False DUI Arrest [Do I Have Any Rights?]

[barman]

Police cannot legally "take you to the station" unless you either consent or they place you under arrest.

But they are certainly trained to elicit consent.

I would presume at some point the officer said something very close to "Well if you have not been drinking tonight or using illicit drugs you won't mind us taking you to our station so our DRE can do a quick check and clear you".

To which you pretty much replied, "Okay, but please do not impound my car".

A far more sensible and legal response would have been to firmly and politely state that you will absolutely NOT be going with them unless they are placing you under arrest. And then firmly and politely request permission to leave the scene.

Given your consent to go with them, you are out of luck with regard to filing a legitimate 'false arrest' civil suit. As for your vehicle, if it was stopped on a roadway, the police can legally have it towed for traffic safety reasons.

Such a tow will include a search of the vehicle for inventory purposes. Any illegal contraband found during such a search would possibly be excluded from criminal charge depending on whether you gave consent to have the vehicle searched.

Consent to a vehicle search is most commonly obtained via similar tricky language by the cop, basically some variation of, "Well if u have not been using illegal drugs and you say you do not have anything illegal in your vehicle, you won't mind if my partner takes a quick peek, yes?"

 

[metro]

or if the cop was a former 'football camper' and he was the lad that Sandusky played 'pin my rail on the honkee' then he mite been shit outta luck

 

[metro]

sandusy used to always say as a joke 'were in a mutual masterbation society'' err i mean ''mutual admiration society'' and then do the pocket rocket jackoff motion

 

[Michelangelo]

Jeez, beej. Sorry to read this.

I hope some black guys are reading this. We white guys go through the unjust policing too. I've been there myself.

I'd at least talk to a lawyer to see if you have any recourse.

Sometimes life just ain't fair.

 

[slapshot]

It's thier job to trick you into giving up your rights

Just ask to speak to your lawyer then you haven't given them any incriminating evidence

 

[barman]

They do have reason to detain you if probably cause exists for the officer to believe you're impaired. His word against yours.

They may detain you if they have reasonable and/or probable cause to believe a crime is in progress (DUI being such a crime). However, the SCOTUS has clearly ruled on several cases within past 20 years that such a detention is limited in scope based on the amount of time a cop would need to reasonably investigate his suspicion(s).

In the case of a suspected DUI, that scope would be satisfied by the very boilerplate and nationally established investigative tools called 'the field sobriety test' and the breathalyzer. If both of those tools fail to demonstrate viable evidence of impairment the legal detention has reached it's limit.

That noted, based on my long experience working with both cops in the Job and with criminal defense atttorneys, our well intentioned RxForum OP quite likely ceded his legal right to end the detention when he (unwittingly) consented to in fact Extend the detention when he aggreeably permitted them to "take him into meet the DRE".

 

[ScottL]

Penndel PA [Philly suburb]

Unbelievable!
Route413?

 

[metro]

route 413 that was sanduskys honey hole so to speak

 

[barman]

Every police agency in the USA receives direct federal monies for each and every DUI and/or drug possession arrest made, regardless of whether a conviction is later obtained.

It is not a huge dollar number, but in smaller jurisdictions such funding can frequently make a difference in whether the cops are getting new cars and computers more often or less often.

So they will play the game in hopes of affecting an arrest, even if flimsy.

An added bonus is that in the event illegal contraband is found, federal and state forfeiture laws can be triggered and the agency can now seize cash, personal property and vehicles. Those seized assets can then be sold and turned into cash thru a variety of legal methods, thus further financially underwriting the agency(s) involved.

 

[Enfuego]

They may detain you if they have reasonable and/or probable cause to believe a crime is in progress (DUI being such a crime). However, the SCOTUS has clearly ruled on several cases within past 20 years that such a detention is limited in scope based on the amount of time a cop would need to reasonably investigate his suspicion(s).

In the case of a suspected DUI, that scope would be satisfied by the very boilerplate and nationally established investigative tools called 'the field sobriety test' and the breathalyzer. If both of those tools fail to demonstrate viable evidence of impairment the legal detention has reached it's limit.

That noted, based on my long experience working with both cops in the Job and with criminal defense atttorneys, our well intentioned RxForum OP quite likely ceded his legal right to end the detention when he (unwittingly) consented to in fact Extend the detention when he aggreeably permitted them to "take him into meet the DRE".

I think we agree but I'm not sure?

 

[pocketrockets]

I think we agree but I'm not sure?

That's what shebar said popcorn-eatinggif

 

[quantumleap]

Every police agency in the USA receives direct federal monies for each and every DUI and/or drug possession arrest made, regardless of whether a conviction is later obtained.

It is not a huge dollar number, but in smaller jurisdictions such funding can frequently make a difference in whether the cops are getting new cars and computers more often or less often.

So they will play the game in hopes of affecting an arrest, even if flimsy.

An added bonus is that in the event illegal contraband is found, federal and state forfeiture laws can be triggered and the agency can now seize cash, personal property and vehicles. Those seized assets can then be sold and turned into cash thru a variety of legal methods, thus further financially underwriting the agency(s) involved.

Thanks for the info barman. Good to see you again.

 

[quantumleap]

Too late now, but you rarely gain/accomplish anything by performing the physical tests --- walking the line, touching your nose, etc.

1) Some officers will misjudge or misinterpret your performance --- hey, your ankle wobbled for one second! You must be shit-faced! Nevermind you're performing the test @ 2am, nevermind you might be walking on gravel or uneven ground/pavement, nevermind you might be wearing dress shoes (or worse, high heels), nevermind the tests aren't "natural" to begin with.
2) Some officers don't give a shit --- even if you perform at the level of Olympic gymnast, they've already determined you're DUI.

When you perform the tests, you're taking the risk of *really* screwing up (like falling on your face) --- and you're also giving the officer the opportunity to note/report your behavior. In other words, you're providing the officer with evidence (evidence that is *substantially* subjective & biased).

Correct.

No one has to go through the roadside tests according to the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Whenever I've been pulled over and asked questions I politely say "I respectfully refuse to answer that on the grounds that it might incriminate me" to which I usually get a response of "huh?" I repeat the phrase and the officer gives me a citation or ticket based upon the offense and bids me on my way.

 

[barman]

Correct.

No one has to go through the roadside tests according to the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Whenever I've been pulled over and asked questions I politely say "I respectfully refuse to answer that on the grounds that it might incriminate me" to which I usually get a response of "huh?" I repeat the phrase and the officer gives me a citation or ticket based upon the offense and bids me on my way.

In every state within the USA you surrender your 5th Amendment rights within this context when you apply for and are issued a Drivers License. Clearly stated within the issuance paperwork is your signed agreement that failure to comply with either a FST and/or a breathalyzer upon request from a police officer affecting a traffic stop will result in an automatic suspension of said DL. The time span of such suspensions varies by jurisdiction

 

[barman]

Now the reason it can still be wise to decline consent is that while inconvenient, a DL suspension can frequently be far less troublesome than a DUI conviction - depending on jurisdiction, previous criminal record and your form of employment - among other considerations.

If in fact you have been drinking, even just one or two during previous few hours, consenting to the breathalyzer and/or FST can produce evidence that may be legally introduced in your subsequent criminal trial.

Therefore if you are someone who does drive after consuming alcohol it would be quite sensible to preemptively weigh the two options and if the suspension would be less cumbersome to your future, politely declining consent may well be your smartest choice.

 

[Enfuego]

Correct.

No one has to go through the roadside tests according to the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Whenever I've been pulled over and asked questions I politely say "I respectfully refuse to answer that on the grounds that it might incriminate me" to which I usually get a response of "huh?" I repeat the phrase and the officer gives me a citation or ticket based upon the offense and bids me on my way.

I never understood why guys do this just because? Just don't get pulled over or just answer the questions and move on.

 

[barman]

Correct.

No one has to go through the roadside tests according to the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Whenever I've been pulled over and asked questions I politely say "I respectfully refuse to answer that on the grounds that it might incriminate me" to which I usually get a response of "huh?" I repeat the phrase and the officer gives me a citation or ticket based upon the offense and bids me on my way.

You are legally free to not answer questions from a police officer in any situation

So yes, if asked "Have you been drinking tonight?" you can legally refuse to respond and then ask the officer for permission to leave the scene. Now such a lack of response might well trigger a demand that you exit your vehicle and submit to a FST or maybe he just allows you to drive on, failing to have other cause to extend the stop.

I would imagine most cops in such a sequence would at least take the time to write a citation for the alleged offense which triggered the traffic stop, but if you truly were not otherwise exhibiting evidence of DUI they then end the encounter.

Me, I would definitely respond to the question with a polite and firm "No" just as a matter of expediency and proceed from there as warranted. Your own choices might differ.

 

[Enfuego]

You are legally free to not answer questions from a police officer in any situation

So yes, if asked "Have you been drinking tonight?" you can legally refuse to respond and then ask the officer for permission to leave the scene. Now such a lack of response might well trigger a demand that you exit your vehicle and submit to a FST or maybe he just allows you to drive on, failing to have other cause to extend the stop.

I would imagine most cops in such a sequence would at least take the time to write a citation for the alleged offense which triggered the traffic stop, but if you truly were not otherwise exhibiting evidence of DUI they then end the encounter.

Me, I would definitely respond to the question with a polite and firm "No" just as a matter of expediency and proceed from there as warranted. Your own choices might differ.

If stopped, you can actually refuse to even roll down your window. You can crack it and hand the cop your paperwork through the crack.

 

[barman]

If stopped, you can actually refuse to even roll down your window. You can crack it and hand the cop your paperwork through the crack.

Mostly true.

But cops are legally permitted to affect a "Terry search/stop" (Terry v Ohio 1967) in order to determine if a citizen is carrying a weapon that they believe could be used against them.

In non-automotive encounters the scope of such a search is limited to a patdown of the body and clothing (they cannot order one to empty pockets etc).

In a traffic stop in most all cases, a cop can legally order you to temporarily exit your vehicle so they can conduct such a patdown. Now such an order is frequently not followed by an actual patdown, but rather by a succession of questions - most commonly having no relevance to the stop. You are free to remain silent, but for the moment you have been legally removed from the vehicle. And for at least the time considered reasonable for detention (see my earlier post) they can legally obligate you to remain outside the vehicle in the interest of "officer safety" given that they don't know if you might have a weapon inside the vehicle and in most cases they cannot legally enter the vehicle without your consent.

 

[barman]

So in the end, yes we have all manner of legal rights when dealing w a police encounter.

But for 99% of us, it's mostly academic blah blah.

Keep your vehicle legally registered, carry neccesary insurance and don't smoke weed in your vehicle and your odds of ever being pulled over as a white man (sad but true that DWB exists nationwide) are rather remote.

I am confident I am more legally apt with regard to citizen/police encounters than 99% of Rx posters, but I have only been stopped in traffic three times in the past 18 years....heh. One red light violation and twice for seatbelt.
All three encounters combined for less than 60minutes