I might be completly wrong but I thought I read somewhere that it was illegal for cops to sit outside a bar and wait for people to leave.
i completely agree that if your going to drive just stay away from the alochol.... coke, sprite, j2o, etc taste nice and you can still have an ace time
when im out and im driving, ill be honest an say i have a pint of fosters or what ever for my first drink, subsequent drinks are just soft drinks and by the time we head home ive pissed it all out anyway and am completely sober (i seem to process food/drink way too fast, 5 mins after a pint im dying for the loo!)
i see this as safe, and ive never been pulled for the test...even with the police right behind me who've just seen me leave the students union car park at 3am. and we have tough drink drive laws here, infact in my town there is a zero tolerance on drink driving.
I get body searched 3-4 times a week on my way home (usually after 11PM). There is a police checkpoint just a kilometer from my house at a very important/busy junction. No big deal, it takes all of two minutes. If the officer remembers me from the previous night, he lets me go before I even cut the engine.
It's all in the interest of safety and security. This one time, I reached home tired & sleepy, eyes all red, walked up the stairs with a lazy stagger and my Mom thought I was drunk or stoned. You don't have to smell of alcohol for someone to think you are drunk. It happens.
It's all in the interest of safety and security. This one time, I reached home tired & sleepy, eyes all red, walked up the stairs with a lazy stagger and my Mom thought I was drunk or stoned. You don't have to smell of alcohol for someone to think you are drunk. It happens.
OP reminds me of an occasion in which I got sobriety-tested....
The cop had every reason to think i was drunk... pulled me over one Friday night at like... 2am (ok, so Sat. morning... whatever) for speeding, I think I managed to clock 93mph in a 65. Yeah, even a dumbass would suspect I was drunk. I know that much. Other supporting circumstances, besides the time and day and infraction, were me being 18; driving a convertible sports car.
So I knew I'd be tested. The cop had me pull off the freeway onto a side street. Oddly enough... side street reeked of stale beer. Yeah... that wasn't gonna help my cause any. When the cop came to my window, he mentioned the beer smell. He also noticed the crumpled soda cans on my passenger-side floorboard (which he thought were beer cans). He ordered me out of the car, and I complied. The 2nd officer actually pulled his gun and aimed it at me while the first one proceeded to spin me around and lay me against the side of my car while he questioned me. Then he made me do all the usual tests, and I passed with no issues. I hadn't had a drink in... like... a month. When the cop realized I was completely sober, he became incredibly irate and started swearing at me, then wrote my speeding ticket, crumpled it up, threw it in my face, and left.
Soooo, I'm split on random sobriety tests, especially if cops are gonna be THAT FRIGGIN upset that I'm NOT drunk. Shouldn't it be the other way around?!? I didn't get a word out of him for speeding... just a lot of angry because he couldn't get a DUI out of me.
The cop had every reason to think i was drunk... pulled me over one Friday night at like... 2am (ok, so Sat. morning... whatever) for speeding, I think I managed to clock 93mph in a 65. Yeah, even a dumbass would suspect I was drunk. I know that much. Other supporting circumstances, besides the time and day and infraction, were me being 18; driving a convertible sports car.
So I knew I'd be tested. The cop had me pull off the freeway onto a side street. Oddly enough... side street reeked of stale beer. Yeah... that wasn't gonna help my cause any. When the cop came to my window, he mentioned the beer smell. He also noticed the crumpled soda cans on my passenger-side floorboard (which he thought were beer cans). He ordered me out of the car, and I complied. The 2nd officer actually pulled his gun and aimed it at me while the first one proceeded to spin me around and lay me against the side of my car while he questioned me. Then he made me do all the usual tests, and I passed with no issues. I hadn't had a drink in... like... a month. When the cop realized I was completely sober, he became incredibly irate and started swearing at me, then wrote my speeding ticket, crumpled it up, threw it in my face, and left.
Soooo, I'm split on random sobriety tests, especially if cops are gonna be THAT FRIGGIN upset that I'm NOT drunk. Shouldn't it be the other way around?!? I didn't get a word out of him for speeding... just a lot of angry because he couldn't get a DUI out of me.
When you obtain your driver's license, you agree to sobriety tests.
If you refuse completely (no field, breath, or blood work), you will lose your license. You can opt out of taking a breath test and get blood work done I believe.
I know its been stated here, but to the OP. Not always, but a lot of times, if a cop sees you pull over, they will to, just to find out whats going on. They normally run your plates as well, just to make sure your not driving a stolen vehicle or have any warrants.
On any holiday, ie 4th of July, Labor Day, Halloween etc, sometimes they set up road barricades and do a breathalizer on everyone. And anyone they pull over, or they pull over to assist gets tested. It isn't a quota.
On any holiday, ie 4th of July, Labor Day, Halloween etc, sometimes they set up road barricades and do a breathalizer on everyone. And anyone they pull over, or they pull over to assist gets tested. It isn't a quota.
i dont see how they could make you take a test if you werent pulled over for eratic driving.
i think its okay for them to check on if you are having car troubles, and to explain how much time you have to get your car off the shoulder, but anything else is going too far IMO!
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm glad those cops are out there. It's more important to me now, with Ace's passing.
As unfortunate as this event was, it was probably one of the best examples that could be reinforced in the minds of a community of over 150,000 people, like AnandTech.
who is Ace, were they a regular here? How did they die, and when?
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Originally posted by: KrillBee
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I'm glad those cops are out there. It's more important to me now, with Ace's passing.
As unfortunate as this event was, it was probably one of the best examples that could be reinforced in the minds of a community of over 150,000 people, like AnandTech.
who is Ace, were they a regular here? How did they die, and when?
Text
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
This is not true. There are laws known as Implied Consent, which means that you already consented to take a sobriety test when you accepted your drivers license. Failure to take a sobriety test can result in immediate arrest and subsequent conviction for DUI, even if you are later able to prove that you had not been drinking at all.
Answering the OP's actual question, this was probably not a quota thing, but a cop being overly cautious on Halloween night, which is notorious for drunks on the road.
or so you say, until they make it a practice to just start pulling over people randomly.
and then pretty soon dealing cops becomes a regular occurence for society.
and dont we all love dealing with people who are paranoid and dont trust the public, and who's entire job focus is to bust people and try to find people doing wrong things.
dont you just love it when cops try to probe into details about your life?
oh wait, they were just doing their job and making sure you werent running away from a robbery or something. lol
how would you like it if they started stopping inside yourself 3-4 times a week just to have a look around and make sure you arent hiding any weapons or drugs?
Don't worry, its only in the interest of public safety! Safety first!
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Originally posted by: KrillBee
dont you just love it when cops try to probe into details about your life?
oh wait, they were just doing their job and making sure you werent running away from a robbery or something. lol
It was an interesting experience, and I'm not really complaining about it (nor did I at the time). However, I don't recall that I was doing anything specific that resulted in getting pulled over.
no one deserves to have a gun aimed at them by an officer, when there is no sign that you are dangerous or armed.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I don't recommend that. If the officer doesn't have a portable breathalyzer with him, you will be arrested and taken back to the station for the test there. Possibly for a booking and some drunk tank fun too!
edit: it is, however, a good idea to ask for a breathalyzer INSTEAD of the field test, and then agree to the field test only if absolutely necessary.
they probably ask for your ID when they do this too, which is unfortunate. Because those ID checks where the officer sits in their car and does his business can take 5 minutes plus.
but its okay, i mean because if someone is pulled over they deserve an ID check more than a car that is driving on the road. right?
SonnyDaze
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2004
- 6,867
- 3
- 76
According to the state of New Jersey (OP's home state):
§ 39:4-50.2. Consent to taking of samples of breath; record of test; independent test; prohibition of use of force; informing accused
(a) Any person who operates a motor vehicle on any public road, street or highway or quasipublic area in this State shall be deemed to have given his consent to the taking of samples of his breath for the purpose of making chemical tests to determine the content of alcohol in his blood; provided, however, that the taking of samples is made in accordance with the provisions of this act and at the request of a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has been operating a motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of R.S. 39:4-50.
(b) A record of the taking of any such sample, disclosing the date and time thereof, as well as the result of any chemical test, shall be made and a copy thereof, upon his request, shall be furnished or made available to the person so tested.
(c) In addition to the samples taken and tests made at the direction of a police officer hereunder, the person tested shall be permitted to have such samples taken and chemical tests of his breath, urine or blood made by a person or physician of his own selection.
(d) The police officer shall inform the person tested of his rights under subsections (b) and
(c) of this section.
(e) No chemical test, as provided in this section, or specimen necessary thereto, may be made or taken forcibly and against physical resistance thereto by the defendant. The police officer shall, however, inform the person arrested of the consequences of refusing to submit to such test in accordance with section 2 of this amendatory and supplementary act. A standard statement, prepared by the director, shall be read by the police officer to the person under arrest.
§ 39:4-50.4a. Revocation for refusal to submit to breath test; penalties.
a. Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, the municipal court shall revoke the right to operate a motor vehicle of any operator who, after being arrested for a violation of R.S. 39:4-50, shall refuse to submit to a test provided for in section 2 of P.L. 1966, c. 142 (C. 39:4-50.2) when requested to do so, for not less than seven months or more than one year unless the refusal was in connection with a second offense under this section, in which case the revocation period shall be for two years or unless the refusal was in connection with a third or subsequent offense under this section in which case the revocation shall be for ten years. A conviction or administrative determination of a violation of a law of a substantially similar nature in another jurisdiction, regardless of whether that jurisdiction is a signatory to the Interstate Driver License Compact pursuant to P.L. 1966, c. 73 (C. 39:5D-1 et seq.), shall constitute a prior conviction under this section.
§ 39:4-50.2. Consent to taking of samples of breath; record of test; independent test; prohibition of use of force; informing accused
(a) Any person who operates a motor vehicle on any public road, street or highway or quasipublic area in this State shall be deemed to have given his consent to the taking of samples of his breath for the purpose of making chemical tests to determine the content of alcohol in his blood; provided, however, that the taking of samples is made in accordance with the provisions of this act and at the request of a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has been operating a motor vehicle in violation of the provisions of R.S. 39:4-50.
(b) A record of the taking of any such sample, disclosing the date and time thereof, as well as the result of any chemical test, shall be made and a copy thereof, upon his request, shall be furnished or made available to the person so tested.
(c) In addition to the samples taken and tests made at the direction of a police officer hereunder, the person tested shall be permitted to have such samples taken and chemical tests of his breath, urine or blood made by a person or physician of his own selection.
(d) The police officer shall inform the person tested of his rights under subsections (b) and
(c) of this section.
(e) No chemical test, as provided in this section, or specimen necessary thereto, may be made or taken forcibly and against physical resistance thereto by the defendant. The police officer shall, however, inform the person arrested of the consequences of refusing to submit to such test in accordance with section 2 of this amendatory and supplementary act. A standard statement, prepared by the director, shall be read by the police officer to the person under arrest.
§ 39:4-50.4a. Revocation for refusal to submit to breath test; penalties.
a. Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, the municipal court shall revoke the right to operate a motor vehicle of any operator who, after being arrested for a violation of R.S. 39:4-50, shall refuse to submit to a test provided for in section 2 of P.L. 1966, c. 142 (C. 39:4-50.2) when requested to do so, for not less than seven months or more than one year unless the refusal was in connection with a second offense under this section, in which case the revocation period shall be for two years or unless the refusal was in connection with a third or subsequent offense under this section in which case the revocation shall be for ten years. A conviction or administrative determination of a violation of a law of a substantially similar nature in another jurisdiction, regardless of whether that jurisdiction is a signatory to the Interstate Driver License Compact pursuant to P.L. 1966, c. 73 (C. 39:5D-1 et seq.), shall constitute a prior conviction under this section.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter