3 ms·

It was explained to me like this in the state I grew up in... The law is to prevent dangerous driving. It doesn't matter if you have a sip of beer or a 6 pack,

It was explained to me like this in the state I grew up in... The law is to prevent dangerous driving. It doesn't matter if you have a sip of beer or a 6 pack, if it impairs you, that's against the law. HOWEVER, once your BAC reaches 0.08, that is proof enough of being impaired. Lower than 0.08, then they must show that you are impaired. And if you fail the sobriety field tests, you are impaired. My point is, if you can't tell if someone is impaired, even after field tests, then maybe they aren't impaired. Regardless of what you suspect they may or may not have eaten. If they are impaired, the field tests will show and you can arrest them. I see no point in making this easier for law enforcement. I don't think we need more specific laws, that just opens up new questions and loopholes.

edwhitesell 11y ago
We were always told (as far back as being 15 year-olds in Driver's Ed.) if you get pulled over and the Officer suspects you are impaired, always decline the field sobriety tests and ask for a Breathalyzer at the station. This does 2 things: 1) It provides a definitive test which would later stand in court (if needed). 2) Gives you more time to "sober up" if you actually have been drinking. At the time, I remember thinking it was good information. In hindsight, it's rather funny to think it came from the High School teachers who were teaching Driver's Ed.
- zachrose 11y ago
  I believe most (all?) states now have implied consent laws, under the rationale that driving is a privilege not a right. So declining a field sobriety test may in fact lead to the same penalties as failing one. (Maybe worth a shot though?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
  - edwhitesell 11y ago
    Interesting. I have not followed those types of laws in the 20 years (and 4 new states) since Driver's Ed. Going back to the Michigan laws, Implied Consent does apply there today. However, the implied consent of chemical testing only appears to apply if you've been arrested. You can, however, still be fined for declining the field sobriety test while not under arrest.

edwhitesell 11y ago

We were always told (as far back as being 15 year-olds in Driver's Ed.) if you get pulled over and the Officer suspects you are impaired, always decline the field sobriety tests and ask for a Breathalyzer at the station. This does 2 things: 1) It provides a definitive test which would later stand in court (if needed). 2) Gives you more time to "sober up" if you actually have been drinking. At the time, I remember thinking it was good information. In hindsight, it's rather funny to think it came from the High School teachers who were teaching Driver's Ed.

zachrose 11y ago
I believe most (all?) states now have implied consent laws, under the rationale that driving is a privilege not a right. So declining a field sobriety test may in fact lead to the same penalties as failing one. (Maybe worth a shot though?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
- edwhitesell 11y ago
  Interesting. I have not followed those types of laws in the 20 years (and 4 new states) since Driver's Ed. Going back to the Michigan laws, Implied Consent does apply there today. However, the implied consent of chemical testing only appears to apply if you've been arrested. You can, however, still be fined for declining the field sobriety test while not under arrest.