@@0xsergy there’s a reason that there are laws to protect us all caps from the police, but I back the blue cop suckers Will keep brown nosing until a cop plays prick with them. How dare there be a constitution and Bill of Rights. Guess you’re one of those ends justifies the means kind of guys.If you believe you have the right and the necessity to piss all over the constitution to do your job maybe you shouldn’t be a pig.
@@Eddie-uf8oo How dare you drive drunk on public roads? I'll follow you and stay on the lines with the cops until you're in cuffs. Your desire to drink doesn't mean innocent people going to work have to die.
Heroes of Satan* There are no good police. If you entered a job knowing it involves robbing and stealing, especially from the poor then there is no good. Making a good name for something awful and evil isn't good and no matter how many people you save, you're still under guise as a terrorist and you can never make terrorism look good. People need to wake up and realize there are no good terrorists, just bad ones and they need to all go home before they meet the good guys.
Please remove this comment, we do not need to give the police officers any ideas. But it does beg the question, could they put some inside the device that is never detected, because you blow, not suck, so you may never get a chance to smell it? Is this why field tests are so unreliable?
@@cmack3625yeah the breathalyzer is probably the more complex of tools. Doesn’t take much to piss that thing off. Heaven forbid so much as a spec of dust get caught up in the thing.
@@minacapella8319 So the city can pay... (Oh, not saying he shouldn't sue, but that there are other issues that need to be resolved before lawsuits mean a damned things to the cops.)
Yeah should be an easy dismissal if you have a decent attorney. State law is strict on procedure that has to be followed and blatantly failing to do so often gets a charge dismissed.
I have failed one of those tests. Wasn't drunk or stoned. I haven't had alcohol in 10 years. He swore I was drunk. I was honestly just tired. Blew a 0 and he was still on me trying to get me to admit it. I just started laughing at one point because it was getting so ridiculous.
If the officer has a right to do a breath sample in this way. That makes the Constitutional "Right of Refusal", Null and Void. This Officer violated the Constitutional Rights of this man. This is an open-and-shut legal case. The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The fact the officer has to announce multiple times that he indeed isn't an idiot after pointing out that he works the DUI unit and even teaches others really tells you a lot.
It tells me he is proud of his job and does his job to the best of his ability. The drunk man would probably have noticed the test if he WASNT intoxicated.
@@OndriaDancingStar He did notice the test, but what was he going to do about it? Any resistance will be met with up to lethal force from the cop, even if the cop is in the wrong.
It’s like refusing to let an officer search your vehicle. Then being handcuffed and in the back of the squad car. Then the officer sees the door open and thinks the car is abandoned and start’s searching.
@@MatthewsSloan Yes, they can and they will. When you are arrested while driving, they will search your car, and if they want to be jerks they will do an inventory of your personal property and impound your car.
@@MatthewsSloan if you are being arrested, they are past probable cause. They have to conduct a search of your things when they arrest you. So the ultimate goal is not being arrested and if you are, to not have anything illegal on you.
Unfortunately police have qualified immunity they can legally kill you and your family won’t even be able to sue over them killing them because they got qi shits disgusting the police falsely charged me for dui I passed breathalyzer refused field sobriety test cause it’s my right the officer never witnessed me swerving and than he claimed dui drugs and suspended my license took me out of work for 6 months before they dropped the charges and I could legally start driving over the road again I lost out on 70k alone from lost of wages and they claimed QI and denied my lawsuit ole corrupt ass motherfuckin police n judges
@@drwalker9093 the guy said he felt the breathalyzer on his face. That's like saying I didn't slap you in the face, I just swatted the air in front of your face and your face got in the way.
@@DrThunder2004 I agree. I was conjecturing about what the officer might answer - I don't think it would be valid to use as evidence (and its use _might_ taint any evidence gained afterward - in a state that allows refusal of breath tests). But IANAL....
Case is not "closed". The best case scenario for this moron is the evidence gets waived as "inadmissible", but he still refused the breath test in the first place which (in AZ where this took place) isn't allowed and he would receive a DUI charge with or without the breath test.
One time I passed a field sobriety and another officer came up mad that I passed and gave me another test which I passed as well but in retrospect he couldn't re test me and I felt violated cause they really wanted me to fail this was ten years ago
Yeah bro it's sketchy out here. It's why I feel completely unsafe around police, because they can do anything to you like ruin your life with a criminal record for something they claimed you did and if you have an aggressive police officer you have to stay cool so they don't ruin your life or shoot you with a gun for trying to physically protect yourself against a physically aggressive cop. They are taught to arrest not much on how to communicate, so always plenty of cops who rush into a situation with the worst thought of you on their mind so if they ruin your life with a criminal record they don't care because they think you deserved it. Literally almost just happened to me, I got charged with assault and I didn't even touch the cop, I told him please stay back because I don't trust you and when I said that he ran an jumped on me but I didn't let him take me down so he punched my like 20+ times in the face hoping I would drop and I thought that was thend but I got a random letter just recently that I had to show up to court because that cop was trying to charge me with assault. Didn't touch him once
They're trying to catch criminals. You really think a criminal will knowingly tell the truth about their crime? Lying to suspects/detainees/arrestees has always been allowed, it is specifically allowed by law.
@@matthewmorgan2998 U obviously misread OPs post. They're calling it a "trick" 4 the benefit of the avg viewer but technically it is a 4th amendment violation. Ur both right but u lose points 4 being an azzhole. And u don't know the difference between "breath" n "breathe" so there's that.
Yes. A "trick" to bypass the constitution. It's like if a cop as to search your vehicle.. and while detaining you accidentally presses the trunk release on your keys to display your 20 keys of coke which is now in plain view. "Oops I didn't mean to press and hold the trunk release I was legally searching the subject for dangerous objects and drugs" It's a "trick", but it's a childish one that adults can see right through.
Once I got stopped for doing 80 in a 75, first thing that came out of the cops mouth was "how much have you had to drink tonight?" Told him I didn't drink, he refused to believe it, and insisted I was lying. Since then, I have lost all respect for the police.
@@FriePaul1337 Watch Long Island Audit's YT channel and a few other reputable auditor channels. You will see how corrupt the police really are. They routinely violate our guaranteed Constitutional rights. I back the blue, but I'm beginning to understand their culture. They are trained to lie to the public to "get" criminals. All this does is make them more like criminals themselves. They treat people as guilty until proven innocent when it's the other way around (or supposed to be). Always film the police. If you have a smartphone, USE IT with every police encounter to protect yourself. We live in very lawless times.
@PJ I've been in law enforcement for a better part of a decade and I've always been the same person I've always been with no issues with the general b public. If you look for all these "corrupt cop' UA-cam videos of course you're going to find exactly what you're looking for. Your own self-fulfilling prophecy. Are their corrupt cops with bad attitudes yeah, but people I know are upstanding guys with a job to do. These audit guys are in their right to do what they do, but cops are people men. The job is harder than most people will ever be able vto comprehend. The general public cannot be in LE. Believe as you want, but don't become jaded. I train other cops to do the right thing. Just be a good person. The rest falls into place.
@@FriePaul1337 With all due respect, I don't buy it. I think you're trying to justify bad behavior by claiming it's the "bad apples." only and not all cops. I used to believe you and now when I see the truth, I realize the so-called "good police" still break their oath to the Constitution every day and violate the people's rights routinely. The vast majority of officers don't know the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments of the very Constitution they swore to uphold . These YT civil rights auditors have to post often, or they won't keep their audience, so we see the majority of interactions show how the police lie and their alarming willingness to trample our rights. The good ones are very few and far between. If you excuse the little stuff, you're already heading down the wrong road.
1. Give them your license, registration, and proof of insurance. 2. Don't answer questions. 3. Don't submit to field sobriety tests. 4. If they force a breathalyzer or blood draw, opt for the blood draw. 5. In every way possible, be as unaccomodating and inconveniencing as possible, remembering that cops are not your friends, they're not on your side, and they see you as guilty before proven innocent.
Do not submit to a blood draw. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that a citizen can refuse to give blood without a warrant if they are conscious. By forcing a blood draw without a warrant violates your 4th amendment rights.
@Truth Illinois depending on the state, some states have implied consent upon receiving your DL that the driver must provide a breathalyzer or blood draw upon suspicion of DUI or you may be arrested and may lose your license.. You can refuse questioning and FSTs, which you absolutely should. But the blood draw, if required, drags out the encounter much longer in your favor, and the results are in my opinion much more reliable than trusting an officer with the breathalyzer. I understand not every state carries implied consent with the issuing of a DL.
YOU SOUND LIKE YOURE EXPERT DRUNK. ITS PPL LIKE YOU WHO KILL OTHERS DUI. AND YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN AND NOT COMPLY.. I MAKE SURE YOU FELL DOWN A FEW TIMES
@@Dontevenpretend he didn't, and he he clearly states as much, then he violates this mans civil liberties to obtain a warrant under these false pretenses to FORCIBLY TAKE HIS BLOOD. If you do not have a constitutional protection for your blood, do you have any real rights?
And he did it all to say “ I’m not an idiot “ he just couldn’t fathom that the man didn’t know how highly decorated and smart he is about catching all the normies in DUIs.
Consent is not required for many things when probable cause is established and PC was clearly established within the first 45 seconds. But not informing him is where the issue comes from. A passive sample test is certainly allowed and doesn't require consent at all since that test has zero interaction with your physical body. Yea, the cop was arrogant and probably will lose this case because he didn't inform the guy of what was being done, but no one should be giving this driver a pass, he was clearly intoxicated its obvious from his first 5 words that he was too drunk to drive.
while the test isnt admissible, the blood draw still is and it did show he was intoxicated. the difficult ruling will be wether or not the blood is admissible, which was acquired with a signed warrant
If he denied a breathalyzer, that's the end of it! There is no way that any judge or jury could rule against the defendant. Deceit and trickery afoot here folks!
100%. If he has the right to deny a breathalyzer, then the officer had no right to perform one anyways. Simple, open and shut. Arrest the officer for kidnapping and extorsion. That being said, this guy's first mistake was communicating with the officer.
@@countfrackula6707 Kidnapping? Are you high? If the driver refuses a breathalyzer then the officer has the right to arrest him. The detainment and arrest is not in question, only the sneaky breathalyzer trick, which seems shady.
That guy was the most steady dui driver I've see on video. Police cry about not being trusted with our ID, when there has been no crime, but with cops like this out there, the trust in cops, that they won't violate your rights, is gone! There's no policy, because there shouldn't have to be. When a driver says NO, they mean NO!
The law isn’t “driving in a dangerous manner while under the influence” it’s “driving with a blood alcohol greater than” ... whatever it is in that state. He might have seemed ok in that particular moment, but who is to say that in 5-10 mins when he metabolised more of the alcohol in his system, he wouldn’t have been swerving over the road or falling asleep causing an accident.
The breath test takes a hell of a breath to function. Holding it up to a guys face is questionable? No jury would accept this if it ever made it to court.
even trace amounts will provide a breathalizer with at least a trace. Similar to getting DNA off a discarded tissue is how he got the trace. and the suspect denied drinking. If this guy ran into one of your family members and killed them, would you have the same reactions?
@@jasonlenten8663 And DNA trace evidence is questionable at best in a court of law. The courts have been mix on even touch-DNA as being 100% reliable. What the officer did was poor police investigation, poor work, and being lazy. The driver had no obligation to submitted a pBT and the officer violated the man's right when he refused. Anybody backing the officer actions is just as bad as the officer.
@@jasonlenten8663 Every person could potentially have a trace of alcohol showing in such a manner. The body naturally produces small quantities through bodily functions. Even mouth wash has some trace amounts in some cases. Enough to show a "you're over the limit"? No. But enough to "detect a trace". The manner in which this meter was used is contrary to the manufacturer's instructions on its use. If the cop is so willing to "trick" a driver with this technique, I would not put it past him to having found a way to "trick" the meter into showing a "positive result" no matter what. That's why these instruments have specific directions on their use; so false positives & false negatives are less likely. But this is a "DUI cop" who "knows". He "knows" how to utilize his equipment; as this case clearly shows.
clearly an expert. another top notch professional. how dare we question his methods that are obviously too advanced for the common folk to understand? ... some people 🤷
Not only is the officer an idiot, he is completely psychologically unfit to ever hold any sort of power over others. This trait alone will ensure that he has a long and storied career in Policing
Never consent to a field sobriety test. Never answer ANY questions, never consent to any searches or your person or property. “I wish to remain silent at this time, and I want a lawyer!
There’s a difference when it involves your rights this would be like if they read you your rights then placed a microphone in the same room you talk to your lawyer
Yes that's called police work, of course this is different since he had a right not to take that test. Obviously there's nothing he really could have done here but in general, when being questioned by the police, just keep your damn mouth shut.
@@notthatguy.937 You also do not have to dance for them. Or tilt your head back and close your eyes. He should have refused to answer questions and refused all other instructions except those related to getting him handcuffed. If he had kept his head up and his eyes open, the cop would needed to use force to get that sample. What I am wondering is what the blood test showed. Was he truly impaired?
The officer keeps saying that he's not an "idiot" since he was apparently correct in his determining that the driving had been drinking. But, he is an idiot. Being right in no way means a person is not an idiot.
@@Psyrecx requirements like knowing that there is a percentage of officers that is not simply a "minority", who operate off of ego, escalate matters, or utilize framing tactics in order to justify altercations, detainments, and arrests?
@@tb8654 Yes. Because there has to be a percentage... 0 is still a percentage, genius. This is why people zone off when talking to you IRL. They're just mentally facepalming the whole time.
No government employee should ever be able to lie to a citizen for any reason. The danger of lying government employees is more dangerous than any hypothetical reason for a government employee to lie.
I am in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM a supported of LEOs....however, within an interrogation setting and after being Mirandized...AND ONLY OF THE PERSON BEING INTEROGATED IS COMPETENT...I don't have a problem with it. Otherwise I completely agree with you that gov't employees should be forbidden to lie to the public.
Police lie to you all the time in order for you to give up your rights and investigate. The dude kinda sounded like he’d been drinking don’t believe cops not here to help you but charge you. Never answer questions. ID yourself and let them prove or disprove something.
@@Csmallo So no more undercover policing? I do think that uniformed police should be forced to be truthful about what is and isn't a law during a traffic stop but interrogations and undercover work would both become fruitless if police had to be honest to the many criminals that actually committed heinous crimes. There needs to be exceptions but they need to be clear and documented in law.
promotions is based on how many tickets they hand out. thats why i avoid driving near the holidays because thats when cops ramp up the ticket giving to meet their end of the year quota.
It's a slippery slope if this gets allowed. What's to prevent him from straight up putting it to your face after you refuse even without having to trick you.
The fact that it's not listed or refused means that it's not part of their policy! Thank you for putting this part of it in the video This is very important
Policy can never trump law, thankfully. There may be a policy to bark like a chicken, but if the law says you can refuse, they should not force you, and this was not a trick the way I see it, it was forced upon him after he legally refused. So, yes, the officer is an idiot. I almost hope he did this to a lot of other peole and they class action him and his department.
It's not listed in the policy because no other officer had thought about it enough to do it. What this officer did was very cagey with his rules. Open air samples have many diluting particles in it that could cause a misreading, (it's just about the air we all breathe). 😐 It also looked funny that that officer was "adjusting" his device a lot before using it.
@@djs12007 are you insinuating that the cop rigged the test for that dude to fail? i think lumping in those kinds of claims devalues your other statements that actually have some merit worth listening to. its like if i said "i think the cop did something wrong here, oh yea and Bigfoot exists too"
@@cmack3625 There was no force. The suspect declined a very specific test but he has no right to refuse a passive test. You can refuse a vehicle search absent PC but that doesn't prevent an officer from conducting a plain-view search for contraband which can then provide the PC for a further search. Plain view is identical to this ambient "passive" air test because it doesn't require any consent. It's not even trickery. Notice nobody has yet to find any legal decision barring the use of passive PBT alcohol detection; it doesn't exist and is not considered the same as a properly-administered Breathalyzer test.
@@mpguilfo I couldn't agree more! As I observe & come across these confrontational subject matters I truly believe that if the Arresting Officers didn't take the situation so personal most people would not only agree with the arresting officer's decision but more than likely would back them up on it. However because the Arresting Officer seems to either be on a power trip, ego trip, or just straight up tripping, here we are...
Driver refused the test. Period. But Templeton uses another way. Templeton should have been a lawyer. The refusal should have stopped any other testing and Templeton should have taken him for a blood test if allowed by a Judge.
Things will always be this way nothing will ever change unless law enforcement officers are held responsible and have to pay out of their own pockets as long as the taxpayer flips the bill the stuff will never end
I tend to agree. Take away qualified immunity, and just like any other profession, law enforcement officers can be held individually and financially accountable for their liability and bad behavior.. This will weed out some bad apples..
Actually what you were talking about is called qualified immunity. Qualified immunity needs to be abolished. Qualified immunity is what keeps the officer from being sued personally. Qualified immunity allows officers to violate your civil rights and when one sues they're merely suing themselves and the rest of the taxpayers . the officers see no repercussions. ABOLISH QUALIFIED IMMUNITY NOW!¡!
A NC deputy tried to give me a PBT claiming it was the implied consent test and that I had to do it or lose my license. I’m sure uninformed citizens fell for his trick
In a lot of states it is. They can automatically suspend your license for 3 to 6 months, but that's better than however long it is for a DUI if you beat the case.
this excerpt is from a law firm website: What Happens in a DWI Stop in North Carolina If a law enforcement officer stops you on suspicion of DWI, the officer may ask you to take a roadside preliminary / portable breath test (PBT). Under North Carolina law, you can refuse to take the PBT with no adverse consequences to your driver’s license. However, the officer may still arrest you for DWI based on other factors, such as swerving while driving. Following arrest, the officer may ask you to take a second, more accurate test at the police station. The officer must give the required notification before administering the second test. After giving the required notification, the police officer will ask you to sign a form to confirm receiving and understanding the notification. The police officer also may ask you to take a blood alcohol test in addition to or instead of the breath test. Again, the officer must give the required notification before this test is administered. If you refuse the blood test (or are unconscious), the officer must obtain a warrant to take the blood sample. (this is the important part, the officer will seek a warrant and if it is granted you will be getting blood test, whether you want to or not!) What Happens If You Refuse a North Carolina DWI Breath Test or Blood Test? If law enforcement stops you on suspicion of DWI, refusing to take a breath or blood test may seem like a good way to avoid being charged. However, refusing to take the test can make your situation even worse. While you have the right to refuse a breath or blood test, doing so can - and most often does - result in revocation of your driver’s license for at least a year. Refusal does not result in criminal charges. The process is a civil license revocation procedure that is completely separate from any DWI or other criminal charges. Even if you eventually are found not guilty, or the charges are dismissed, the license revocation from your refusal remains in effect. In addition, prosecutors can introduce evidence of your refusal to take the test in your DWI case. They likely will argue that you were trying to conceal the fact that you were impaired. Refusing the test also may affect the prosecutor’s approach to your case and even affect your lawyer’s ability to negotiate a favorable outcome.
@@TimC_1964 I've seen videos of cops, lawyers, and judges pulled over for DUI...and, they ALL refuse. They MUST know something WE don't. In my state, if you refuse, your license is suspended for a year.
@@danni1993 they are refusing the PBT, not the implied consent test that takes your license. The few that refuse the implied consent test absolutely know the will blow over .08
@@TimC_1964 correct. Also, you get 30 minutes to call an attorney, or find a witness to your implied consent test. NC is the only one I know that does that, but I’m sure there are others. Basically, once they get you into the station, read you your rights, and have you sign the paper, the timer starts.
@@itsmephil2255 Dude, the cop is getting away with it. In fact he got promoted for his crooked tricky ways, did you not heaer?? Its always the story for officers. "They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing" as the story goes!!!!
@@1boydjamesboyd Thanks for confirming, I've had my rights violated and I was not drunk, these deputies were 110% sure they got me, until I passed all their stupid tests and was calling them out on all the false probable causes. A fact that upsets a lot of people is that Drunk Drivers MURDER nearly as many people as gun murderers, annually, in the U.S.
Some police, of all the million police interaction per day, but the 99% good interactions daily you wont see on UA-cam because they won't get views, that's why you only see that 1 to 5% of the force that is doing crappy stuff, because it gets views. Don't get me wrong, there's a thousand cops out there that should be arrested and sent to prison, but most police are NOT like that.
@@baracktrump1410 it really depends on the department. some departments have a long history of corruption that we're not surprised when theyre on the news again.
At 4:20ish it says the judge approved a blood test and he was arrested for DUI. Idk if that means it was positive or not. What the cop did was shady. If the guy was indeed drunk he deserved to be arrested. I have no sympathy for drunk drivers. They’re complete selfish scum. Now because of what the cop did in a fit of anger he lost his credibility of upholding the law in many peoples eyes. I’d like to know the full story as well.
@@jawsch yeah I’m aware. That’s why I said what the cop did is shady. It’s really stupid because if the guy was actually drunk driving it would just hurt the chances of bringing him to justice. I just think it’s odd they wouldn’t say if he failed or passed his blood test.
@@sunshinehahn1973 Well, it's technically not really relevant to what's being discussed. Whether he was intoxicated or not isn't really part of what the issue here is.
Not allowed to do the horizontal stagmus test until you first tell the person that they're going to be subject to field sobriety test you absolutely as an officer can never do that
Having a DOT regulated driver's license I am subject to random urine tests and breathalyzer. When it comes to the breathalyzer I always have the person giving the test calibrate and test the machine first.
Yep. But your test is admissable in court - the roadside one for non-CDL holders is not. That was nothing more than the cop using the breathalyzer to back up what he already smelled. If you had paid attention, Genius, you would have heard that all the device did was say that the air was positive for alcohol - not how much, not how much was in the driver. Just that the air sample contained alcohol.
@@orvil9223 My god you must love the taste of boot with how hard you're straw manning and gaslighting here for these garbage cops. Let me guess, your dad was one.
"How much have you had to drink tonight?" NOT, "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" A subtle but important difference. It assumes the affirmative when asking the question, before the answer is given.
"Neither listed in, nor forbidden by our policy." Good to know. If I'm ever in that area and get pulled over, I now know not to tilt my head back or close my eyes. Keep my attention on the officer so that he doesn't pull these kinds of shenanigans.
By this logic, the cops could simply flip a coin to determine if you're impaired or not too. "The use of flipping a coin to determine if a subject is impaired is not listed in nor is it forbidden by our policy." Given the lack of corresponding calibration data to back up the use of this instrument in such a manner, that 'test' is invalid and inadmissible; the same for everything that followed as fruit of a poisonous tree. That's why this Department is not saying much - they know they fucked up.
@@msugraduatestudent Totally agree with you. But some people commenting here don't see that point. They're only worried that "Oh no, he was driving drunk. His rights don't matter in that instance." SMH
@@msugraduatestudentSome officers previously flipped a coin to decide weither to arrest their “victim”, or let them go. They we’re swiftly fired after the video surfaced.
That's just policy though because there's been no previous precedence for this. The law in that state still says you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer test so a judge would likely find that the officers actions were illegal which will set the precedence.
@@notthatguy.937 The absence of policy does not mean that you can just make it up on the spot. That department released that statement because they got caught and were trying to mitigate the circumstances.
Welcome to Arizona. They sit in commonly known roads from the local bars and pull people under very questionable conditions. Just wait for it to happen to you but by then it’ll be too late
I still think he's an idiot and a few more things even less flattering. I replayed the video to hear him say the idiot line again. It gets me angry because I do not drink or do drugs but my illness is so rare people have not heard of it nor are they aware of it and they prefer to think I'm "on something", instead of having a bona fide medical issue independent of drugs or alcohol.
@@todddanforth8853 You should NEVER take a field sobriety test EVER. I don't care if you're a bonafide teetotaler. Say 'No! I refuse to take it and at this point officer I will only speak to you through my lawyer. Keep your pie hole shut PERIOD, I don't care what they say or threaten you with.
Maybe you should take public transportation. 🤔 If you appear high or drunk, it sounds to me that you might pose a danger behind the wheel. I'm just saying....
@@mogyui2902 No, it makes him willing to sneak a breath test even once it's been denied by the subject. May have blown the legal case, but he still got a drunken driver off the road.
@Jianju69 so it's OK to forbid rights just because "you have a hunch" even after they legally declined. Ok. Drunk drivers are a danger. But you cannot justify these kinds of actions just to "get another drunk off the road"
Just remember these are the people that are tasked with serving and protecting, also once we are disarmed they can do whatever the government tells them to do.
I’ve worked patrol a number of years and have arrested quite a few people on DUI. If you conduct your tests properly, you don’t even need the portable. After some practice, you can just about tell what the person’s breath alcohol content is without the portable. Sadly, I’ve seen too many leos rely on the P.B.T. If you don’t have enough for an arrest prior to the results of the P.B.T., it’s probably not a good arrest.
The only requirement you have to do is provide your drivers license, proof of insurance and registration. You don't have to cooperate with the officer in any other way.
With regards to ID, the law varies from state to state. However, there is no legal requirement that you must assist any officer in his investigation. You are not required to do any of the field, sobriety, testing, or answer any questions. They may even threaten you with “obstruction “, but this is a lie which they are allowing to do. They do not have to be truthful, they’re allowed to be deceptive, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this evidence is allowed in court and survives the constitutional test. Bottom line, he should’ve refused to close his eyes.
In some states if you do not take a sobriety test it’s an automatic arrested for not taking the sobriety test they try and o get you anyway they can even if it’s a legal drug 😂 i one’s witness a Sargent state that his police officers are better at telling if someone is under the influence then a lab technician or chemist 😂😂😂😂😂
This feels like cops dressing up into a plumber's outfit and getting invited in - then search the place without a warrant claiming that they had consent
Except the cop didn't go in and do a search. he tested the publicly accessible air that his own nose could smell. Should be thankful he did the extra test to be sure before he arrested him.
@@orvil9223 he tested publicly accessable air that he was prohibited from testing. By statute, there needs to be consent before you can sample air coming directly out of a person's lungs. Similarly it's been ruled you can't take a drug dog down an apartment hallway sniffling a centimeter away from the gap under the door
People should know that hand sanitizer on their hands can cause a 4% rating on the breathalyzer test alone just by being on the person's hand if they have their hand next to the nozzle.
In most jurisdictions "passive samples" are inadmissible because they are not accurate and not a certified way of determining BAC. They are intended to give a general idea of level of intoxication.
PBT results beyond positive for alcohol or not are not admissible in court anyway per Supreme Court cases. The actual number of entirely irrelevant because you don't have to be over some number to be arrested for DUI. The whole 0.08 number is called the De Facto DUI limit because the findings are that a BAC in excess of that number will ALWAYS be a DUI regardless of whether your SFST showed impairment.
This is despicable how disgusting of a law enforcement officer! Boy that ego trip is going to get his ass into something he can’t get out of one day. Now wether it come from legal proceedings or the streets I can’t say. I do know that people that to sickening lengths to have there way eventually rub someone the wrong way and can possibly be in a situation that is out of their control! If someone did this to one of his family members he would be raising hell!! Jerk
@@nickv500 how drunk could he be if the only way you believe you can get a warrant is to trick the suspect into taking a test they already refused to take? If a cop will lie to get a warrant for a DUI what else will they do to “enforce the law”?
I had a good friend once who got arrested for driving around while on LSD. They took him to a lockup and took a bloodtest... ...They tested for the wrong thing - it came back 100% clean & sober, nothing found - let him go.
You can’t spell corruption without C O P. It’d be interesting to see a FOIA request for the amount of MADD money this department receives and what kind of incentives the department has for DUI arrests.
There can be no corruption without U. You can’t spell “te amo” without TEAM, so how about it babe, let’s have a threesome. You count spell cowardice without cow or ice so steer clear of freezing.
I would look into ´ proper usage’ of breathalyzer. If this is incorrect usage than I’m going on the assumption that it cannot be used for a warrant and a DUI arrest. When the law s not clear you have to get creative. I’m not supporting driving under the influence. Just constitutional law and cheating on an exam doesn’t make you pass. My concern is that false DUI arrests will occur due to this misuse of equipment. Haven’t radar guns been challenged?
That isn’t the final determination. Its all just a game. The cop knew the guy was drunk (which he was on blood draw) and just needed a way to get a warrant for the actual blood draw.
Never take an FST, there's no state that mandates you to take an FST. Never answer questions either, you do have to submit to the breathalyzer in all states though. The warrant from the judge for your blood comes after being arrested and you're taken to the station. So if you're not drunk and you want to not have an arrest record just do the breathalyzer. As a condition for your driving license, you submit yourself to chemical tests and refusal means immediate suspension/revocation of your license.
THIS IS THE DEAL . “I placed him in handcuffs” “Why? “Safety” “What was the safety concern?” “He was resisting” “What was he resisting?” “Being placed in handcuffs” FBLG" FBL POLICE AFRAID AND SCARE THAT IS BEING A COWARD AND SHOULD JUST QUIT THE GANG
@@bobroberts2371 ...really? Innocent before proven guilty. Guilt was not proven. Unless you're a fan of rogue cops violating your rights. Even then, that "passive sample" is not proof of anything as it's not admissible evidence since a) that's not how the machine is designed to operate, and b) the individual had invoked their right to refuse a sample. .. so, yeah, you can f' right off with your Bravo Sierra.
@@bobroberts2371 That’s true and I don’t condone that. The driver was already in handcuffs and under arrest for refusing the breath test which is his right. He would have to submit to a blood test at the station. The trick was unnecessary and might get the case thrown out, or cost the city a settlement. The officer’s arrogance overtook him. He needs to be better.
@@gasmanoav I guess you missed the part where they got a court order to do a blood draw and that is what is going to convict the guy. How is holding a breath meter up to the guy, but not touching him, any different from an officer saying " A smell alcohol " ?
That happened to me when I was younger however I was not drinking and did take the breathalyzer test i passed every sobriety test and still got arrested I couldn't believe it. I felt very mad getting arrested for no reason. So I'm not surprised to see this happening
@@jcrjr383 you weren't just detained in cuffs were you? I know it sounds strange but a lot of people think they're arrested just because they're temporarily put in cuffs while being detained during a traffic stop, but they actually weren't arrested.
The part of all these videos on the web that still get me every time is the fact that they are most of the time the body cams that catch them doing these illegal, unconstitutional and just not right things. I don't think most of them even give to shits because the believe that they are protected no matter what so they can do anything they want.
I'll bet $100 he wasn't even close most of you sheep have been conditioned to believe that you're actually impaired at 08 and you're not the government has plenty of studies showing that the human body is not impaired below 1.2 but we've got to make it lower than 1.2 so that we can generate all that Revenue wake up fools
@@Grggeorge yeah i don't get this case at all. there is other channels complaining about it too. i didn't know you could just not do a breathalyzer and get off scot free. cop could have arrested him and taken him in at any point.
Remember, the constitution specifically states that any rights NOT enumerated to the states OR the people automatically go to the people. I forget which amendment states that, but its in there. Research it
That is the 9th. However getting the breath sample would fall under the 4th. In order to make a 4th violation claim, one would have to claim a reasonable expectation of privacy for their breath after they exhaled and they would have to prove standing for that breath. This would be highly unlikely. First, SCOTUS ruler things abandoned in public are free game. Second, cops have been testifying about the odor of alcoholic beverages coming from peoples breath since the invention of the automobile and DWI offenses. If a court was to say that a person's expelled breath in public was private, then a cop would have to get consent or a warrant to smell. Why stop there? Sound waves comes from inside a person when they talk and go out into the public air. Would a cop need consent or a warrant to hear?
I think once you refused the breath test one could reasonably assume that they weren’t going to be tricked into talking it against their will. Yet another cop demonstrating how they earn the hate every day.
@@hardluk3 i agree with you. If they got the warrant for blood that’s fine but one wouldn’t expect a cop to place the machine up to their nose with their eyes closed the way that he did
This happens all over the place, most people just carry on with their lives, always request body camera footage, no matter the reason for being stopped.
@@aldonisenberg537 I agree drunk driving is bad, but this officer just performed a search to which the driver specifically refused consent. Imagine walking someone out of their house and asking them to close their eyes while the police searched the house without a warrant.
@@theunaimedarrow4903 but that’s not what happened. He was speeding and drunk, and was caught. He wasn’t the good guy here. Imagine getting a call at 3AM telling you your brother and wife were killed by a drunk driver and now you gotta tell their kids what happened.
Well kid, you nailed it.... you do not know your rights and/or how to OVERSTAND the servants. 4th, 5th, right to counsel, privacy, travel on public roads... LEARN YOUR RIGHTS, STAND ON YOUR RIGHTS before they're trampled for good.... please and thank you. 😉❤
@@guesswhat-chickenbutt Do you believe ends justify the means? Should police be able to search everyone's house without a warrant if it means they find some crimes? Law and rights exist for a reason. When "law enforcement" are themselves lawless, all we have is lawlessness.
Sounds to me like he got a drunk driver off the road. Being drink behind the wheel is ignorant and could end up killing some innocent person or kid. What about their rights? Sounds to me like no one wants anyone to be held accountable anymore. Wonder why crime is sky high. 🤔
@@johnmatthews7890 I have no doubt about the drunk driver part but its the refusal to submit to a breathalyzer. The traffic stop should have ended there with the man hauled off for refusal and then having his blood checked at the precint where obviously he did have alcohol in his system. So his lawyer could argue that anything beyond his "right to refuse" moment (at least at the stop) should not be admissable as evidence but the blood sample would be this persons downfall.
@John Matthews Every individual in this country is guaranteed certain liberties and rights, and there is a structure and order to all interactions that may take place between individuals. While I doubt anyone is going to argue with you that drunk drivers are a danger to the community, we are now playing the "What if" game concerning circumstances on what "could" happen had this encounter not led to an arrest. With all due respect to you, the attitude you have towards an individuals rights, and the Constitution as a whole, are what is assisting in the (rapidly increasing) erosion of our freedoms in this country.
God bless the drunk driver? I don't understand. All we have is the word of a guy that doesn't want a DWI and a video tape with zero sound or pretext. Does the news story say if he got blood tested? I don't understand why we would assume that this guy is in the right here.
30 years ago I had cops stop me and wouldn't let me see the light of when to stop blowing. They had an Index card taped to the machine. They didn't like the 1st measure so they intentionally unplugged the machine because I was .07 (.01 under the legal limit). Then made me blow a 2nd time far past the time to stop blowing and it was a .09. I know many great cops and some bend things too far to get what they want. This will surely be the case here!
That is not how it works. There is no light to tell someone to stop blowing and a reading will not increase by .02% by simply blowing more air in the sample chamber.
Back in 2009 when I was 19 years old in Gulbert, AZ. I was riding my scooter around 12am with a friend. We got stopped by a cop while scootering down the sidewalk. He instantly said "How much of alcohol have you had tonight? Because I can smell it. " my friend and I were 100% sober. FTP
I supposedly showed signs of impairment during an HGN test. The Officer noted specific movements of my eye that indicated impairment. He then filled in the wrong eye color on all the paperwork.
Yeah, I had a cop put me on a personal rolodex (long time ago) in his car. He wrote down "red" as my eye color. We weren't doing anything wrong, and not arrested.
Wait a minute... you're telling me the breathalyser can detect alcohol out of one of your nostrils in a passive exhale, but I can barely muster up enough strength and volume to get an accurate reading when doing it the intended way?!
it wasn't a breathalyzer or it was a multi-function device that was acting as a passive alcohol sensor that detects the presence of alcohol, not the actual amount.
We have investigated ourselves and found that we have done nothing wrong.
so we start investigating them ourselves
They didn't say that. They said that there was no policy for or against this and that the court is now deciding the legality of it.
Isn't that rich? Lol 😆 I investigated myself and found I'm perfect - what a coincidence you are too!
And that's, that.
Not only that... he gets promoted to Sergeant??😒
We've investigated ourselves and determined we are all heroes
Yeah, how dare he get a DUI off the road. It's like his job or something... keeeping ppl safe from assholes who break the law.
@@0xsergy there’s a reason that there are laws to protect us all caps from the police, but I back the blue cop suckers Will keep brown nosing until a cop plays prick with them. How dare there be a constitution and Bill of Rights. Guess you’re one of those ends justifies the means kind of guys.If you believe you have the right and the necessity to piss all over the constitution to do your job maybe you shouldn’t be a pig.
@@Eddie-uf8oo How dare you drive drunk on public roads? I'll follow you and stay on the lines with the cops until you're in cuffs. Your desire to drink doesn't mean innocent people going to work have to die.
We could be beer bros, just for one day - David Bowie (Determined via investigation)
Heroes of Satan*
There are no good police. If you entered a job knowing it involves robbing and stealing, especially from the poor then there is no good. Making a good name for something awful and evil isn't good and no matter how many people you save, you're still under guise as a terrorist and you can never make terrorism look good. People need to wake up and realize there are no good terrorists, just bad ones and they need to all go home before they meet the good guys.
I love how the cop was handling the instruments bare handed with no gloves on. I wonder if he used alcohol based hand sanitizer at some point.
Please remove this comment, we do not need to give the police officers any ideas.
But it does beg the question, could they put some inside the device that is never detected, because you blow, not suck, so you may never get a chance to smell it? Is this why field tests are so unreliable?
@@cmack3625 no you would clog the machine therefore not getting a reading.
@@cmack3625yeah the breathalyzer is probably the more complex of tools. Doesn’t take much to piss that thing off. Heaven forbid so much as a spec of dust get caught up in the thing.
Put alcohol on an alcohol analizer? You are not too smart...
@@SOLDOZER It would force a false positive. Thank you for showing your ignorance.
He refused the breathe test, so officer can't force one in any way. This case needs to be dropped.
The judges are now as corrupt as the cops.
yep
They need to be sued.
@@minacapella8319 So the city can pay... (Oh, not saying he shouldn't sue, but that there are other issues that need to be resolved before lawsuits mean a damned things to the cops.)
Yeah should be an easy dismissal if you have a decent attorney. State law is strict on procedure that has to be followed and blatantly failing to do so often gets a charge dismissed.
I have failed one of those tests. Wasn't drunk or stoned. I haven't had alcohol in 10 years. He swore I was drunk. I was honestly just tired. Blew a 0 and he was still on me trying to get me to admit it. I just started laughing at one point because it was getting so ridiculous.
They are not designed to be passed period. Never take a field sobriety test ever, zero, and of story.
@@herrwahnsinn4229 well obviously I know now I'm alot older. That was years ago. Least 20 years But thank you
Legally tired driving is impaired driving.
@@cptmurica1187but it’s not drunk driving.
@@cptmurica1187 "legally tired" stfu this is relative to DUI so that doesn't even apply here
If the officer has a right to do a breath sample in this way. That makes the Constitutional "Right of Refusal", Null and Void. This Officer violated the Constitutional Rights of this man. This is an open-and-shut legal case. The 4th Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Any self respecting judge would say NO! No you cannot trick citizens in any way. If the judge goes along with it them it proves the system is corrupt.
Well, the police trick citizens all the time. It's a standard tactic in interrogation and the courts have upheld it.
Cops are legally allowed to lie to us, tricking isn't any different. When they know the can lie, why wouldn't hey do more?
The systems BEEN corrupt 🤡
that isnt admissable in court anyway lol
Let me know when you find a “self respecting judge” or a “self respecting law enforcement officer” for that matter. They don’t exist
The fact the officer has to announce multiple times that he indeed isn't an idiot after pointing out that he works the DUI unit and even teaches others really tells you a lot.
He's a very stable genius!
It tells me he is proud of his job and does his job to the best of his ability. The drunk man would probably have noticed the test if he WASNT intoxicated.
@@OndriaDancingStar 😂 PROUD OF HIS JOB? BY MAKING UP HIS OWN LAWS? 😂 YOU ARE A SPECIAL KIND OF STOOOOP
@@OndriaDancingStar He did notice the test, but what was he going to do about it? Any resistance will be met with up to lethal force from the cop, even if the cop is in the wrong.
@@OndriaDancingStar Did your tarot cards tell you that? 🤣
It’s like refusing to let an officer search your vehicle.
Then being handcuffed and in the back of the squad car.
Then the officer sees the door open and thinks the car is abandoned and start’s searching.
they can always search your car incident to an arrest
@@andyking9673 No they can't. Not without a warrant or real probable cause. Stop making things up.
@@MatthewsSloan Yes, they can and they will. When you are arrested while driving, they will search your car, and if they want to be jerks they will do an inventory of your personal property and impound your car.
@@MatthewsSloan look up exceptions to warrantless search. Get your facts straight
@@MatthewsSloan if you are being arrested, they are past probable cause. They have to conduct a search of your things when they arrest you. So the ultimate goal is not being arrested and if you are, to not have anything illegal on you.
His lawyer only has to ask the officer in court, "Did you use the breathalyzer test on my client after he refused it?". Case closed pay the man.
Unfortunately police have qualified immunity they can legally kill you and your family won’t even be able to sue over them killing them because they got qi shits disgusting the police falsely charged me for dui I passed breathalyzer refused field sobriety test cause it’s my right the officer never witnessed me swerving and than he claimed dui drugs and suspended my license took me out of work for 6 months before they dropped the charges and I could legally start driving over the road again I lost out on 70k alone from lost of wages and they claimed QI and denied my lawsuit ole corrupt ass motherfuckin police n judges
No, I used it on the air near his face.
@@drwalker9093 the guy said he felt the breathalyzer on his face.
That's like saying I didn't slap you in the face, I just swatted the air in front of your face and your face got in the way.
@@DrThunder2004 I agree. I was conjecturing about what the officer might answer - I don't think it would be valid to use as evidence (and its use _might_ taint any evidence gained afterward - in a state that allows refusal of breath tests).
But IANAL....
Case is not "closed". The best case scenario for this moron is the evidence gets waived as "inadmissible", but he still refused the breath test in the first place which (in AZ where this took place) isn't allowed and he would receive a DUI charge with or without the breath test.
One time I passed a field sobriety and another officer came up mad that I passed and gave me another test which I passed as well but in retrospect he couldn't re test me and I felt violated cause they really wanted me to fail this was ten years ago
Who said they can’t retest you? I been he asked and you consented.
They can't re test if I pass or fail. I was 22 I was young didn't know rights now I do
@@hrdkorebp great question moron
Do not consent to field sobriety tests, 1 in 3 completely sober people fail due to officer discretion.
Yeah bro it's sketchy out here. It's why I feel completely unsafe around police, because they can do anything to you like ruin your life with a criminal record for something they claimed you did and if you have an aggressive police officer you have to stay cool so they don't ruin your life or shoot you with a gun for trying to physically protect yourself against a physically aggressive cop. They are taught to arrest not much on how to communicate, so always plenty of cops who rush into a situation with the worst thought of you on their mind so if they ruin your life with a criminal record they don't care because they think you deserved it. Literally almost just happened to me, I got charged with assault and I didn't even touch the cop, I told him please stay back because I don't trust you and when I said that he ran an jumped on me but I didn't let him take me down so he punched my like 20+ times in the face hoping I would drop and I thought that was thend but I got a random letter just recently that I had to show up to court because that cop was trying to charge me with assault. Didn't touch him once
"We can lie to you but you must tell me the truth"
Sounds fair
If you lie, that's committing a crime. If we lie, that's investigating.
@@atxjaphotos4217 lying to a cop isn't a crime unless you are lying about your identity or if you are lying in an effort to cover up a serious crime.
They're trying to catch criminals. You really think a criminal will knowingly tell the truth about their crime? Lying to suspects/detainees/arrestees has always been allowed, it is specifically allowed by law.
That is NOT a trick. It is a warrant-less search and seizure.
@@matthewmorgan2998
U obviously misread OPs post. They're calling it a "trick" 4 the benefit of the avg viewer but technically it is a 4th amendment violation. Ur both right but u lose points 4 being an azzhole. And u don't know the difference between "breath" n "breathe" so there's that.
I don't think you understand what OP just said.
@@ChristopherWanha
Prove it, coward.
@@matthewmorgan2998did you read the comment you’re replying too?
Yes. A "trick" to bypass the constitution. It's like if a cop as to search your vehicle.. and while detaining you accidentally presses the trunk release on your keys to display your 20 keys of coke which is now in plain view.
"Oops I didn't mean to press and hold the trunk release I was legally searching the subject for dangerous objects and drugs"
It's a "trick", but it's a childish one that adults can see right through.
Once I got stopped for doing 80 in a 75, first thing that came out of the cops mouth was "how much have you had to drink tonight?" Told him I didn't drink, he refused to believe it, and insisted I was lying. Since then, I have lost all respect for the police.
he insisted you were lying because that's their game, they're incapable of dealing with truthful, honest people. It's not their game.😞
Your opinion of one to ruin the image of an entire group of people. I refer to that as a "stereotype."
@@FriePaul1337 Watch Long Island Audit's YT channel and a few other reputable auditor channels. You will see how corrupt the police really are. They routinely violate our guaranteed Constitutional rights. I back the blue, but I'm beginning to understand their culture. They are trained to lie to the public to "get" criminals. All this does is make them more like criminals themselves. They treat people as guilty until proven innocent when it's the other way around (or supposed to be). Always film the police. If you have a smartphone, USE IT with every police encounter to protect yourself. We live in very lawless times.
@PJ I've been in law enforcement for a better part of a decade and I've always been the same person I've always been with no issues with the general b public. If you look for all these "corrupt cop' UA-cam videos of course you're going to find exactly what you're looking for. Your own self-fulfilling prophecy. Are their corrupt cops with bad attitudes yeah, but people I know are upstanding guys with a job to do. These audit guys are in their right to do what they do, but cops are people men. The job is harder than most people will ever be able vto comprehend. The general public cannot be in LE. Believe as you want, but don't become jaded. I train other cops to do the right thing. Just be a good person. The rest falls into place.
@@FriePaul1337 With all due respect, I don't buy it. I think you're trying to justify bad behavior by claiming it's the "bad apples." only and not all cops. I used to believe you and now when I see the truth, I realize the so-called "good police" still break their oath to the Constitution every day and violate the people's rights routinely. The vast majority of officers don't know the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments of the very Constitution they swore to uphold . These YT civil rights auditors have to post often, or they won't keep their audience, so we see the majority of interactions show how the police lie and their alarming willingness to trample our rights. The good ones are very few and far between. If you excuse the little stuff, you're already heading down the wrong road.
1. Give them your license, registration, and proof of insurance.
2. Don't answer questions.
3. Don't submit to field sobriety tests.
4. If they force a breathalyzer or blood draw, opt for the blood draw.
5. In every way possible, be as unaccomodating and inconveniencing as possible, remembering that cops are not your friends, they're not on your side, and they see you as guilty before proven innocent.
@@Dontevenpretend Number 7, don't wear clothing that endorses alcohol. Weed clothing, in particular, only points out the obvious to most of us.
Do not submit to a blood draw. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that a citizen can refuse to give blood without a warrant if they are conscious. By forcing a blood draw without a warrant violates your 4th amendment rights.
@Truth Illinois depending on the state, some states have implied consent upon receiving your DL that the driver must provide a breathalyzer or blood draw upon suspicion of DUI or you may be arrested and may lose your license.. You can refuse questioning and FSTs, which you absolutely should. But the blood draw, if required, drags out the encounter much longer in your favor, and the results are in my opinion much more reliable than trusting an officer with the breathalyzer.
I understand not every state carries implied consent with the issuing of a DL.
YOU SOUND LIKE YOURE EXPERT DRUNK. ITS PPL LIKE YOU WHO KILL OTHERS DUI. AND YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN AND NOT COMPLY.. I MAKE SURE YOU FELL DOWN A FEW TIMES
@@Dontevenpretend he didn't, and he he clearly states as much, then he violates this mans civil liberties to obtain a warrant under these false pretenses to FORCIBLY TAKE HIS BLOOD.
If you do not have a constitutional protection for your blood, do you have any real rights?
And he did it all to say “ I’m not an idiot “ he just couldn’t fathom that the man didn’t know how highly decorated and smart he is about catching all the normies in DUIs.
The test should be ruled inadmissible in court because he did not consent.
Yeah...
But, if we had good judges we wouldn't have bad cops.
He also did not perform it correctly.
Consent is not required for many things when probable cause is established and PC was clearly established within the first 45 seconds. But not informing him is where the issue comes from. A passive sample test is certainly allowed and doesn't require consent at all since that test has zero interaction with your physical body.
Yea, the cop was arrogant and probably will lose this case because he didn't inform the guy of what was being done, but no one should be giving this driver a pass, he was clearly intoxicated its obvious from his first 5 words that he was too drunk to drive.
while the test isnt admissible, the blood draw still is and it did show he was intoxicated. the difficult ruling will be wether or not the blood is admissible, which was acquired with a signed warrant
All you idiot's defending a drunk driver
If he denied a breathalyzer, that's the end of it! There is no way that any judge or jury could rule against the defendant. Deceit and trickery afoot here folks!
Agree. Since he didn't did not consent to the test, seems like the test becomes inadmissible for DUI. Then this becomes a wrongful arrest, right?
We don't know what the hell it was because there is no sound and it's just the word of a guy that doesn't want a DWI.
100%. If he has the right to deny a breathalyzer, then the officer had no right to perform one anyways. Simple, open and shut. Arrest the officer for kidnapping and extorsion.
That being said, this guy's first mistake was communicating with the officer.
@@MatthewsSloan turn your sound up dude, you've posted this comment a few times, but there is 100% sound
@@countfrackula6707 Kidnapping? Are you high? If the driver refuses a breathalyzer then the officer has the right to arrest him. The detainment and arrest is not in question, only the sneaky breathalyzer trick, which seems shady.
That guy was the most steady dui driver I've see on video.
Police cry about not being trusted with our ID, when there has been no crime, but with cops like this out there, the trust in cops, that they won't violate your rights, is gone!
There's no policy, because there shouldn't have to be. When a driver says NO, they mean NO!
Kinda like rape even if you say no it must have been your fault because of ? Is it like drug sniffing dogs how often are they right ?
The law isn’t “driving in a dangerous manner while under the influence” it’s “driving with a blood alcohol greater than” ... whatever it is in that state. He might have seemed ok in that particular moment, but who is to say that in 5-10 mins when he metabolised more of the alcohol in his system, he wouldn’t have been swerving over the road or falling asleep causing an accident.
@@allisonjames2923 can't base it on assumption
In todays day and age if you still trust cops there is something completely wrong with you.
Lisa where do you live so we can send all the drunk drivers to your neighborhood
You can't trust that these officers are honest and principled.
They are allowed to lie.......this is a VERY BIG PROBLEM.
The breath test takes a hell of a breath to function. Holding it up to a guys face is questionable?
No jury would accept this if it ever made it to court.
even trace amounts will provide a breathalizer with at least a trace. Similar to getting DNA off a discarded tissue is how he got the trace. and the suspect denied drinking. If this guy ran into one of your family members and killed them, would you have the same reactions?
@@jasonlenten8663 What's the point of lying? This is piss poor police work...
@@jasonlenten8663 And DNA trace evidence is questionable at best in a court of law. The courts have been mix on even touch-DNA as being 100% reliable.
What the officer did was poor police investigation, poor work, and being lazy. The driver had no obligation to submitted a pBT and the officer violated the man's right when he refused.
Anybody backing the officer actions is just as bad as the officer.
He was drunk stupid watch the video blood test even proved it 😂
@@jasonlenten8663 Every person could potentially have a trace of alcohol showing in such a manner. The body naturally produces small quantities through bodily functions. Even mouth wash has some trace amounts in some cases. Enough to show a "you're over the limit"? No. But enough to "detect a trace". The manner in which this meter was used is contrary to the manufacturer's instructions on its use. If the cop is so willing to "trick" a driver with this technique, I would not put it past him to having found a way to "trick" the meter into showing a "positive result" no matter what. That's why these instruments have specific directions on their use; so false positives & false negatives are less likely. But this is a "DUI cop" who "knows". He "knows" how to utilize his equipment; as this case clearly shows.
clearly an expert. another top notch professional. how dare we question his methods that are obviously too advanced for the common folk to understand? ... some people 🤷
This police officer really needs to lose this law suit!! This is just so completely INSANE!!
Not only is the officer an idiot, he is completely psychologically unfit to ever hold any sort of power over others. This trait alone will ensure that he has a long and storied career in Policing
And they give guns to these people. I'd rather have ghost face killer instead of that copp.
He will get promoted. ;
@@bailey9r he did, he is now an assistant manager. he is dirty for sure. it be nice to see how he would fair with a copwatcher on the street.
@@foogonechill1765 haha Sergeants in my book are known to be Assistant managers. Corporals are Assistants to the Assistant Managers.
anti cop fucktards
Once they put you in Cuffs don't say or do anything but give them your name and birth date.
His first mistake was speaking to police. Never do that. Remain absolutely silent. They are going to hurt you anyway. Save it all for court.
You MUST invoke the 5th amendment THEN say nothing. SCOTUS ruled never saying a word is ADMISSION (we live in a banana republic though).
Traffic stops are going to happen. Just manswrr questions like a normal person.
@@st.francisanddr.pepper1304 Absolutely lick their boot while your at it along with the case YOU help them build against YOU!
No his first mistake was driving DUI.
@@st.francisanddr.pepper1304lol you can do everything the “right way” and still throw the book at you fellow here is right just save it for court
Never consent to a field sobriety test. Never answer ANY questions, never consent to any searches or your person or property. “I wish to remain silent at this time, and I want a lawyer!
Sounds like somebody who is Hella guilty to me!!
And that’s a guarantee one year loss of your license.
Amazingly sensitive breathalyzer when you normally see the cop telling the person to blow blow blow
It detected alcohol was present, not how much
"Last time someone said no to sex I restrained them and got them to close their eyes too." - probably this policeman
Don’t worry, that’s all he does. He teaches others.
😬 yikers
Courts have consistently ruled that these public officials can lie with impunity to get their suspect.
They can not however force someone to self incriminate.
There’s a difference when it involves your rights this would be like if they read you your rights then placed a microphone in the same room you talk to your lawyer
Yes that's called police work, of course this is different since he had a right not to take that test. Obviously there's nothing he really could have done here but in general, when being questioned by the police, just keep your damn mouth shut.
@@notthatguy.937 You also do not have to dance for them. Or tilt your head back and close your eyes. He should have refused to answer questions and refused all other instructions except those related to getting him handcuffed. If he had kept his head up and his eyes open, the cop would needed to use force to get that sample.
What I am wondering is what the blood test showed. Was he truly impaired?
But they can’t act on it. If they say chewing bubble gum is a crime, and arrest you, that’s deprivation of rights under color of law.
The officer keeps saying that he's not an "idiot" since he was apparently correct in his determining that the driving had been drinking. But, he is an idiot. Being right in no way means a person is not an idiot.
And the mistrust and disrespect continues to be earned. If ever on a jury this video will be remembered.
And that's why you wouldn't be on one, genius.
@@Psyrecx because being a juror is a sacred honor?
@@tb8654 No. But, it does have some requirements certain people lack.
@@Psyrecx requirements like knowing that there is a percentage of officers that is not simply a "minority", who operate off of ego, escalate matters, or utilize framing tactics in order to justify altercations, detainments, and arrests?
@@tb8654 Yes. Because there has to be a percentage... 0 is still a percentage, genius.
This is why people zone off when talking to you IRL. They're just mentally facepalming the whole time.
one of the last Newsreporter's with integrity
OWNED BY MCDISNEY
@@CoercedJab ok
Don't be fooled, they all work for one corporation.
@@blacksheep7910 👈 This person's contribution is, "OK".
Totally oblivious.
The guy was driving DRUNK….FOOL!
No government employee should ever be able to lie to a citizen for any reason. The danger of lying government employees is more dangerous than any hypothetical reason for a government employee to lie.
I am in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM a supported of LEOs....however, within an interrogation setting and after being Mirandized...AND ONLY OF THE PERSON BEING INTEROGATED IS COMPETENT...I don't have a problem with it. Otherwise I completely agree with you that gov't employees should be forbidden to lie to the public.
Police lie to you all the time in order for you to give up your rights and investigate. The dude kinda sounded like he’d been drinking don’t believe cops not here to help you but charge you. Never answer questions. ID yourself and let them prove or disprove something.
Boy, wait until you hear about politicians.
@James D so you are in favor of government employees lying. There should be no exceptions. Thus has already proven to be a slippery slope.
@@Csmallo So no more undercover policing? I do think that uniformed police should be forced to be truthful about what is and isn't a law during a traffic stop but interrogations and undercover work would both become fruitless if police had to be honest to the many criminals that actually committed heinous crimes. There needs to be exceptions but they need to be clear and documented in law.
Good for the officer, another drunk off the street. Too many lives are lost from drunk drivers.
Can we just have an honest police officer that doesn’t annoy you. Please?
They'll get run out of the force by the bad ones. I've seen it happen several times.
There is a sense of occupying forces controlling citizens who have no rights. Just like the Gestapo!
Maybe that's why he was giving a raise because of his deception skills
That's because the truth/reality don't matter to police. The cops value and condone dishonesty.
💯
Exactly 💯
promotions is based on how many tickets they hand out. thats why i avoid driving near the holidays because thats when cops ramp up the ticket giving to meet their end of the year quota.
@@cerebrumexcrement If that were true then the officer wouldn't have gotten a promotion because of his deception.
It's a slippery slope if this gets allowed. What's to prevent him from straight up putting it to your face after you refuse even without having to trick you.
Right? You have to breathe, so if they can capture that breath you don't actually have a right to refuse.
The fact that it's not listed or refused means that it's not part of their policy! Thank you for putting this part of it in the video This is very important
Policy can never trump law, thankfully. There may be a policy to bark like a chicken, but if the law says you can refuse, they should not force you, and this was not a trick the way I see it, it was forced upon him after he legally refused. So, yes, the officer is an idiot. I almost hope he did this to a lot of other peole and they class action him and his department.
It's not listed in the policy because no other officer had thought about it enough to do it. What this officer did was very cagey with his rules. Open air samples have many diluting particles in it that could cause a misreading, (it's just about the air we all breathe). 😐 It also looked funny that that officer was "adjusting" his device a lot before using it.
@@djs12007 are you insinuating that the cop rigged the test for that dude to fail? i think lumping in those kinds of claims devalues your other statements that actually have some merit worth listening to. its like if i said "i think the cop did something wrong here, oh yea and Bigfoot exists too"
@@cmack3625 There was no force. The suspect declined a very specific test but he has no right to refuse a passive test. You can refuse a vehicle search absent PC but that doesn't prevent an officer from conducting a plain-view search for contraband which can then provide the PC for a further search. Plain view is identical to this ambient "passive" air test because it doesn't require any consent. It's not even trickery. Notice nobody has yet to find any legal decision barring the use of passive PBT alcohol detection; it doesn't exist and is not considered the same as a properly-administered Breathalyzer test.
if the test isn't listed as part of the police policy, then where did he get the device?
How indignant is this to a human being, Unbelievable!?
He's drunk stupid
Cop thinks his manhood is being challenged because someone is exercising their rights. Simple as.
They found alcohol in his blood 😳 next time let him kill someone you idiot
@@mpguilfo I couldn't agree more!
As I observe & come across these confrontational subject matters I truly believe that if the Arresting Officers didn't take the situation so personal most people would not only agree with the arresting officer's decision but more than likely would back them up on it. However because the Arresting Officer seems to either be on a power trip, ego trip, or just straight up tripping, here we are...
And what have you done to improve anything?
Driver refused the test. Period. But Templeton uses another way. Templeton should have been a lawyer. The refusal should have stopped any other testing and Templeton should have taken him for a blood test if allowed by a Judge.
They earn the hate one person at a time
I don’t answer questions and I don’t do sobriety tests.
Hope you have a tight grip on your soap then beta boi cuz bubba would have fun with you 🍆💦💦💦
@@dh1752 go find some the dui check point stop videos on here. Give them nothing they got nothing to twist
Stop drink driving then.
@@MrNobodyMoto are you making a general statement or one directed to me? I don’t drink therefore I can’t have a DUI.
@@MrNobodyMoto Even if the person is intoxicated they are still allowed to travel freely wherever they please
Things will always be this way nothing will ever change unless law enforcement officers are held responsible and have to pay out of their own pockets as long as the taxpayer flips the bill the stuff will never end
It only changes when everybody learns their rights and acts accordingly
So yeah you're right it'll never change because people (the masses)are ignorant and cowardly
I tend to agree. Take away qualified immunity, and just like any other profession, law enforcement officers can be held individually and financially accountable for their liability and bad behavior.. This will weed out some bad apples..
Except that he was drunk.
Actually what you were talking about is called qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity needs to be abolished.
Qualified immunity is what keeps the officer from being sued personally.
Qualified immunity allows officers to violate your civil rights and when one sues they're merely suing themselves and the rest of the taxpayers . the officers see no repercussions.
ABOLISH QUALIFIED IMMUNITY NOW!¡!
A NC deputy tried to give me a PBT claiming it was the implied consent test and that I had to do it or lose my license. I’m sure uninformed citizens fell for his trick
In a lot of states it is. They can automatically suspend your license for 3 to 6 months, but that's better than however long it is for a DUI if you beat the case.
this excerpt is from a law firm website:
What Happens in a DWI Stop in North Carolina
If a law enforcement officer stops you on suspicion of DWI, the officer may ask you to take a roadside preliminary / portable breath test (PBT). Under North Carolina law, you can refuse to take the PBT with no adverse consequences to your driver’s license. However, the officer may still arrest you for DWI based on other factors, such as swerving while driving.
Following arrest, the officer may ask you to take a second, more accurate test at the police station. The officer must give the required notification before administering the second test. After giving the required notification, the police officer will ask you to sign a form to confirm receiving and understanding the notification.
The police officer also may ask you to take a blood alcohol test in addition to or instead of the breath test. Again, the officer must give the required notification before this test is administered. If you refuse the blood test (or are unconscious), the officer must obtain a warrant to take the blood sample.
(this is the important part, the officer will seek a warrant and if it is granted you will be getting blood test, whether you want to or not!)
What Happens If You Refuse a North Carolina DWI Breath Test or Blood Test?
If law enforcement stops you on suspicion of DWI, refusing to take a breath or blood test may seem like a good way to avoid being charged. However, refusing to take the test can make your situation even worse.
While you have the right to refuse a breath or blood test, doing so can - and most often does - result in revocation of your driver’s license for at least a year. Refusal does not result in criminal charges. The process is a civil license revocation procedure that is completely separate from any DWI or other criminal charges. Even if you eventually are found not guilty, or the charges are dismissed, the license revocation from your refusal remains in effect.
In addition, prosecutors can introduce evidence of your refusal to take the test in your DWI case. They likely will argue that you were trying to conceal the fact that you were impaired. Refusing the test also may affect the prosecutor’s approach to your case and even affect your lawyer’s ability to negotiate a favorable outcome.
@@TimC_1964
I've seen videos of cops, lawyers, and judges pulled over for DUI...and, they ALL refuse.
They MUST know something WE don't.
In my state, if you refuse, your license is suspended for a year.
@@danni1993 they are refusing the PBT, not the implied consent test that takes your license. The few that refuse the implied consent test absolutely know the will blow over .08
@@TimC_1964 correct. Also, you get 30 minutes to call an attorney, or find a witness to your implied consent test. NC is the only one I know that does that, but I’m sure there are others. Basically, once they get you into the station, read you your rights, and have you sign the paper, the timer starts.
I hope this was a hard lesson for him in learning the Constitution and our basic rights, and I hope he fights the charge and sues the department.
Why the cop thinks he can get away with it when there's bodycam footage....and can lead to a lawsuit
This comment is a perfect example of the average minded person.
He did learn his lesson the hard way, there's no need to "hope" for it.
@@itsmephil2255 Dude, the cop is getting away with it. In fact he got promoted for his crooked tricky ways, did you not heaer?? Its always the story for officers. "They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing" as the story goes!!!!
@@chriskramp5174 that's always the case
@BillyTheKid I'm british but have seen a few videos that mentions qualified immunity
Personally id say a lot of American cops are bully's and cowards
I’m surprised the body cam was released.
“I’m not an idiot”,( I’m a liar.)
Because they get away with it often and become complacent.
The cop got a drunk driver off the road, it's crazy to see people defend a drunk driver that was lying saying he hasn't drank anything.
@@1boydjamesboyd Im with you, but was he drunk? How dud he get a good reading if they didnt blow threw it?
@@RwP223 it said his blood was tested after, and he was charged with dwi misimeaner
@@1boydjamesboyd Thanks for confirming, I've had my rights violated and I was not drunk, these deputies were 110% sure they got me, until I passed all their stupid tests and was calling them out on all the false probable causes.
A fact that upsets a lot of people is that Drunk Drivers MURDER nearly as many people as gun murderers, annually, in the U.S.
Let’s hope this is an example of local tv covering more about what so many police really are like.
Some police, of all the million police interaction per day, but the 99% good interactions daily you wont see on UA-cam because they won't get views, that's why you only see that 1 to 5% of the force that is doing crappy stuff, because it gets views. Don't get me wrong, there's a thousand cops out there that should be arrested and sent to prison, but most police are NOT like that.
You’re a liberal huh 🤡
@@baracktrump1410Not entirely. I’d argue most of the police related videos on UA-cam show the good side of our officers.
@@rinner2801 There’s no proof that he was drunk, so far.
@@baracktrump1410 it really depends on the department. some departments have a long history of corruption that we're not surprised when theyre on the news again.
So did the blood sample come back and show that he was driving drunk? Why not cover that in the story?
At 4:20ish it says the judge approved a blood test and he was arrested for DUI. Idk if that means it was positive or not. What the cop did was shady. If the guy was indeed drunk he deserved to be arrested. I have no sympathy for drunk drivers. They’re complete selfish scum. Now because of what the cop did in a fit of anger he lost his credibility of upholding the law in many peoples eyes. I’d like to know the full story as well.
Becuase the story is the cop becoming a criminal by performing unlawful actions against a civilian. NOT some drunk driver got a dui.
@@sunshinehahn1973
You can be arrested and charged with a DUI even if you have no alcohol in your system.
It's entirely at the officer's discretion.
@@jawsch yeah I’m aware. That’s why I said what the cop did is shady. It’s really stupid because if the guy was actually drunk driving it would just hurt the chances of bringing him to justice. I just think it’s odd they wouldn’t say if he failed or passed his blood test.
@@sunshinehahn1973
Well, it's technically not really relevant to what's being discussed.
Whether he was intoxicated or not isn't really part of what the issue here is.
You can always refuse. Go to jail if you have to. Always get the blood test. Those breath things are hardly calibrated.
terrible advice.
Not allowed to do the horizontal stagmus test until you first tell the person that they're going to be subject to field sobriety test you absolutely as an officer can never do that
Having a DOT regulated driver's license I am subject to random urine tests and breathalyzer. When it comes to the breathalyzer I always have the person giving the test calibrate and test the machine first.
Yep. But your test is admissable in court - the roadside one for non-CDL holders is not. That was nothing more than the cop using the breathalyzer to back up what he already smelled. If you had paid attention, Genius, you would have heard that all the device did was say that the air was positive for alcohol - not how much, not how much was in the driver. Just that the air sample contained alcohol.
@@orvil9223 My god you must love the taste of boot with how hard you're straw manning and gaslighting here for these garbage cops. Let me guess, your dad was one.
"How much have you had to drink tonight?" NOT, "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" A subtle but important difference. It assumes the affirmative when asking the question, before the answer is given.
"Neither listed in, nor forbidden by our policy."
Good to know. If I'm ever in that area and get pulled over, I now know not to tilt my head back or close my eyes. Keep my attention on the officer so that he doesn't pull these kinds of shenanigans.
By this logic, the cops could simply flip a coin to determine if you're impaired or not too. "The use of flipping a coin to determine if a subject is impaired is not listed in nor is it forbidden by our policy." Given the lack of corresponding calibration data to back up the use of this instrument in such a manner, that 'test' is invalid and inadmissible; the same for everything that followed as fruit of a poisonous tree. That's why this Department is not saying much - they know they fucked up.
@@msugraduatestudent Totally agree with you. But some people commenting here don't see that point. They're only worried that "Oh no, he was driving drunk. His rights don't matter in that instance." SMH
@@msugraduatestudentSome officers previously flipped a coin to decide weither to arrest their “victim”, or let them go. They we’re swiftly fired after the video surfaced.
That's just policy though because there's been no previous precedence for this. The law in that state still says you have a right to refuse a breathalyzer test so a judge would likely find that the officers actions were illegal which will set the precedence.
@@notthatguy.937 The absence of policy does not mean that you can just make it up on the spot. That department released that statement because they got caught and were trying to mitigate the circumstances.
Welcome to Arizona. They sit in commonly known roads from the local bars and pull people under very questionable conditions. Just wait for it to happen to you but by then it’ll be too late
Ummm yeah. Don’t drink and drive.
No excuse for drinking and driving.
@horace sheffield You can be under the influence blowing a .07.
That's entrapment. They're not allowed to do that.
@@richvan2128 lol yea if he was drunk enough to get tricked he's probably drunk enough to be pulled off the road, you know to prevent accidents. Smh
He really said “do you think I’m an idiot” 😂😂😂😂
I still think he's an idiot and a few more things even less flattering. I replayed the video to hear him say the idiot line again. It gets me angry because I do not drink or do drugs but my illness is so rare people have not heard of it nor are they aware of it and they prefer to think I'm "on something", instead of having a bona fide medical issue independent of drugs or alcohol.
@@sandrajones2262 I also have a handicap and could never pass the field sobriety tests.
@@todddanforth8853 You should NEVER take a field sobriety test EVER. I don't care if you're a bonafide teetotaler. Say 'No! I refuse to take it and at this point officer I will only speak to you through my lawyer. Keep your pie hole shut PERIOD, I don't care what they say or threaten you with.
Maybe you should take public transportation. 🤔 If you appear high or drunk, it sounds to me that you might pose a danger behind the wheel. I'm just saying....
@@johnmatthews7890 want to articulate that a bit better? 🤣
Either comply fully or resist fully.
When the cop says "I'm not an idiot" my brain immediately goes to John Cena saying "Are you sure about that?"
Make me think he was questioning his own motive for pulling him over.
@@mogyui2902 No, it makes him willing to sneak a breath test even once it's been denied by the subject. May have blown the legal case, but he still got a drunken driver off the road.
@Jianju69 so it's OK to forbid rights just because "you have a hunch" even after they legally declined. Ok.
Drunk drivers are a danger. But you cannot justify these kinds of actions just to "get another drunk off the road"
@@mogyui2902 I'm saying I don't take issue with this case. The law may disagree, who knows.
Just remember these are the people that are tasked with serving and protecting, also once we are disarmed they can do whatever the government tells them to do.
I won’t feel safe until I have at least 19 nuclear warheads at my disposal.
Just look at Uvalde. These cultists are only in it for themselves and the money
@@AV57 arms covered anything you saw fit to protect yourself with. I support your message
Just remember the Police report Crime they don't stop crime! Police Serve and Protect, They serve themselves and protect their pensions!
He really wanted that sergeant promotion
I’ve worked patrol a number of years and have arrested quite a few people on DUI. If you conduct your tests properly, you don’t even need the portable. After some practice, you can just about tell what the person’s breath alcohol content is without the portable. Sadly, I’ve seen too many leos rely on the P.B.T. If you don’t have enough for an arrest prior to the results of the P.B.T., it’s probably not a good arrest.
YEA LIKE JUST PATROLLING EVERY PLACE THAT SERVES Alcohol 😂
Wearing a T-shirt that says Irish Whiskey definitely doesn't help matters.
It’s a bar. He works at a bar. Or did. 😅
The only requirement you have to do is provide your drivers license, proof of insurance and registration. You don't have to cooperate with the officer in any other way.
Absolutely false
@@ssgemactv prior to being arrested, what other requirement is there?
With regards to ID, the law varies from state to state. However, there is no legal requirement that you must assist any officer in his investigation. You are not required to do any of the field, sobriety, testing, or answer any questions. They may even threaten you with “obstruction “, but this is a lie which they are allowing to do. They do not have to be truthful, they’re allowed to be deceptive, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this evidence is allowed in court and survives the constitutional test. Bottom line, he should’ve refused to close his eyes.
@@ssgemactv no.
In some states if you do not take a sobriety test it’s an automatic arrested for not taking the sobriety test they try and o get you anyway they can even if it’s a legal drug 😂 i one’s witness a Sargent state that his police officers are better at telling if someone is under the influence then a lab technician or chemist 😂😂😂😂😂
This feels like cops dressing up into a plumber's outfit and getting invited in - then search the place without a warrant claiming that they had consent
HAHAHA Awesome analogy!
But he was drinking and driving
As a master toilet mechanic (plumber) I resent police impersoning us. Stolen valor.
Except the cop didn't go in and do a search. he tested the publicly accessible air that his own nose could smell. Should be thankful he did the extra test to be sure before he arrested him.
@@orvil9223 he tested publicly accessable air that he was prohibited from testing. By statute, there needs to be consent before you can sample air coming directly out of a person's lungs. Similarly it's been ruled you can't take a drug dog down an apartment hallway sniffling a centimeter away from the gap under the door
honor and integrity should be removed from logo.
People should know that hand sanitizer on their hands can cause a 4% rating on the breathalyzer test alone just by being on the person's hand if they have their hand next to the nozzle.
That's not true.
Don’t spread false information
Totally wrong, it isn't even the same type of "alcohol" rtard
In most jurisdictions "passive samples" are inadmissible because they are not accurate and not a certified way of determining BAC. They are intended to give a general idea of level of intoxication.
PBT results beyond positive for alcohol or not are not admissible in court anyway per Supreme Court cases. The actual number of entirely irrelevant because you don't have to be over some number to be arrested for DUI. The whole 0.08 number is called the De Facto DUI limit because the findings are that a BAC in excess of that number will ALWAYS be a DUI regardless of whether your SFST showed impairment.
This is despicable how disgusting of a law enforcement officer! Boy that ego trip is going to get his ass into something he can’t get out of one day. Now wether it come from legal proceedings or the streets I can’t say. I do know that people that to sickening lengths to have there way eventually rub someone the wrong way and can possibly be in a situation that is out of their control! If someone did this to one of his family members he would be raising hell!! Jerk
It’s Gilbert PD they jerk each other off at the end of shift talking about their tickets and arrest for the day. It’s the new Scottsdale
He's drunk driving
When he runs over a kid because he's drunk then you'll want to hang him... he's a criminal
@@nickv500 how drunk could he be if the only way you believe you can get a warrant is to trick the suspect into taking a test they already refused to take? If a cop will lie to get a warrant for a DUI what else will they do to “enforce the law”?
I hope he takes an ego trip to the unemployment line.
I had a good friend once who got arrested for driving around while on LSD.
They took him to a lockup and took a bloodtest...
...They tested for the wrong thing - it came back 100% clean & sober, nothing found - let him go.
You can’t spell corruption without C O P. It’d be interesting to see a FOIA request for the amount of MADD money this department receives and what kind of incentives the department has for DUI arrests.
There can be no corruption without U.
You can’t spell “te amo” without TEAM, so how about it babe, let’s have a threesome.
You count spell cowardice without cow or ice so steer clear of freezing.
I would look into ´ proper usage’ of breathalyzer. If this is incorrect usage than I’m going on the assumption that it cannot be used for a warrant and a DUI arrest. When the law s not clear you have to get creative. I’m not supporting driving under the influence. Just constitutional law and cheating on an exam doesn’t make you pass. My concern is that false DUI arrests will occur due to this misuse of equipment. Haven’t radar guns been challenged?
these false dui arrests are quite frequent and many cases have been thrown out because the blood or urine test proved otherwise.
The device is meant to blow into for a few seconds, so how can the device be reliable if he never put it in his mouth or blew? Something fishy here.
He put it under his nose without him knowing to trick him into breathing into it . It doesnt give a reading it just says alcohol detected.
That isn’t the final determination. Its all just a game. The cop knew the guy was drunk (which he was on blood draw) and just needed a way to get a warrant for the actual blood draw.
Never take an FST, there's no state that mandates you to take an FST. Never answer questions either, you do have to submit to the breathalyzer in all states though. The warrant from the judge for your blood comes after being arrested and you're taken to the station. So if you're not drunk and you want to not have an arrest record just do the breathalyzer. As a condition for your driving license, you submit yourself to chemical tests and refusal means immediate suspension/revocation of your license.
THIS IS THE DEAL . “I placed him in handcuffs” “Why? “Safety” “What was the safety concern?” “He was resisting” “What was he resisting?” “Being placed in handcuffs” FBLG" FBL
POLICE AFRAID AND SCARE THAT IS BEING A COWARD AND SHOULD JUST QUIT THE GANG
Where in this video did any of the nonsense you posted happen?
He only violated 3 of the 4 words on their police emblem. Honor, Integrity, Professionalism.
And the driver violated the safety of other road users. . . .
@@bobroberts2371 ...really? Innocent before proven guilty. Guilt was not proven. Unless you're a fan of rogue cops violating your rights. Even then, that "passive sample" is not proof of anything as it's not admissible evidence since a) that's not how the machine is designed to operate, and b) the individual had invoked their right to refuse a sample.
.. so, yeah, you can f' right off with your Bravo Sierra.
Dude's a coward for not upholding the citizen's right. 4/4, would not recommend this piece of crap cop.
@@bobroberts2371 That’s true and I don’t condone that. The driver was already in handcuffs and under arrest for refusing the breath test which is his right. He would have to submit to a blood test at the station. The trick was unnecessary and might get the case thrown out, or cost the city a settlement. The officer’s arrogance overtook him. He needs to be better.
@@gasmanoav I guess you missed the part where they got a court order to do a blood draw and that is what is going to convict the guy.
How is holding a breath meter up to the guy, but not touching him, any different from an officer saying " A smell alcohol " ?
" im not an idiot"!? I thought the guy was being tested? But it was really the cop testing himself to see " if he was an idiot"!
That happened to me when I was younger however I was not drinking and did take the breathalyzer test i passed every sobriety test and still got arrested I couldn't believe it. I felt very mad getting arrested for no reason. So I'm not surprised to see this happening
🤨
What reason did they give for arresting you?
@@KX36 none. I was so mad you have no idea
@@jcrjr383 you weren't just detained in cuffs were you? I know it sounds strange but a lot of people think they're arrested just because they're temporarily put in cuffs while being detained during a traffic stop, but they actually weren't arrested.
@@KX36 no I was actually thrown in jail and they just let me go in the morning the next day.
The part of all these videos on the web that still get me every time is the fact that they are most of the time the body cams that catch them doing these illegal, unconstitutional and just not right things. I don't think most of them even give to shits because the believe that they are protected no matter what so they can do anything they want.
where does the constitution say a police officer isn't allowed to test the air around a suspect for evidence of alcohol?
So if the officer let him go, and he drove away and killed someone you'd be writing a story about why the officer let him drive away.
Yes they would. Someone killed why yes they would.
@@movingforwardfco1587 It's a lose- lose situation for the officer.
I'll bet $100 he wasn't even close most of you sheep have been conditioned to believe that you're actually impaired at 08 and you're not the government has plenty of studies showing that the human body is not impaired below 1.2 but we've got to make it lower than 1.2 so that we can generate all that Revenue wake up fools
@@user-eh5cr4or6k You seem intelligent. He's clearly slurring his words. Grow up and stop the name calling.
@B Why do you hate public servants? Because you were told to. Now, who is the sheep? Look in the mirror.
"I don't really know my rights." That's problem #1 right there.
This is one of the best advertisements I've ever seen
The man's got to make his quota
with all these false arrests, no wonder he got promoted. 🤣
got a drunk driver off the road. its a win in my book.
Yeah what’s wrong with this guy complaining aster drunk driving he could have killed somebody
@@Grggeorge yeah i don't get this case at all. there is other channels complaining about it too. i didn't know you could just not do a breathalyzer and get off scot free. cop could have arrested him and taken him in at any point.
Remember, the constitution specifically states that any rights NOT enumerated to the states OR the people automatically go to the people. I forget which amendment states that, but its in there. Research it
9th
That is the 9th. However getting the breath sample would fall under the 4th. In order to make a 4th violation claim, one would have to claim a reasonable expectation of privacy for their breath after they exhaled and they would have to prove standing for that breath. This would be highly unlikely. First, SCOTUS ruler things abandoned in public are free game. Second, cops have been testifying about the odor of alcoholic beverages coming from peoples breath since the invention of the automobile and DWI offenses.
If a court was to say that a person's expelled breath in public was private, then a cop would have to get consent or a warrant to smell. Why stop there? Sound waves comes from inside a person when they talk and go out into the public air. Would a cop need consent or a warrant to hear?
I think once you refused the breath test one could reasonably assume that they weren’t going to be tricked into talking it against their will. Yet another cop demonstrating how they earn the hate every day.
@@hardluk3 i agree with you. If they got the warrant for blood that’s fine but one wouldn’t expect a cop to place the machine up to their nose with their eyes closed the way that he did
YOU don't remember which one but WE should research it? How about you know what you are talking about beforehand...
This happens all over the place, most people just carry on with their lives, always request body camera footage, no matter the reason for being stopped.
This behavior has got to be stopped at all costs
Agreed 100%!!! We need to keep drunk drivers off the. Period
@@aldonisenberg537 I agree drunk driving is bad, but this officer just performed a search to which the driver specifically refused consent. Imagine walking someone out of their house and asking them to close their eyes while the police searched the house without a warrant.
This behavior has already been to the supreme court, and yes, cops can, and will lie to you and trick you
@@theunaimedarrow4903 youre defending a drunk driver?
@@theunaimedarrow4903 but that’s not what happened. He was speeding and drunk, and was caught. He wasn’t the good guy here.
Imagine getting a call at 3AM telling you your brother and wife were killed by a drunk driver and now you gotta tell their kids what happened.
refused. tricked. dismiss.
Officers are allowed to lie. There are other officers that have arrested drivers that were sober, proved by blood and breath testing.
Well kid, you nailed it.... you do not know your rights and/or how to OVERSTAND the servants. 4th, 5th, right to counsel, privacy, travel on public roads... LEARN YOUR RIGHTS, STAND ON YOUR RIGHTS before they're trampled for good.... please and thank you. 😉❤
Like the right to drive drunk?
@@guesswhat-chickenbutt Do you believe ends justify the means? Should police be able to search everyone's house without a warrant if it means they find some crimes? Law and rights exist for a reason. When "law enforcement" are themselves lawless, all we have is lawlessness.
@@guesswhat-chickenbutt Found the cop!
He didn't tell the driver the test was voluntary.
Lmao 😂 I think this cop is justified. That was savage af. Poor Cody 😂😂😂
So, did alcohol show up on the blood test?
Yes. After the blood test he was arrested for misdemeanor DUI.
Sounds to me like he got a drunk driver off the road. Being drink behind the wheel is ignorant and could end up killing some innocent person or kid. What about their rights? Sounds to me like no one wants anyone to be held accountable anymore. Wonder why crime is sky high. 🤔
@@johnmatthews7890 I have no doubt about the drunk driver part but its the refusal to submit to a breathalyzer. The traffic stop should have ended there with the man hauled off for refusal and then having his blood checked at the precint where obviously he did have alcohol in his system. So his lawyer could argue that anything beyond his "right to refuse" moment (at least at the stop) should not be admissable as evidence but the blood sample would be this persons downfall.
@FreakinRican109 Refusing a breathalyzer test in Arizona is not a criminal offense, so that act alone does not constitute an arrest.
@John Matthews Every individual in this country is guaranteed certain liberties and rights, and there is a structure and order to all interactions that may take place between individuals. While I doubt anyone is going to argue with you that drunk drivers are a danger to the community, we are now playing the "What if" game concerning circumstances on what "could" happen had this encounter not led to an arrest. With all due respect to you, the attitude you have towards an individuals rights, and the Constitution as a whole, are what is assisting in the (rapidly increasing) erosion of our freedoms in this country.
God bless you man. Stay on top of it.
God bless the drunk driver? I don't understand. All we have is the word of a guy that doesn't want a DWI and a video tape with zero sound or pretext. Does the news story say if he got blood tested? I don't understand why we would assume that this guy is in the right here.
30 years ago I had cops stop me and wouldn't let me see the light of when to stop blowing. They had an Index card taped to the machine. They didn't like the 1st measure so they intentionally unplugged the machine because I was .07 (.01 under the legal limit). Then made me blow a 2nd time far past the time to stop blowing and it was a .09. I know many great cops and some bend things too far to get what they want. This will surely be the case here!
That is not how it works. There is no light to tell someone to stop blowing and a reading will not increase by .02% by simply blowing more air in the sample chamber.
So is the second try tainted by default 🤔 and can't they be lined ?
You know mannnnny great cops? I highly doubt all of that....
Dont drink and drive you ass.
@@williamfoster4268 Notice the 30 years ago part or did you miss that one?
Back in 2009 when I was 19 years old in Gulbert, AZ. I was riding my scooter around 12am with a friend. We got stopped by a cop while scootering down the sidewalk. He instantly said "How much of alcohol have you had tonight? Because I can smell it. " my friend and I were 100% sober. FTP
I supposedly showed signs of impairment during an HGN test. The Officer noted specific movements of my eye that indicated impairment. He then filled in the wrong eye color on all the paperwork.
Yeah, I had a cop put me on a personal rolodex (long time ago) in his car. He wrote down "red" as my eye color. We weren't doing anything wrong, and not arrested.
Wait a minute... you're telling me the breathalyser can detect alcohol out of one of your nostrils in a passive exhale, but I can barely muster up enough strength and volume to get an accurate reading when doing it the intended way?!
it wasn't a breathalyzer or it was a multi-function device that was acting as a passive alcohol sensor that detects the presence of alcohol, not the actual amount.
I'm curious to know if he was actually drinking or not
Officer says "I'm not an idiot", well actually you are.