3 ms·
That's because field sobriety tests aren't designed to find out if people are actually impaired, they are designed to give cops a reason to arrest people purely
by AngryData 5mo ago
That's because field sobriety tests aren't designed to find out if people are actually impaired, they are designed to give cops a reason to arrest people purely on their own discretion even when they otherwise lack any evidence of wrongdoing. And in doing so it boosts both the local cops and court's funding through mandatory court fines and fees and programs when they hammer down on people too poor to afford a lawyer.
- 1234letshaveatw 5mo agosource?
- close04 5mo agoTheir obvious ineffectiveness for the stated purpose, combined with the effectiveness for the unstated, hidden purpose.
- infecto 5mo agoI don’t think this it’s worth being reported for asking for a source on this kind of claim. I would argue of a middle ground though. I think field tests origins came from a good intent of trying to distinguish intoxicated drivers but has morphed over the years and used to give reason to search your belongings. I think the original post is wrong, the intent is not to arrest people but they are commonly used as a means to get cause to search your vehicle. And I don’t have a source, so it’s anecdotal but one of those things where you read enough of these cases and even see how cops are trained that the intent for most stops unrelated to genuine traffic violations is to get cause to search the vehicle. I think back to some of those corridors within the United States where law enforcement abuse cash forfeiture laws to take peoples money.
- rationalist 5mo agoI recall that a lawyer who talked about how they were developed and explained how they work, came to that conclusion. The tests are completely subjective, and the way they are graded means that unless you are an Olympic-level athlete, you will fail it. Can you balance on one foot without swaying or puting the other foot down (even when you first start and find your balance), with your eyes closed, for one minute? Might I suggest that you research it and post what you find.
- array_key_first 5mo agoI don't know, like, common sense and your eyes? Think of a field sobriety test. Now think of if that actually tests for sobriety. There, there's your source.
- dimitrios1 5mo agoSo whats the solution? 37 people die every day in a crash involving an alcohol impaired driver. Do we think if we inhibit the police's ability to arrest drunk drivers, the world will be a better place? People are clearly not going to stop drinking and driving. I am neither left nor right, but I feel like I need to say this much more in spaces that heavily lean left -- I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform.
- tym0 5mo agoWhat other countries do? A chemical test on the field and a more accurate one when they get to the police station.
- dimitrios1 5mo agoNo other country relies on road travel to the extent of America, so I am not sure there is a good comparison to make.
- kube-system 5mo agoThat's a reason the US needs better enforcement tools, not worse ones.
- antiframe 5mo agoWe have a bigger road network. We have a larger road travel infrastructure. So, we should have enough chemical test units to cover our infrastructure.
- cestith 5mo agoIf we can pay for the roads and the patrols, we can pay to equip the patrols. Bigger needn’t equal worse.
- cwillu 5mo agoThe police aren't stopping the crime, therefore the police need to be reformed. And note that “involving” is very much not the same thing as “caused by”. Yes, “caused by” will be a big chunk of it, but there's a reason the latter term is not used.
- the_doctah 5mo agoSame with polygraph tests. It's not admissible in court. It's an interrogation tactic designed to give some perceived authority to the police's claims that a suspect is lying and give the suspect a reason to talk more. Should be illegal.