You be the jury.

[RKS]

The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) has three main tests for imparement. The NHTSA manual also has about 24 visual clues that indicate intoxication. If the arrest video shows no clear signs of imparement and the LEO testifys that he did not see more than 1 or 2 signs from the list of 24; would you convict a driver based on the Intoxilizer/Breathalizer results alone (assuming results are probably valid).

Please also assume the 3 SFST tests can be rebutted enough to cloudy clear intoxication.

 

[AMCRambler]

Is DUI normally a jury trial? Unless something happened when they were under the influence.

 

[RKS]

Is DUI normally a jury trial? Unless something happened when they were under the influence.

I believe jury trials can be requested for anything that may include jail time and may be a better option than allowing a judge who may not be open to defense arguments to rule alone.

 

[drebo]

If you're drunk and driving, you should lose your license for a year the first time. The second time, you lose it for good. If you kill someone with your car while under the influence, that should be first-degree murder.

I'm a fan of "innocent until proven guilty" so I do not advocate breathalizers being required to start cars, except for repeat offenders.

 

[zanejohnson]

so your a badass and can drink a case and pass a fst..

still too drunk to drive.. even if you have a 234234234 iq while drunk.

blame "the man."

 

[DrPizza]

.06 or whatever it is, is somewhat arbitrarily chosen. How it actually affects a person is different for each person. And, unless I'm mistaken, some people build up quite a high tolerance level - what would have some people slurring their speech leaves other people more-or-less unaffected. The spirit of the law seems to be that DUI means that someone's decisions or reactions are impaired. If they are not, in fact, actually impaired, despite meeting the arbitrary set threshold, then I would have a hard time calling them impaired.

edit: I drink very infrequently - I would probably feel slightly impaired at a level below the legal limit - I won't drive if I've had a couple of beers.

 

[zanejohnson]

^^^^ tha man


:hugs: :kisses:

i like that guy

 

[esun]

Given the information provided, no. Criminal charges require a burden beyond a reasonable doubt. If he showed questionable physical symptoms and I didn't know what number the breathalyzer reported, the accuracy and precision of the breathalyzer, or the circumstances in which it was administered, there's no way I could convict.

 

[RKS]

Given the information provided, no. Criminal charges require a burden beyond a reasonable doubt. If he showed questionable physical symptoms and I didn't know what number the breathalyzer reported, the accuracy and precision of the breathalyzer, or the circumstances in which it was administered, there's no way I could convict.

Assume the breath test was administered with correct calibration, at the station within two hours, under the right conditions and the result just under .14 with .08 as the 'limit'.

On the arrest video there is no stumbling, slurring, or confusion. There is enough to argue that all three physical SFST test weren't administered correctly.

 

[dawp]

Is this theoretical or did this happen?

Is the OP referring to himself?

 

[HAL9000]

Yes, if they broke the law they are guilty, if they looked like they didn't break the law it's irrelevant.

 

[gorobei]

i seriously hope this is not a real case and whoever the person may be is not considering going to jury trial on a dui.

If this is real,

you had better have a crap ton of disposable money, a job that absolutely requires you to be able to drive, or be unable to take the 1st time offender wrist slap sentence.

if you do take it to jury trial, you can be assured that when(not if) you are found guilty that the judge will apply the maximum penalties, make you pay court costs(think 5 digits), and whatever else he can to make sure you think 50 times over before wasting court time again.

You blew, and you failed the test. Not by a little but by a lot, .06 over the limt and there is no wiggle room(if it was .09[.01 over] and a good lawyer there might have been a chance). the second they got the test reading you were done. there is no held sample to be retested or refuted. If it is a metropolitan department or large county sheriff the chances of an uncalibrated machine are low, better if it is a small podunk town.

your current line of questions suggests you are trying to nullify the validity of the FST. do not bother. The nystagmus test is the quickest indicator an officer has for getting an actual ballpark BAC number. You have no idea what your angle was and you have no way of refuting what the officer saw. The line walk and foot stand are just gravy for testifying in court.

the tests are only there to help the officer decide if he is going to make the arrest. once he decided to take you to be processed and you blew, it was over. [Im assuming he had enough probable cause to to make the vehicle stop and initiate contact.]

 

[calvinbiss]

This is why mandatory blood draws are important in DWI cases, and I am glad my county has instituted a blood draw program. The biggest problem with DWI jury cases is that most jurers can easily put themselves in the defendants shoes and therefore are more likely to find not guilty versus a more serious crime.

 

[rh71]

abolish alcohol

 

[gorobei]

This is why mandatory blood draws are important in DWI cases, and I am glad my county has instituted a blood draw program. The biggest problem with DWI jury cases is that most jurers can easily put themselves in the defendants shoes and therefore are more likely to find not guilty versus a more serious crime.

the county i worked in gave the suspect the choice of blood, breath, or urine. Though if you were unable to do a bladder void before the sample, urine was no longer an option.

breath is the only one that doesnt keep a sample, but it has the higher margin of error.


a sgt once described it as a vegas gambling game:

estimate how close you are to the limit and whether you can wait out the number of hours required to drop your bac to under the limit.
-if you do the fst thats 15 to 20 min.
-if you have a car that needs to be towed (30 min).
-do a PAS and you can get a better idea if you'll be under by the time they get you to processing, but if you're over then you cant waste anymore time with the fst.
-opt for blood and hope the phlebotomist needs to be called in (20 min), but blood will be way more accurate and likely to get you convicted.

 

[Mixolydian]

If you're drunk and driving, you should lose your license for a year the first time. The second time, you lose it for good. If you kill someone with your car while under the influence, that should be first-degree murder.

This.

 

[RKS]

LEO?

There are questions about the HGN because it's impossible to verify distance and angle of onset since no template or equal tracking test was used. My question would be if this is a scientific test then the controls should be more precise. Also the driver was facing the take-down lights.
Also assuming the WAT instructions were unclear and the driver was never told to touch heel to toe. Also the driver is obese and could not see his feet while performing the test.
For the OLS the SFST clearly states people 50 lbs. overweight may have trouble with the test and the driver is about 150 lbs. overweight (5'9" 300#).

I would be okay with a wet reck. but it's not on the table. There has been no decision whether to plea or proceed and since Gene Hackman-esque jury consultant is not an option I thought this would be an interesting place to get opinions. I actually thought a more male dissection would be less inclined towards conviction.

i seriously hope this is not a real case and whoever the person may be is not considering going to jury trial on a dui.


If this is real,

you had better have a crap ton of disposable money, a job that absolutely requires you to be able to drive, or be unable to take the 1st time offender wrist slap sentence.

if you do take it to jury trial, you can be assured that when(not if) you are found guilty that the judge will apply the maximum penalties, make you pay court costs(think 5 digits), and whatever else he can to make sure you think 50 times over before wasting court time again.

You blew, and you failed the test. Not by a little but by a lot, .06 over the limt and there is no wiggle room(if it was .09[.01 over] and a good lawyer there might have been a chance). the second they got the test reading you were done. there is no held sample to be retested or refuted. If it is a metropolitan department or large county sheriff the chances of an uncalibrated machine are low, better if it is a small podunk town.

your current line of questions suggests you are trying to nullify the validity of the FST. do not bother. The nystagmus test is the quickest indicator an officer has for getting an actual ballpark BAC number. You have no idea what your angle was and you have no way of refuting what the officer saw. The line walk and foot stand are just gravy for testifying in court.

the tests are only there to help the officer decide if he is going to make the arrest. once he decided to take you to be processed and you blew, it was over. [Im assuming he had enough probable cause to to make the vehicle stop and initiate contact.]

 

[amdhunter]

I'd fail a lot of those tests sober.

 

[Jeeebus]

would you convict a driver based on the Intoxilizer/Breathalizer results alone (assuming results are probably valid).

Under Florida law, I wouldn't have a choice. You wouldn't even get to argue all the other nonsense about field sobriety - all they need to do is show you blew over the .08 limit (here you're saying the BAL was significantly higher than the max), and it's time to convict.

316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.—
(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;
(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or
(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

 

[twinrider1]

Assume the breath test was administered with correct calibration, at the station within two hours, under the right conditions and the result just under .14 with .08 as the 'limit'.

On the arrest video there is no stumbling, slurring, or confusion. There is enough to argue that all three physical SFST test weren't administered correctly.

4511.19 Operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs - OVI.

(A)(1) No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply:

(d) The person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one gram or more but less than seventeen-hundredths of one gram by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of the person’s breath.
​

Guilty.

 

[gorobei]

going to a internet forum for advice is not a high probability avenue. if you are that determined to fight this,

GET A FRIKEN LAWYER.

you will lose but at least you will be properly represented.

You blew, and you failed the test. Not by a little but by a lot, .06 over the limt and there is no wiggle room(if it was .09[.01 over] and a good lawyer there might have been a chance). the second they got the test reading you were done.

the tests are only there to help the officer decide if he is going to make the arrest. once he decided to take you to be processed and you blew, it was over. [Im assuming he had enough probable cause to to make the vehicle stop and initiate contact.]

someone can ace the fst, that doesnt mean the officer cant arrest you. he just has to work harder to explain in court why he suspects you are over the limit (or under the influence of some other drug).

 

[slayer202]

Umm yes, I trust science. You're arguing that you can handle your liquor? That's your defense? No, that's not good enough to overrule the test/law

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

What are the tests? Like what do you have to do?

 

[RKS]

going to a internet forum for advice is not a high probability avenue. if you are that determined to fight this,

GET A FRIKEN LAWYER.

you will lose but at least you will be properly represented.





someone can ace the fst, that doesnt mean the officer cant arrest you. he just has to work harder to explain in court why he suspects you are over the limit (or under the influence of some other drug).

I am not asking for advice. I just wanted to hear how laypeople would find based solely on a positive breath test. I provided background facts to present the totality of the situation.
The argument would be that a faulty SFST would not give the LEO enough probable cause to warrant a breath-test and therefore it could be suppressed.

BTW I have never been pulled over for DUI/DWI.

 

[OutHouse]

would you convict a driver based on the Intoxilizer/Breathalizer results alone

yes