4 ms·

> inhibit the police's ability to arrest drunk drivers They have breathalyzers and blood tests. Field sobriety tests are not there to help police arrest drunk

by feoren 5mo ago

> inhibit the police's ability to arrest drunk drivers They have breathalyzers and blood tests. Field sobriety tests are not there to help police arrest drunk drivers, they're there to help police arrest whomever they want to. > I wish we would focus on the actual crimes the police are there to stop as much as we do the police reform. The U.S. is one of the most punishment-happy countries in the world. Nearly every politician vows to be "tough on crime". This is an incredible thing to say given the past 50 years of policing and justice in the U.S. Won't somebody please think of the children!? > I am neither left nor right The "center" is constantly moving and has been, on average, shifting far to the right over the last 20 years. Anyone who claims to be a centrist is therefore either changing their politics with the wind, or was far right all along.

parineum 5mo ago
> They have breathalyzers and blood tests. Field sobriety tests are not there to help police arrest drunk drivers, they're there to help police arrest whomever they want to. You're wrong about that. "Sobriety" isn't limited to alcohol. You'll notice that most laws against drunk driving are actually against being "intoxicated" or "impaired". Breathalyzers and blood tests are for gathering indisputable evidence. Field sobriety tests are there to determine if you're motor skills are impaired. If an officer observers a person driving erratically and they can't walk a straight line or touch their own nose, they shouldn't be driving. You can be arrested for DUI [of sleeping pills]. The only time police would specify a DUI was for alcohol is if a breathalyzer or blood test showed that. Even if the officer says there was a beer can on the floor and they smelled like alcohol, they could be under the legal limit and be on any number of other substances so the DUI wouldn't specify alcohol.
- kube-system 5mo ago
  > If an officer observers a person driving erratically and they can't walk a straight line or touch their own nose, they shouldn't be driving. There are plenty of reasons that someone might not be able to demonstrate this to the subjective opinion of an officer and be completely unimpaired and competent at driving. e.g. people with atypical minds or bodies Police generally ask people to do these tests when they have already made up their mind about someone being impaired. The only point of the test, practically, is generate standardized documentation. It is a dog and pony show. Other countries that have serious anti-driving-impairment programs don't use these types of subjective tests -- they test people for using the substances directly.
  - parineum 5mo ago
    They'll have an opportunity to prove that in court. I know that's not a great solution (because of the penalties involved in simply being accused of a crime, but that's a different issue) but, remember, they were pulled over for driving erratically and the, through conversation, the officer would gain further reason to ask them to do the test. The problem is the driving, everything after that is evidence gathering. These days, so much of that will be recorded on video, from the dash cam to the body cam, it's usually cut and dry that the person accused is under the influence of something. > people with atypical minds or bodies This is a reasonable concern so I don't want to dismiss it but this isn't even close to the typical situation and, to emphasize, the reason for the stop is usually bad driving and the officer is looking for an explanation. Before a sobriety test is administered, there is already a cause for being pulled over. So people who can't pass a sobriety test because they have a physical or mental reason they can't only have that one piece of evidence against them removed. I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons.
    - kube-system 5mo ago
      The problem is that low-quality evidence causes both type 1 and type 2 errors. Not only does it cause significant problems for people who are unjustly jailed and charged for crimes they didn't commit -- but it also lets drunk drivers off the hook when the flimsy evidence fails to convict. These aren't hypotheticals, both are very common. Police in the US simply need to be equipped with roadside chemical tests for substances. They exist, they just simply don't use them. Here's is an example of what other countries do: https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/ https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/ > The officer takes a sample of your saliva by placing an absorbent collector in the mouth or on the tongue. The sample is then analysed at the roadside. If the test is positive, it must be confirmed by laboratory testing before charges can be laid. Doesn't that sound like a better solution than: "The officer makes you stand on one leg and say the alphabet backwards, if they don't like they way you did it, you are charged with DUI"? > I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons. The more common, and even more scary issue, is that sometimes people undergoing medical emergencies are arrested for DUI and sent to jail instead of a hospital. Which is again another situation that would be avoided entirely by roadside testing. This is such a common issue for diabetics that police normally do train to recognize the difference, but since they are not medical professionals and don't have adequate equipment, they still often confuse the two. Watch this dashcam video: https://www.wsmv.com/2025/10/02/retired-deputy-arrested-dui-while-experiencing-diabetic-crisis-tn/ https://www.wsmv.com/2025/10/02/retired-deputy-arrested-dui-...

by feoren 5mo ago

parineum 5mo ago

> They have breathalyzers and blood tests. Field sobriety tests are not there to help police arrest drunk drivers, they're there to help police arrest whomever they want to. You're wrong about that. "Sobriety" isn't limited to alcohol. You'll notice that most laws against drunk driving are actually against being "intoxicated" or "impaired". Breathalyzers and blood tests are for gathering indisputable evidence. Field sobriety tests are there to determine if you're motor skills are impaired. If an officer observers a person driving erratically and they can't walk a straight line or touch their own nose, they shouldn't be driving. You can be arrested for DUI [of sleeping pills]. The only time police would specify a DUI was for alcohol is if a breathalyzer or blood test showed that. Even if the officer says there was a beer can on the floor and they smelled like alcohol, they could be under the legal limit and be on any number of other substances so the DUI wouldn't specify alcohol.

kube-system 5mo ago
> If an officer observers a person driving erratically and they can't walk a straight line or touch their own nose, they shouldn't be driving. There are plenty of reasons that someone might not be able to demonstrate this to the subjective opinion of an officer and be completely unimpaired and competent at driving. e.g. people with atypical minds or bodies Police generally ask people to do these tests when they have already made up their mind about someone being impaired. The only point of the test, practically, is generate standardized documentation. It is a dog and pony show. Other countries that have serious anti-driving-impairment programs don't use these types of subjective tests -- they test people for using the substances directly.
- parineum 5mo ago
  They'll have an opportunity to prove that in court. I know that's not a great solution (because of the penalties involved in simply being accused of a crime, but that's a different issue) but, remember, they were pulled over for driving erratically and the, through conversation, the officer would gain further reason to ask them to do the test. The problem is the driving, everything after that is evidence gathering. These days, so much of that will be recorded on video, from the dash cam to the body cam, it's usually cut and dry that the person accused is under the influence of something. > people with atypical minds or bodies This is a reasonable concern so I don't want to dismiss it but this isn't even close to the typical situation and, to emphasize, the reason for the stop is usually bad driving and the officer is looking for an explanation. Before a sobriety test is administered, there is already a cause for being pulled over. So people who can't pass a sobriety test because they have a physical or mental reason they can't only have that one piece of evidence against them removed. I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons.
  - kube-system 5mo ago
    The problem is that low-quality evidence causes both type 1 and type 2 errors. Not only does it cause significant problems for people who are unjustly jailed and charged for crimes they didn't commit -- but it also lets drunk drivers off the hook when the flimsy evidence fails to convict. These aren't hypotheticals, both are very common. Police in the US simply need to be equipped with roadside chemical tests for substances. They exist, they just simply don't use them. Here's is an example of what other countries do: https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/ https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/ > The officer takes a sample of your saliva by placing an absorbent collector in the mouth or on the tongue. The sample is then analysed at the roadside. If the test is positive, it must be confirmed by laboratory testing before charges can be laid. Doesn't that sound like a better solution than: "The officer makes you stand on one leg and say the alphabet backwards, if they don't like they way you did it, you are charged with DUI"? > I'm sure you can construct a hypothetical case where a person with a speech impairment, an inner ear deformaty and who's eyes shake when moving left and right gets arrested for DUI because they appear impaired but they weren't pulled over for those reasons. The more common, and even more scary issue, is that sometimes people undergoing medical emergencies are arrested for DUI and sent to jail instead of a hospital. Which is again another situation that would be avoided entirely by roadside testing. This is such a common issue for diabetics that police normally do train to recognize the difference, but since they are not medical professionals and don't have adequate equipment, they still often confuse the two. Watch this dashcam video: https://www.wsmv.com/2025/10/02/retired-deputy-arrested-dui-while-experiencing-diabetic-crisis-tn/ https://www.wsmv.com/2025/10/02/retired-deputy-arrested-dui-...