How to test suspected drunk driver

[barre]

How does American police test suspected drunk drivers?
I've got the impression that they don't use alcometers, am I right or have I just watched too much american police programs on TV?

[Ranger__101]

You've been watching too much TV. Law Enforcement Officers use a combination of physical tests and Portable Breath Tests to verify intoxication.

[barre]

Why not use the breath tester in the first place, wouldent that save tons of time?
Or to be more precise, why do the physical tests?

[tpd_six]

Why not use the breath tester in the first place, wouldent that save tons of time?
Or to be more precise, why do the physical tests?

Because most state laws here require you to prove impairment of the subject. We have 3 standardized tests taught pretty much nationwide which have a high degree of accuracy in determening impairment when administered and interpreted properly. Our portable breath units are not certified instruments the court will accept as accurate. Many arrests for impairment are at or even below the legal per se limit.

[barre]

Ok, I see.
Quite different from over here. Here a officer can test you without suspecting you for drunk driving.

I got stopped yestarday by 3 different units, (all at the same place but at different times), and had to do the breath analysis all 3 times, dose'nt bother me, everyone got stoped, and after all it really good for the generalll safty.
As always, interesting to lern more about the difference between contrys.

[Oldbillplod]

Here a officer can test you without suspecting you for drunk driving.

That should be the way everywhere.
In England we can breath test if we suspect alcohol, after a traffic accident and if someone commits a moving traffic offence like a brake light out or not wearing a seatbelt.

[tenfour]

Why not use the breath tester in the first place, wouldent that save tons of time?
Or to be more precise, why do the physical tests?

One reason is state laws like tpd said, but another issue is not everyone driving under the influence is under the influence of alchohol. Someone might be swerving, drifting, crash whatever. If you stop them and they seem to be under the influence of a controlled substance, giving them a breath test will do no good, because they might be high on crack, meth whatever, so the only way to find out if they are too impaired to be driving would be field sobriety tests.

[Oldbillplod]

giving them a breath test will do no good, because they might be high on crack, meth whatever, so the only way to find out if they are too impaired to be driving would be field sobriety tests.

If that were the case in the UK then I arrest them on suspicion of being under the influence of drink or drugs and then lat the doctor sort it out at the station.

[scott715us]

We do not use passive alcohol sensors. We conduct field sobriety tasks. The way the driver performs on the tasks will give us probable cause to ask the driver to submit to a blood/breath test.

We have to have PC for the breath/blood test so if they refuse the test, then we also charge them with implied consent violation.

If they refuse the field sobriety tasks, then I will still ask them to submit to a breath/blood based on my earlier observations (vehicle action(s), how they exited the vehicle, smell of intoxicants, blood-shot/watery eyes, etc).

Either way, its an additional charge if they refuse. ;)

[tenfour]

If that were the case in the UK then I arrest them on suspicion of being under the influence of drink or drugs and then lat the doctor sort it out at the station.

Yeah, I mean I'm not an officer yet, but I've been on quite a few rides where we got DUIs and every once in a while you'll get that *** that refuses blood, breath or urine. Theres not much you can do about it, but he's still guilty of DUI and in MN loses his license for a year for refusal.

[tenfour]

Not true here. Federal law allows samples to be taken without regard for the person's desire to give one. Refuse a breath test and it's off to the hospital for a blood draw, and if restraints are required to get one, so be it.

And yes, they still get charged for refusal on top of it all. :cool:

No ****? Yeah here they just have to offer them the tests and it's all recorded on video/audio usually in the intoxilyzer room, and if they refuse, the officer grabs a refusal form which they have to sign and basically says because you just refused you automatically lose your license for a year.

[Chitownman]

Not true here. Federal law allows samples to be taken without regard for the person's desire to give one. Refuse a breath test and it's off to the hospital for a blood draw, and if restraints are required to get one, so be it.

And yes, they still get charged for refusal on top of it all. :cool:

I thought they could reject any kind of testing. Here I believe it's 6 months suspended license if you don't do a test when asked.

On a side note: does getting a DUI when you were younger lower your chances of becoming a LEO?

[0311Marine]

Punch them in the kidneys as hard as you can. If they pee blood then there obviously a drunk.

[mcsap]

Our portable breath testers are not certified so we can't use them ALONE to arrest.

Actually, the best way to test a suspected DUI is to consider everything they do a sobriety test. Not just the driving, but their speech, appearance, odor, motor skills etc. If and when youo go to court and you have a trainload of evidence, they just plead guilty.

[CTUCop]

The last three DUIs I've had were all refusals. It does make the processing go quicker.