What should a driver do if accused of DUI?

They don't need a warrant for blood -- you have "implied consent." Your only options are to give the sample or lose your license and have that on your record.

You can't be charged with DUI unless your BAC is over the limit. That's why they spend all that money on the machines and blood tests. If the numbers don't go over the limit, they have proven that you are NOT drunk, and to arrest you after that is false arrest.

There is no shortage of drunks on the road in the Phoenix Metro area, and it's not arrests which count, it's CONVICTIONS. Why spend all the time and money on you, when some REAL drunk will be along in a little while?

 

Arizona Revised Statute 28-1388 states that implied consent only comes after arrest. In order for you to be arrested, the officer has to have probable cause.

While the legal limit in Arizona is 08% you can still be arrested for showing ANY signs of impairment. Meaning if you are tired, but the officer thinks your intoxicated and you fail a Field Sobriety Test, you can then be arrested and implied consent then comes into play. If you have ANY detectable alcohol in your system, you get a DUI.

 

I was previously involved in law enforcement. In North Carolina, it is my discretion on whether or not I issue you a citation for a traffic offense or not. It is also at my discretion if I slap the bracelets on and haul you to the jail. So typically if the suspect is being cooperative and acting like a civil human being I issued a citation and let them on their way. However, if the suspect is being uncooperative and acting like a jerk I have a whole range of actions at my disposal.

If I suspected you had an illegal substance in your vehicle and you would not give consent to search the vehicle, I simply arrest you for whatever crime or violation I pulled you over for and I then search your vehicle incident to arrest. In NC I can arrest you for a minor traffic violation and take you before a Magistrate to post bond. This is not the way we like to do things because of all the paper work involved with arresting someone for a minor violation.

If you refuse the field sobriety tests, I arrest you for the suspicion of DWI and cart you off to the jail for testing. Fail to comply there and I seek an order from a judge to have blood drawn for testing. It's called implied consent. Also, the state will suspend your driver's license for 1 year for the implied consent violation.

Watching someone leave a facility that is know to support an illegal activity is often the source of nice busts and good finds of narcotics. (In the case of the OP I believe this is exactly what happened.) Yes it is like hunted a baited field, but it works. Just like sitting across the street from a bar at closing time. We did this all the time. Watch who is getting in a car and follow them for a period of time to observe their driving. Fair? Maybe not, but the chances of getting a drunk off the road were pretty good.

You can refuse all you want to. You can scream about your constitutional rights until your blue in the face. In the end, the courts have established precedents that set the standard for how far we as law enforcement can push it without actually violating your rights, and most of us are very aware of how far we can push it.

Sometimes a simple infraction of a traffic law has led to massive finds of narcotics and cash. With the structure of asset forfeiture laws this is also a very big source of revenue for law enforcement. A brief example: the local Sheriff's office where I was raised recently built a very nice training facility and bought 10 fully outfitted vehicles paid for with nothing but funds seized through asset forfeiture.

In the end a simple way to make an encounter with law enforcement go better is to be nice. Act like a civil human being and remember that the officer has a job to do and while your delay may be an inconvenience, it is not personal, he is just doing his job. Just think of this, how many times have we all dealt with a shipper of consignee and they acted like jerks? How did that experience affect your attitude? I believe that you get what you give. Be civil and I will be civil, act like a jerk and I will be a jerk.

 

There are many mistakes and misconceptions within the 8 pages of this thread.

First off, "It depends."

What happens in one state may not happen or even be applicable in another. It depends on statute and laws enacted.

Then there's the FMCSA regs that can trump whatever states have established because once you gain your CDL, you now come under that umbrella as well.

There are differences between Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause. Look them up.

Refusing a SFST- In "Most" instances, if you refuse, the officer can most certainly "Hook you up" and take you down town.

Implied consent - What state are you in? What state holds your CDL? Are you an O/O? Leased to a company? or a company driver? Different implications and outcomes apply along with the decisions you make or have already been made for you.

You driving your CMV or a POV?

You can blow a .03 in a POV and if you hardly ever drink, are tired, with no food or hydration other than the alcohol, you most certainly can be charged with DWI/DUI. What do you think got you pulled over in the first place? And although Cannabis has yet to be completely legalized, and if you think it's the only thing other than alcohol shown in direct correlation to cognitive impairment, add in all the others, such as hallucinogenics, analgesics, anesthetics, etc. Operating a motor vehicle and exhibiting signs similar to those of alcohol impairment will get you pulled as well.

Reasonable suspicion begins at first observation, such as swerving, speed, sitting there at an intersection and the light cycles more than once and you haven't moved, failure to maintain your lane integrity and others, then continues during personal contact once the officer makes contact. Then you get the usual SFST's. HGN, VGN, pupil dilation / reaction, Divided Attention, and observations pertaining to interaction, slurred speech, blood shot eyes, and performance results based on the tests administered. Granted, nystagmus isn't always present in THC use alone, however, from the officers standpoint, you may be over lapping (Impairment from more than one substance)

Probable Cause can either be well established at this point or set aside based on the results.

Implied consent for either an alco sensor and or intoxilyzer. If it's a refusal, then, you know or should anyway what the consequences are for those. If there's Personal Injury or a Fatality involved, it will be by warrant (If not by consent) for blood and oral samples for concentration levels. BAC levels differ for CDL A holders vs Non CDL. .04 on up. THC concentrations usually between 5 and 10 ng/ml can be shown to establish a pretty good case regarding THC limit for showing threshold impairment combined with all the other results and the officer's testimony.

As for THC. many variables exist which make it more difficult to detect, such as body mass, diet, frequency of use, hydration, tobacco use etc.

If it comes down to doing an Alco sensor, Intoxilyzer, Blood or other samples show negligible or no positive results, then, you may or should have grounds to have the charges down graded such as driving fatigued, driving after consuming, etc. If they come back positive, hopefully, you have lots of change in your piggy bank to Lawyer Up. Yes, there are also bad calls made regarding charges made unfairly, unlawfully or unfounded. The piggy bank is still going to take a hit. But know this - if it does happen, know that in the event it does, there are legal remedies to redress your financial losses should you prevail in your case and win.

Then, you also have the variable stated earlier. If you're a company driver, a .01 may be enough to dismiss you. Driving a lease or rental? I wouldn't need your consent to do a search of the truck. A phone call to the R/O asking permission is all it takes. This applies to non cmv's lease, rentals or vehicles not in your name as well, that you are lawfully in control, operating and in possession of.

In any event, arguing with an officer is not recommended. The streets are not a court of law. Have your day in court and take it there. Problem is if you are blitzed, that may be all be moot if you're the type who gets agitated easily, then grows beer muscles and decides to take on the entire force...

Yes Sir, No Sir will get you a lot further than the opposite approach.

Watching Judge Judy does not make you a judge, watching Perry mason does not make you a lawyer and watching COPs is definitely not recommended.

 

You do realize this is a internet forum? Not a lawyers office, just a lot of posters who think they are lawyers. ...

 

I object to that line of reasoning.........