedoms long gone. Hang on tight USA.
Australia the Uber driver has been pulled over several times JUST to do the test. One time he asked the cop if he did something and the cop said "no, you're just the only one on the road".
It's more nefarious than we really know. Too much effort is going into a blood draw in California. A judge on site? Wow that's just wow.
The judge on site isn't the problem here. There's many others, like no probable cause.
I am reminded of OJ Simpson's lawyer, Kardashian, talking the police into drawing blood from Simeon after he saw the cut on Simpson's hand. So he could later tell the jury that the police had the means to plant blood stains at the murder scenes.
Notice how that cop explaining the no refusal weekend paused before here said it lol he didn't agree with it either.
"Get a designated driver and you won't t need this advice" is not bullet proof either. The young man used in the editing when narrating the "refuse roadside tests" part of this video, was 100% sober passed a breathalyzer and was still arrested.
Exactly. Plus if the drunk passenger is ever alone near the vehicle they can't be arrested in many states for DUI.
Love your videos.
Andrew, I don't know how I stumbled across your videos but I can't get enough. You are the friendly lawyer we all wish we knew and I have learned so much from your videos, thank you for being awesome! ✌
"don't drink and drive and you won't need any of this advice" but you repeatedly show clips of the guy who didn't refuse the physical test, blew a 0.0, and got arrested anyway on the basis of the officer lying about his performance on the physical test.
This is the problem. It's Catch-22. If you agree to the tests, you'll probably fail. They're designed for you to fail. The field sobriety tests are difficult even if you're sober. Plus, they're very subjective. Their real purpose is for the cops to add evidence to their notion that you're impaired, justifying your arrest. But if you refuse tests, which is your right, the cops will assume you have something to hide and probably arrest you anyway. I'd still refuse the tests. Why provide evidence to help the cop in arresting you?
@@RicardoRoams In Colorado refusal is an automatic 1 year suspension and they will get a warrant for your blood anyway. and charge you with obstruction as well. they claim it is a priviledge not a right. .. though cops here in Colorado have no qualified immunity anymore (thank God) so if the blood test comes back clean and sober you can sue them personally (not the department) for harrasment as of last year for $25.000 . So most cops think long and hard before charging you on suspicion alone.
@@thomasyunick3726 , is that punishment for refusal along the highway? Or after being arrested and taken to jail? My understanding is you can refuse road side sobriety tests along the highway in all states. There are a few states who punish you if you refuse the breathalyzer along the highway. It’s only after you’re arrested and taken into custody where you would be punished for refusal a breath test or blood test.
@@RicardoRoams Yes on the highway. The cop has to remind you ( tell you if you are from out of state) about the suspension law after you refuse and you are given a second chance to comply.. You sign a form before you are given your colorado drivers license that states no exceptions to blood testing if you refuse. You have no rights it is a priviledge here.. Most people comply with the breath and roadside test because the are dirty for weed and can still pass the road side test and drive away ...and avoid that blood draw which will result in a conviction.
@@RicardoRoams Can I Refuse to Take a Field Sobriety Test?
In the state of Colorado, field sobriety tests are voluntary. You have a right to refuse them, and we recommend doing so with politeness and firmness. However, you do NOT have the right to refuse chemical testing-blood, breath, or urine analysis-if the officer asks it of you. Express consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment and Article II Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution. See generally Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563 (Colo. 2007). A chemical test completed pursuant to express consent is a search that every person “consents” to by operating a motor vehicle in the state of Colorado
Wouldn't that then mean that you could sue the cops on these "no-refusal weekends" for intimidation (threat of arrest) for declining their desire to do these tests on you? Wouldn't just the fact that they write that you can be arrested for saying no - an intimidation tactic to scare the public into compliance?
😂they can lie all they want
This is all a VIOLATION of The Constitution!
No lawmaker, no Congressman, no senator, no judge, no Supreme Court, no President, no one can make a law or pass a law that VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION !
The judge cannot give out such a warrant. Does the judge really want to lose his job over that and get sued on a personal level ?
I don't think The Judge will put himself in that kind of hot water.
I would sue every involved; from the arresting police officer to the judge who issued such a nonsense warrant, including the nurses to performed the blood test.
Everybody's getting sued on a personal level.
People, don't start fooling around with The Constitution !
You will get sued on a personal level.
We The People, We elect Our Government Officials into Office to Uphold and Defend The Constitution.
On a no refusal weekend i got pulled over for going 1 over speed limit near the texas coast. He said they are pulling over everyone they can.
The No refusal weekend is just PR. The blood test will show drugs in your system. Of course the handling of the specimen, chain of custody etc is more involved.
I'm afraid of needles and would never willingly submit. I would have to be held down and we'll fight as hard as I can. That doesn't seem legal to me.
You can sue for PTSD which never goes away. But then they would charge you for "resisting."
Auditors and Constitutional citizens should have our counter:
1) this is our No Blow Weekend, officer!
Now, be abundantly cautious to have no drinking, ensure your car is inspection ready! Check your tint. Give them nothing.
2) Have your Constitutional supporting 4A Attorney on standby. Organize this up! Have your bail cash in hand! 3) Challenge the sheriffs in court! Put them on notice that we Will elect a sheriff who upholds The Highest Law in the land First: our Constitution & thus our rights! 4) auditors can organize a protest convoy. Swamp them with a full cue of refusals!
If they can't give you a statute number, it isn't a law.
I agree, don't drink and drive, but don't believe that a cop won't test you regardless of whether you've been drinking or not. So exercise the 4th and refuse, innocent or guilty. Know your rights, and stand up for them if for no other reason than to remind the cops that citizens have rights and that they cops cannot simply steam roll over those rights without consequences. Rolling over for them and complying to their BS simply affirms in their minds that they don't have to abide by the constitution.
Our city LEO desk sargent has a printed list of Magistrates (Judges) with the type of "crime" they will readily issue search/seizure warrants for. Little time is wasted hunting for the proper paper.
In Virginia, would you be able to request a blood test instead of the post-arrest breathalyzer test? Could you then refuse to waive liability at the hospital and then consent to the breathalyzer, thereby buying time for your BAC to fall below the legal limit as you would be driven to the hospital and then back to the station?
What a great use of resources that definitely shouldn't go to alternative transport modes
the key phrase from the VA guy was "plea deals" you don't have to prove shit if you can scare them into incriminating themselves for a "reduced" sentence
I have a question…. Let’s say they get a warrant and take your blood. And you have no alcohol or drugs in your system. CAN YOU SUE THEM?
But to be fair, if you refuse, you WILL be arrested. You will just have to spend a night in jail and fork out tens of thousands in legal fees to get charges dropped.
What beacons of moral virtue. They truly deserve to be the arbiters of justice. 🤦🏻♂️
You can refuse, but they will threaten to abuse you; your rights; your property; your liberty; and their office power and authority in acts of malfeasance in office and treason.
this has quickly become one of my favorite channels. keep it up!!!
They do not do checkpoints either in Texas. These weekends are legally mandated to be announced when and where so drivers have ample notice to avoid them. Therefore, going through the checkpoint is almost voluntarily done.
I would like to know...how can a state enforce their LAW ( SPOT CHECKS) when the Constitution says otherwise?
Question. What is worse? A DUI/DWI OR refusal? If you're charged obstruction, what is the penalty? If it's 10x less than a DUI, it might be worth it
I have a question about this. If you have a CDL, there are stricter rules and laws you have to follow. So if you have a CDL, do you have to comply with road side sobriety tests or can you legally refuse them like any other driver?
You don't surrender your 4A rights, simply because you have a CDL. As part of compliance with FMCSA and state DOT regulations, you are obligated to allow cops to:
- inspect your ELD,
- inspect DOT medical certificate, weigh station certificates, etc...
- inspect your load
- inspect associated documentation (i.e. HAZMAT papers) , etc... all related specifically to your profession.
But you still have right to:
- refuse field sobriety tests,
- refuse unwarranted search / inspection of your vehicle (not related to load inspection),
- refuse to talk to the police (beyond the above listed obligations) without legal representation