When does a police officer have the right to give you a breathalyzer test?

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Whenever he damned well pleases? If you refuse, they can get you for non cooperation. It's not fair but that's the way it goes.

BTW: why do you think you can fight this when you obviously did something wrong?

I may have done something against the law, but it wasn't wrong. I'm not asking whether you're a shit for brains American in favor of retarded laws, I'm asking for legal advice.

Kthnx

wait, what?

If making love you your wife was illegal, would it automatically become wrong? If you use US laws as your moral compass then your kinda naive.

who said anything about that?

 

[jonks]

It sounds like an experienced attorney has a shot at getting this thrown out but it will cost you significantly more than a $250 ticket. Not worth it, IMO, as underage drinking is not a criminal offense so you don't have to report it on a job app. Pay the fine and next time just don't get caught.

You and others are arguing whether you did anything "wrong", but are using different definitions of the word (it has many) so you're talking past each other. You certainly did something "wrong" [incorrect/not in compliance with the law] or you wouldn't have gotten a ticket, but you didn't do anything "wrong" [immoral/dastardly].

Originally posted by: FDF12389
I was questioning whether he operated legally when he force me to take the test

Since he knew you were a minor from your license, any hint of alochol on your breath would constitute an illegal ammount and be sufficient for him to cite you for underage consumption. The breathalyzer in this case would really only confirm or exculpate you and couldn't do you any additional harm. Ultimately you could have refused it, but he didn't need the results to cite you so don't hit yourself over the head.

Originally posted by: FDF12389
I cannot use the argument that my parents gave me the alcohol because that's still illegal in my case. After looking into it a 17 year old could consume more alcohol legally then I can, my parents can no longer give me alcohol because there are no longer my legal guardian.

Not true, the law is that your parent or guardian (or over 21 spouse!) can give you alcohol, otherwise the obvious perverse flaw you point out would exist where a 17 year old can drink with their parents but not a 20 year old. The reason you can't use this excuse is because it's not true, and you don't want to add perjury onto your citation. Remember, Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby got nailed for lying, not for any underlying crime.

 

[RapidSnail]

I think that the drinking age in the United States is too high, and I think it should be reduced to 18. However, as it stands now, that age is 21, and anyone caught drinking under that age is subject to the consequences. I have no problem with a 20 year old consuming alcohol, but when you do so, you have to accept the risk that you may be caught.

If you are caught, it is your responsibility to acknowledge the violation. You cannot say that it was unfair because I am responsible or this or that. Law enforcement agents are only enforcing the law; they do not take into account personal arguments because then it can be argued that the law has been unequally applied. The judges and courts are the ones who can decide a case on an individual manner.

Deciding to drink underage is a personal decision. If you choose to, you must be fully aware that despite your opinion on the drinking age, you are subject to liabilities. That is a risk that you take. At least, this is how I understand it.

*This isn't addressed to the OP directly because his issue is the legality of the breathalyzer test. The argument is a general statement.*

 

[ghost recon88]

Ever consider not breaking the law and refusing to have a drink until yer 21? Using common sense would save you a lot of trouble man.

 

[DrPizza]

To the OP, sure, he had probably cause to check your breath after he knew you were under 21 and suspected you were drinking. However, did he have probable cause to check your age?

Ever consider not breaking the law and refusing to have a drink until yer 21? Using common sense would save you a lot of trouble man.

:roll: We had a really nice steak dinner the other night. I allowed my college-aged son to have a beer (one) with his dinner. You're against that? I know plenty of Italian families who have wine at nice dinners. During their Christmas dinner, you'd be against them allowing their teenagers to have a 4 ounce glass of wine to celebrate the holiday?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
To the OP, sure, he had probably cause to check your breath after he knew you were under 21 and suspected you were drinking. However, did he have probable cause to check your age?

Ever consider not breaking the law and refusing to have a drink until yer 21? Using common sense would save you a lot of trouble man.

:roll: We had a really nice steak dinner the other night. I allowed my college-aged son to have a beer (one) with his dinner. You're against that? I know plenty of Italian families who have wine at nice dinners. During their Christmas dinner, you'd be against them allowing their teenagers to have a 4 ounce glass of wine to celebrate the holiday?

Isn't that legal?

Edit: Never mind. I was thinking of another region.

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
To the OP, sure, he had probably cause to check your breath after he knew you were under 21 and suspected you were drinking. However, did he have probable cause to check your age?

Ever consider not breaking the law and refusing to have a drink until yer 21? Using common sense would save you a lot of trouble man.

:roll: We had a really nice steak dinner the other night. I allowed my college-aged son to have a beer (one) with his dinner. You're against that? I know plenty of Italian families who have wine at nice dinners. During their Christmas dinner, you'd be against them allowing their teenagers to have a 4 ounce glass of wine to celebrate the holiday?

Circumstances don't matter when it comes to the law man Whatever situation you list, as long as you're under 21 its against the law here in the States. Legalities are legalities.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
To the OP, sure, he had probably cause to check your breath after he knew you were under 21 and suspected you were drinking. However, did he have probable cause to check your age?

Ever consider not breaking the law and refusing to have a drink until yer 21? Using common sense would save you a lot of trouble man.

:roll: We had a really nice steak dinner the other night. I allowed my college-aged son to have a beer (one) with his dinner. You're against that? I know plenty of Italian families who have wine at nice dinners. During their Christmas dinner, you'd be against them allowing their teenagers to have a 4 ounce glass of wine to celebrate the holiday?

Sure the law is BS. But arguing about a law on an internet forum won't get the law changed. I think I should be able to roll through a stop sign at 2 mph if its 3 am and there are no other cars on the road. That doesn't mean that I can't get a ticket for it.

The OP is either going to have to get a lawyer and pay at least 10x what the ticket is for, or man up and admit his guilt.

EDIT:
And the officer smelling alcohol coming from the car gives him probably cause to make sure everyone is of legal age and not intoxicated in public.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: SmoochyTX

Originally posted by: speg
He didn't catch you in the act of underage drinking, so I don't know how well his case would stand up in court. Like someone else said, you could have easily been drinking at home before going out.

And yet he still was out later in public without his parent(s)/guardian(s) under the age and under the influence.

You're a smart one aren't you?

Maybe he was fighting a cold and had some NyQuil.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: SmoochyTX

Originally posted by: speg
He didn't catch you in the act of underage drinking, so I don't know how well his case would stand up in court. Like someone else said, you could have easily been drinking at home before going out.

And yet he still was out later in public without his parent(s)/guardian(s) under the age and under the influence.

You're a smart one aren't you?

Maybe he was fighting a cold and had some NyQuil.

The ticket is for being under the influence of alcohol, not drinking liquor.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I've always found this to be funny. When police arrest you, they are required to inform you of your rights. But prior to arresting you, they do not have to tell you your rights, and can in fact out right lie to you about your rights. Never made any sense to me.

Wrong.

OP: Just take the class and get over it.

 

[everman]

The cops can't force you to take the test, or any kind of test right there on the roadside if I remember correctly. IE: if you know that you were driving drunk, the best thing you can do is just waste as much time as possible before getting a blood test at the police station. That means you refuse all tests, but still cooperate otherwise. They'll arrest you and take you in. This is where time wasting skills come in, act like you're incredibly sick and get to the bathroom. Waste as much time there as possible, until they come to get you, but don't at any time resist them or cause trouble. Wasting time is intended to bring your BAC level below legal limits by the time the test is administered. But even then they may be able to estimate up your levels at time of being pulled over, but this is harder to prove if you have a skilled lawyer. And that's pretty much how to game the system.

Now in your case they may be able to cite you merely based on smelling your breath because having any alcohol in you at all may be considered an infraction, and all of the above doesn't help.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: everman
The cops can't force you to take the test, or any kind of test right there on the roadside if I remember correctly. IE: if you know that you were driving drunk, the best thing you can do is just waste as much time as possible before getting a blood test at the police station. That means you refuse all tests, but still cooperate otherwise. They'll arrest you and take you in. This is where time wasting skills come in, act like you're incredibly sick and get to the bathroom. Waste as much time there as possible, until they come to get you, but don't at any time resist them or cause trouble. Wasting time is intended to bring your BAC level below legal limits by the time the test is administered. But even then they may be able to estimate up your levels at time of being pulled over, but this is harder to prove if you have a skilled lawyer. And that's pretty much how to game the system.

Now in your case they may be able to cite you merely based on smelling your breath because having any alcohol in you at all may be considered an infraction, and all of the above doesn't help.

What if he's still rising? :evil:

Regardless, at a reduction rate of approximately 0.015%/hr, you'll have to waste a lot of time.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: everman
The cops can't force you to take the test, or any kind of test right there on the roadside if I remember correctly. IE: if you know that you were driving drunk, the best thing you can do is just waste as much time as possible before getting a blood test at the police station. That means you refuse all tests, but still cooperate otherwise. They'll arrest you and take you in. This is where time wasting skills come in, act like you're incredibly sick and get to the bathroom. Waste as much time there as possible, until they come to get you, but don't at any time resist them or cause trouble. Wasting time is intended to bring your BAC level below legal limits by the time the test is administered. But even then they may be able to estimate up your levels at time of being pulled over, but this is harder to prove if you have a skilled lawyer. And that's pretty much how to game the system.

Now in your case they may be able to cite you merely based on smelling your breath because having any alcohol in you at all may be considered an infraction, and all of the above doesn't help.

not the best idea. if he just left the bar/party whatever there is a good chance his BAC will actually raise.

 

[Softballslug]

Originally posted by: Elstupido
Lawyer..."Officer, did you smell alcohol, or did you think you smelled alcohol? Were there any other signs to warrant the breathalyser?"

Officer...."I smelled alcohol"

Lawyer..."So you smelled mouthwash which can very much smell like alcohol, and that is the ONLY reason and no other, you gave for a breathalyser?"

Officer...."yes"

Lawyer...."Judge please dismiss this case, on the grounds of insufficient probable cause of administering this breathalyser based solely upon the officer thinks he smelled alcohol with no further evidence of alcohol consumption"

And yes, the OP should never have consented. He wasn't driving, so Implied consent does not apply

First off, alcohol has no smell. What you smell is the odor of an Alcoholic Beverage!!!!