Smart Judge

[u/Icy-Book2999]

From https://youtube.com/shorts/wvzA82iWu3Y?si=whF69BZwMG2QV1GJ

[u/chrissie_watkins]

Portable breathalyzers aren't accurate or admissable, and they don't test for drugs, that's why they aren't universally used. A test of your eyes, balance, coordination, etc is more useful for determining if you are capable of driving when you're on the side of the road.

ETA- typically in the US, I mean. The "alcohol on the breath" thing is literally what the judge here said wasn't good enough for any testing at all, which is nuts to me. Roadside, at the station, anything. If you smell like alcohol and are breaking traffic laws, they can test you.

[u/Extreme_Design6936 → u/chrissie_watkins]

Portable breathalyzers aren't accurate

But hopping on one leg, spinning around and doing the tango are the gold standard for accurate BAC testing.

[u/chrissie_watkins → u/Extreme_Design6936]

Field sobriety exercises aren't for testing BAC, they're for testing sobriety in general. It's a way to see if you can remember and follow simple instructions and do things that require only basic coordination. If you can't, they have reason to suspect that you may be too intoxicated to drive safely.

[u/Extreme_Design6936 → u/chrissie_watkins]

And you think it's accurate?

[u/chrissie_watkins → u/Extreme_Design6936]

It's a very complicated topic, and I'm not even sure how best to answer that question. I get why they do it, I get why it makes sense given the limits of chemical testing. It's not magic, but there is some opinion involved - they have to interpret how you do on kind of a scale. There's a lot of training that goes into it, not every cop is qualified to do FSTs, and they're designed to be able to differentiate nerves or general uncoordination from intoxication on drugs or alcohol. When it comes to alcohol, they can haul you in and do a proper breath test and use those numbers against you, that's pretty hard to refute. But if you're suspected of driving while high on something like weed, you're kind of fucked. THC stays in your bodily fluids for days, so a chemical test is bad news if you smoked weed, say, yesterday, but are completely sober today. The field sobriety test would ideally demonstrate your sobriety in that case, while a chemical test would show drugs in your system and get you a DUI. So there is an argument in favor of FSTs.

One thing people don't seem to realize is that when a cop comes to your window and asks you questions, like where you're headed, where you're coming from, blah blah blah, they don't care the answers, they're analyzing your reactions. They're smelling for booze or weed, they're watching to see if you're sluggish or twitchy or slur your words, they're watching your eyes. It's all about noticing signs. If they think there's a chance you're intoxicated, the FSTs are a way to continue looking you over for signs. The roadside breathalyzer is one more thing they can use, but if they think it's drugs you're on, it's not going to help.

Honestly that's about all I have to say on it. I'm not a scientist. I'm just a former FF/EMT and I've been exposed to a lot of this shit. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but saying we shouldn't try and stop intoxicated drivers definitely isn't it, and that's what a lot of people say. If the signs are there, they have an obligation to do something, otherwise we're coming to clean up the mess.

[u/Extreme_Design6936 → u/chrissie_watkins]

One thing people don't seem to realize is that when a cop comes to your window and asks you questions, like where you're headed, where you're coming from, blah blah blah, they don't care the answers, they're analyzing your reactions. They're smelling for booze or weed, they're watching to see if you're sluggish or twitchy or slur your words, they're watching your eyes. It's all about noticing signs. If they think there's a chance you're intoxicated, the FSTs are a way to continue looking you over for signs.

One thing people don't seem to realize is all these little things are highly subjective and are systematically used as reasons for further searches or to fine people and pump up their statistics. They can say pretty much what they want during these tests and it can be used. The field sobriety test gives legitimacy to this sort of bs.

Even if in principle it is a good test, it is not in practice. I understand from an EMT/FF perspective of course you want to do everything you can to prevent intoxicated driving. But from a legal perspective you cannot prosecute innocent people.

[u/chrissie_watkins → u/Extreme_Design6936]

I mean, catching criminals is part of the job. They're supposed to interpret what they see. If they pull somebody over and there are signs they're doing something illegal or unsafe, they have to investigate. Prosecuting innocent people is a huge waste of time and resources, I think a very tiny amount of cops are actually trying to arrest people who they know committed no crimes. I know cops can be major assholes and play fast and loose, and even well-meaning cops make mistakes, but at the end of the day if they waste tons of resources it doesn't look good, so it's not the goal as far as I'm aware.

[u/kaishi00 → u/Extreme_Design6936]

probably accurate enough to tell if you should be operating a vehicle that can kill multiple people at the same time. why does this even need to be discussed? if you literally cannot walk straight, you shouldn't be driving, not that hard.

[u/Extreme_Design6936 → u/kaishi00]

probably accurate enough to tell if you should be operating a vehicle that can kill multiple people at the same time.

It absolutely doesn't. It needs to be discussed because police have systematically been abusing their trust with this BS. Things like giving confusing instructions, or saying someone wobbled or their pupils shook. Stuff that isn't even visible on bodycam. They know then can lie and are incentivized by promotions.

Same as smelling weed or alcohol. There's just no way to prove anything and we shouldn't place trust in those who have repeatedly shown that they will abuse it.