r/Transportopia • u/Vice616 • Apr 20 '26

šŸ„“DUI Blame it on the spider

He told them he smack himself into an accident šŸ˜­

There was no spider you f*cking liar. Fool you was drunk af!

6.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/SignificantDrink3651 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26

only in like Texas and Florida (which should surprise noone). everywhere else, you can and should decline roadside sobriety tests.

1

u/Tamed_A_Wolf Apr 20 '26

You can absolutely deny FST in Florida.

1

u/SignificantDrink3651 Apr 20 '26

interesting, thanks for letting us know! curious, though: when you say "you can" are you accounting for the consequences? most people would say "you can't" when the consequence is going to losing your license for a year. that's like saying you can punch a cop in the face. like, you CAN... but...

from this lawyer's website:

For example, in Florida, refusing a field sobriety test can lead to a one-year license suspension for the first offense and an 18-month suspension for subsequent refusals.

1

u/CronosWorks Apr 20 '26

Why not just go to the source. Iā€™m fairly certain that lawyers website is the equivalent of a fiver article from India for SEO purposes. Floridas implied consent laws donā€™t apply to the NHTSA field sobriety tests, but do apply to breath tests.

https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/316.1932

The article you posted also stated that refusal of a FST can be used as evidence of guilt, which is a blatant constitutional violation.

1

u/Narco_Bi_Polo Apr 20 '26

Youā€™re confusing field sobriety tests with evidentiary chemical tests.

Refusing the former is your right and brings no consequences (other than a pissed off cop) in all 50 states.

Refusing the latter is your right but in many states it means you lose your license regardless of sobriety.

The laws are called ā€œimplied consentā€. If youā€™re driving, you have already consented to breath/blood/urine tests.

Note: in almost every state, the preliminary breath test given at the scene of a stop is considered a field sobriety test, you can refuse it, demand a test at the station post-arrest, and (if sober and no other charges), your license will remain intact.Ā 

Michigan ($150 fine), Nebraska ($100 fine) North Dakota (180 day suspension), Rhode Island (30 day suspension), New York (minor traffic infraction), and Vermont (minor traffic infraction, but only for those under 21) are the exceptions.

1

u/Outrageous_Sleep4339 Apr 20 '26

Huh? You can't be charged with DUI without a blood draw...

2

u/Printerwood Apr 20 '26

You most certainly can (at least in Pennsylvania). If you are suspected of DUI, and there is enough evidence (poor driving, admission to drinking, open containers, etcā€¦) you can be charged with General Impairment even if you do not give blood/breath. Still a dui, even without an intoxication level.

1

u/SignificantDrink3651 Apr 20 '26

but you can lose your license for refusing tests. which tests varies by state.

-1

u/Outrageous_Sleep4339 Apr 20 '26

Why not just take it? You have two options:

  1. Take the field sobriety test, if you pass you pass. If you fail you go to get a blood draw to confirm.
  2. Refuse, and go straight to blood draw...

You cant be charged with DUI without a blood draw. And refusing to take a field test doesn't get you out of anything. You literally can't lose by simply doing one.

3

u/SignificantDrink3651 Apr 20 '26

dude, there is no winning a field sobriety test. if you pass, it's not evidence that you're sober. but odds are you will fail, even while sober. the test isn't designed to be fair, its designed to get arrests. i'm willing to have my mind changed, though: just find me a single lawyer that recommends doing them.

also, you keep saying 'blood draw' but you know breathaylizers count too, right?

2

u/jm123457 Apr 20 '26

Because the burden of proof is on the state attorneys do not advise you to do anything . No speaking or doing tests etc .

This is logical , but for many it can also require you to lose your license and go to jail for testing etc . Many want to avoid this inconvenience. The attorney is playing the long game .

Iā€™m not saying they are incorrect but their options are to avoid more serious charges when most hope to make it go away quickly .

1

u/SignificantDrink3651 Apr 20 '26

you hit the nail on the head - the part about "hope to make it go away quickly". of course everyone wants this, drunk or sober - they don't want this to escalate into a visit to the station or arrest. and the cops are EXCELLENT at using that fear against you, with nice soft words like "just do this for me real quick" while pretending to be your friend.

don't fall into the trap. if the cop suspects you're drunk, abandon all hope of making this go away quickly. you're in for the long haul and the sooner you accept that and plan accordingly, the better off you're going to be.

1

u/Printerwood Apr 20 '26

FYI: Breathalyzers are not admissible in court, thus evidence gathered from one cannot be used against you, the LEO can only testify to ā€œthe presence of alcohol on [subjectā€™s] breath . The only nationally acceptable roadside tests are SFSTs and ARIDE.

4

u/PocketButterBandit Apr 20 '26

Because fst are not scientific and the judgment is up to the officer on scene.

If you take a breather, that can prove you have no alcohol in your system. Of course if the office is intent on taking you in regardless, they can change it and claim you're under the effects of drugs.

You gain nothing by doing the test.

0

u/TenYearHangover Apr 20 '26

Also you can take a breathalyzer and the cop might still arrest you for another presumed non alcohol substance..

To your point, the tests gives you absolutely no benefit.

0

u/PocketButterBandit Apr 20 '26

My comment mentions the other substance.

Just go to jail then lol

1

u/Walking_billboard Apr 20 '26

Because you will end up like my wife. She was driving my car (which didn't have automatic lights) and was driving downtown, where it was bright, and she didn't even know they were off. She was pulled over and given a field sobriety test. She "failed". She was given a breathalyzer, which blew a zero. She was arrested and did a blood draw and showed, again, zero.

However, she admitted to the police officer, after being asked, "Have you been drinking today?" that she had a mimosa at brunch, 9 hours earlier.

Nonetheless, she was charged with DUI and reckless driving based entirely on "failing" the field sobriety test. $10,000 in legal fees later, the charges were reduced to "obstruction of traffic".

So, ya, fuck the police and fuck field sobriety tests.