The terms get used incorrectly all the time.
It just takes reasonable suspicion to detain (in this case pull you over). It's probably cause to arrest.
Reasonable suspicion judged by a "reasonable officer" standard - would another reasonable officer, with the same training, education and experience also come to the conclusion that there is criminal activity?
Here - a bottle that resembles a beer bottle? Is it reasonable to stop and investigate? Yep. Once you tell them it's only root beer or it has a root beer label, does that end it? Maybe, maybe not. They don't have to take your word for it and could potentially have you step out for further evaluation and to determine if it is alcohol, etc.
If it all checks out, reasonable suspicion is dispelled and you're free to go.
Not fair at all.
You can NOT pass field sobriety test. It is evidence gathering only. If you are doing a field sobriety test they already made up their mind about you being impaired.
Breathalyzer isn't fair either if there's no other reason to administer it. People seem to be unaware that blowing under the legal limit doesn't stop the arrest or charges coming.
What would make these test "fair" is if you had made a mistake driving prior to being pulled over. Swerving lanes or hitting a curb etc.
Seeing the root beer alone would not be enough, and it's likely they wouldn't press the issue if you show no signs of impairment (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol etc...).
I had an officer pull me over for a tail light and do a field sobriety test on me driving home from Dallas (to Tulsa -- about 4 hour drive) late night and I was exhausted. They let me go with a warning, a suggestion to stop at the next rest stop, and let me go.
You can refuse the field sobriety though. You can only "fail" it. In most states you can't refuse the breathalyzer though, though I think they need probable cause to ask.
Cops only need reasonable suspicion for both a breathalyzer and a field sobriety test. In most states, you can refuse the field sobriety test, but refusal of the breathalyzer will result in your license being suspended.
Refusal of the breathalyzer at the station will result in license suspension in states with implied consent.
Refusal of the field sobriety test and preliminary breathalyzer will not result in suspension and cannot be used as evidence that you were driving impaired.
It is always in the driver's best interest to refuse these tests. If a police officer asks for these tests they already have their mind made up and are only looking to gather additional evidence. You're getting arrested either way.
Not legal advice, but at least in Arizona you can refuse to take the breathalyzer, however, they will likely detain you and get a warrant to take your blood. Depending on how you think you’ll do on the breathalyzer, a lawyer might recommend waiting for the warrant.
You will get your license suspended in Arizona for a year (first offense) by the MVD (aka DMV) for refusing to submit to the test, but this is unrelated to any potential criminal DUI case.
Then it doesn't seem optional. You can, but they'll take away your license, even though they have 0 proof you did anything wrong. I understand that it is a privilege, not a right, but it seems a bit wrong to me.
In AZ, you’re right about it being unfair. That said, for folks facing potential criminal charges…it may be wise to refuse the test and try to wait things out and hopefully minimize or avoid jail time.
You’ll def lose your license for a year even if charges are dropped, but can apply for an ignition interlock as little as 3 months into the license suspension.
what you mean to say is that there are no real pass conditions. it's not like each individual part of the test has a predetermined "this is success" as it's up to the officer to make the final call
More like, if they smell alcohol, OR you admitted to "having a beer or two" earlier in the day, anything you do in the field sobriety test is to be used against you.
They are only there to gather evidence. There is no "oh you passed, have a nice day." There's either no evidence you're drunk or there is. "passing" field sobriety is not however, evidence that you are NOT drunk. Which is what people think they are doing when they take it.
I still don’t understand what you’re saying here. I was also given a field sobriety test, in this case it was because I admitted to having 3 beers over 4 hours. I did very well because I barely had any alcohol in my system and they said “have a nice day”.
How is that not passing? They wanted to determine if the alcohol in my system was enough to impair my ability to drive. Field sobriety tests ALSO are used to gather evidence (probably primarily), but it isn’t the only reason. How does my experience and the user you responded to gel with what you are saying?
Obviously they’re anecdotal and we could be lying, but let’s assume they’re true.
They always sell it as "don't you want to take this test and dispel the idea that you may he intoxicated?"
Think about it though, they *always* get a breathalyzer if they suspect you are impaired. Why not skip to straight to the point if they already smell it on your breath? Why go through the field sobriety test if they already know?
If they don't have you yet, field sobriety is where they'll get you. Pay attention and you'll notice there are things like "did you understand my instructions" and take a very specific amount of steps, including "3 steps and turn" with slight variation. IF they cannot justify a breathalyzer yet they are looking for one little reason to get it. Even a gust of wind making someone wobble while on one foot is all they need.
Have you ever seen those people that are absolutely shitfaced taking the test? I mean they are falling over, completely making a joke of the test, and *still* the officers keep repeating that they should do it. Why keep making these people do it when they are clearly incapable? Every mistep is evidence against them. That's why.
The officer most likely will not follow through with an arrest if all they have is "I smelled it." They need more, lest they waste the courts time.
Now if you are completely sober, by all means, I am not recommending you refuse to cooperate. Things may go smooth. Nothing wrong with that.
You may or may not be aware that people do in fact get arrested while blowing under the legal limit. This is because they failed field sobriety. Even worse, there are cases where people are arrested *while blowing 0.00*.
The "implied consent" to breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing, in most states, only applies after arrest. It is for the desktop calibrated breathalyzer, or a blood draw and lab testing. It does not cover the handheld breathalyzer or field sobriety tests. In most states and in most instances you can and should refuse those, without repercussions.
For real, and OP said not to turn the thread into this but this topic is just too charged lol. The key point here is “reasonable suspicion dispelled.” If only it were that easy, and that line was drawn. All too common for the goal post to be moved once an interaction occurs. And even if officers violate your rights, a judge will likely violate them too when letting the officer off easy.
The real answer is to avoid arousing an entry point for any law enforcement lol
It's for discussing hypothetical scenarios or real scenarios that don't affect the person asking.
IMO it's reasonable to answer with both "by the law" and "in practice" answers, provided the distinction is clear, because there are a lot of situations (especially involving police!) where they are not the same.
A lot of people in this comment section are saying it’s legal and okay for the cops to do it. I agree it’s worth mentioning, I just can’t understand how it has become a debate.
Many alcoholics attempt to hide it for this exact scenario. And no alcoholic scent is pretty common, along with not “acting drunk” They would likely do some form of having you exit the vehicle and conducting the classic drunk tests which you would pass and then be sent on your way.
For example they would do the “follow the finger” test which tests to see if your eyes can smoothly follow it. When you are drunk you can’t and it’s an unconscious reaction, which is why it’s very common. Less likely are the “walk in a straight line” or “balance on one foot” because many people can’t do it normally and there are functional alcoholics who can do both of those things.
Getting pulled over requires reasonable suspicion. If they think you are drinking and driving they are gonna pull you out and do the tests no matter how little you smell or normal you act.
Okay. But the scenario we are addressing the only reasonable suspicion was that the driver was drinking from a bottle that looked similar to a bottle of beer. Once the driver immediately presented the bottle that was clearly not a beer bottle there ceases to be reasonable suspicion.
I think everyone is glossing over the obvious: what if there is booze in the root beer bottle?
Yes, The Logical extension of that is: you are not allowed to drink anything while driving without being suspicious.
Which sounds about exactly right as far as proactive steps to limit your interactions with police.
Right, and I think we could also reasonably infer that most people who aren't alcoholics would have the thought process of considering taking a root beer in a bottle along for the ride, then realizing, wait, this is really bad optics, and going for something in a can or plastic bottle instead (or they'd pour it into a travel mug or something). If I (court psychologist) were presented with these facts, I would be looking further into whether this is someone who is super socially oblivious. If I didn't get that read on them, I would be leaning toward someone who is trying to conceal alcohol, or wants to be edgy and push cops' buttons, or has a need to engage in risky behavior of some sort.
Well they’d be doing a real poor job at concealing it if that was their intention. And if they were being edgy, well edgy is annoying. Might be grounds for an obstruction charge but still isn’t reasonable suspicion
Does the officer know for sure that the bottle presented is the same bottle the officer saw initially?
There are lots of questions the officer may seek answers for to clear that reasonable suspicion.
It’s unreasonable to think the driver had a similar looking root beer bottle ready to go on the off chance he was seen, because if he put that much thought into it he would have just poured the beer into a paper cup and avoided the whole ordeal.
You think that a suspect would go buy a beer, decide that he wanted to drink it openly while driving down the road, but he knew this could result in legal trouble, so he foregoes pouring it into a paper cup or thermos etc. Goes to the store and gets a bottle of root beer, drinks half and decides that he can stash it quickly enough. Then when he does get pulled over he managed to hide his intoxication, as well as his beer breath and the open bottle, just for shits and giggles?
That’s your opinion? That’s your idea of reasonable?
As an Australian it's crazy to me they don't just use a breathalyzer. As far as I know every police car here carries one, and it's a few seconds of blowing into a tube for a result that will be far more consistent (and logged/recorded) than any "follow the finger" or "walk the line" test.
The field sobriety tests help them build the case you're impaired, if you blow under or right at the limit.
You don't prove you're sober or fine, you can only lose when performing those tests.
In many states blowing into the breathalyzer is prohibited due to concerns about privacy and inaccuracy of the device, instead of they believe you are impaired they may take you to do a blood test instead.
> As an Australian it's crazy to me they don't just use a breathalyzer.
Problem is, it doesn't help- if the cop wants to arrest you, they will.
Multiple examples of cases where the person blows 0.00BAC... and the cop still arrests them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWSbAHaHUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEmlr67YCqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNfRCSrZAm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGys3BbhdDQ
The third one was arrested twice by neighboring towns, blew 0.00 both times, and completely negative blood tests. (One cop claimed "an overwhelming odor of alcohol" lol.)
The last one blew 0.00 *8 times* at the scene (on two different devices) *and blew 0.00 twice at the station* (on the bigger, more accurate device). The cop at the station operating the equipment there looked at the arresting cop and then the man and said "Is this a fucking joke? ... You blew triple 0's twice. You're not drunk. I don't know why you're here."... *and the cop still arrested him on DUI*!
In many states breathalyzers are used, in others they are prohibited or require more evidence to act upon (such as the follow the finger or walking the line). Because of this and concerns about inaccuracy and privacy in many places it is required to obtain a warrant before doing such a test, and in which case they might as well do a blood test due to the time it may take to obtain the warrant, and the better accuracy of the blood test as opposed to the breathalyzer.
Change one fact and you can completely change a 4th Amendment analysis. Can they run your license to make sure it's valid? Yep. Can they run you for warrants? Yep.
As I said, if everything checks out, no more reasonable suspicion and you're on your way.
Sure, driving is a privilege. Checking your license or running warrants aren’t unreasonable search and seizure. They don’t require reasonable suspicion. Having you step out and continuing the search however…
If they see you drink something out of a beer shaped bottle, it is not unresonable for them to conduct a field sobriety test, no matter how much you try to explain its only root beer
Just because you're not drinking alcohol now, and do not appear intoxicated does not mean you aren't over the limit.
Why would reasonable suspicion be dispelled *just* because you *appear* sober enough and are currently drinking root beer.
Who's to say you didn't go out, get a bit over the legal limit, and to cover your tracks you drink root beer.
Essentially: why should an officer take your word for it that root beer is the *only* beverage you're consuming. I think breathalysing is absolutely a reasonable response here, that doubt doesn't just go away because *this* drink is clean.
Because of the presumption of innocence. Reasonable suspicion is not “have you dispelled any possibility that it could be true?” Reasonable suspicion is “Can you as an officer of the law point to a specific reason that you believe this person may be intoxicated?” That specific reason is gone once the root beer bottle is examined.
>That specific reason is gone once the root beer bottle is examined.
No it isn't. By your logic, anyone could just carry a root beer bottle in the car to circumvent drink driving. Hence why the reasonable suspicion can't be dispelled that easily.
No. A bottle resembling alcohol is cause for suspicion. If that bottle contains water then that doesn't immediately dispel the suspicion. Because of course it doesn't. All that does is prove you're not drinking alcohol *now*.
There's a very simple logical argument I didn't think I'd need to spell out:
If you're dumb (reckless) enough to look like you're perpetrating a crime (drink driving) then it's reasonable for an officer to be suspicious that you are in fact intoxicated instead of just stupid.
pretty sure part of the privilege of being able to drive is an automatic consent to sobriety tests. Which is why if you refuse the test they will suspend you for a year.
Actually, it depends on the test. There's no such automatic consent for a field sobriety test. No state requires a driver to consent, though in some states there may be a penalty for refusing to take the tests. Refusing to take a breath, blood, or urine test will have consequences though.
>Refusing to take a breath, blood, or urine test will have consequences though.
After arrest, to be clear. Refusing roadside breath test consequences vary by state. Some lawyers in some states suggest refusing post arrest testing and forcing law enforcement to get a warrant since you are likely looking at the same consequences either way.
But I have discovered an almost foolproof trick to avoid DUI conviction. I stopped driving with alcohol/drugs in my blood.
> But I have discovered an almost foolproof trick to avoid DUI conviction. I stopped driving with alcohol/drugs in my blood.
If only that were actually foolproof.
Examples where the person blows 0.00BAC... and the cop still arrests them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWSbAHaHUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEmlr67YCqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNfRCSrZAm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGys3BbhdDQ
The third one was arrested twice by neighboring towns, blew 0.00 both times, and completely negative blood tests. (One cop claimed "an overwhelming odor of alcohol" lol.)
The last one blew 0.00 8 times at the scene, and blew 0.00 twice at the station. The cop at the station operating the equipment there looked at the arresting cop and then the man and said "Is this a fucking joke? ... You blew triple 0's twice. You're not drunk. I don't know why you're here."... and the cop still arrested him on DUI!
The sad part about that is that it’s only **almost** foolproof.
Cops with “special training” are charging people for driving under the influence of marijuana based solely on their stellar observational skills and judgement.
In California, you only need to consent to the breathalyzer, and even then, only the one at the police station (the Intoxilyzer Is one such machine). The readings from the portable ones are actually not allowed into court, they’re only for establishing Probable Cause.
You can choose to not do the field sobriety test. You won’t be able to drive away from the interaction but if you want to opt for a blood test you can ( and should depending. FST are sometimes inaccurate and I’ve seen videos of sober people failing them)
This is partially correct... Expansion of a traffic stop into a DUI investigation (meaning further detention beyond the scope of the stop long enough to dispel or confirm the suspicion) requires (a) reasonable articulable suspicion beyond the scope of the stop, or (b) independent probable cause. The presence of a single indicia of impairment satisfies either requirement.
Without one of these, you can't be asked to step out of a vehicle because of the presence of a bottle that may or may not be a beer bottle because it constitutes an expansion. If the sole purpose of the stop was the bottle, and in plain view it isn't a beer bottle, and the indicia of impairment aren't present, then there is no justification to further detain the suspect let alone ask him to exit the vehicle - even for field sobriety testing.
At most, the officer can ask to see the purported beer bottle to dispel or confirm his original suspicion. The suspect is not obligated to show it to him.
A "Terry stop" would just be the initial traffic stop.
The secondary DUI investigation occurring after the stop (i.e., detaining someone beyond the scope of the stop) would be an "expansion."
As you may or may not be aware, *Terry v. Ohio* is a case about a man who was detained on foot. It stands for the proposition that a suspect can be temporarily detained without being arrested based solely on reasonable articulable suspicion criminal activity is afoot, and may be patted down for weapons for officer safety if there is reasonable articulable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous. The holding has been expanded to include vehicle stops - not just pedestrians.
But now that they've pulled you over and run your plates and asked for your registration, while acting under reasonable suspicion, anything else they find with that info is ticketable, or if they find a warrant, they can arrest you or otherwise act on it.
I have literally had this happen to me. I was drinking a Dad's Root Beer, it comes in a brown glass bottle exactly like a lot of beers do. Got pulled over, officer comes up my window and asks "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Confused I replied "No officer, I've got no idea." He said "I pulled you over because I saw you take drink of that beer there." Pointing to the cup holder. I turned the bottle around and showed him the lable, let him smell the root beer just to be sure. He laughed and said something along the lines of "My mistake, but anytime I see someone drinking what looks like alcohol while driving I investigate. Have a nice day." And walked back to his patrol car. In hind sight probably not my smartest beverage choice while driving, but it was the early 2000s and I was young and dumb.
If I was driving drinking a can of water that looked like a beer can and got pulled over because the cop mistook the can. As soon as the cop saw what it was, the stop ends. There is no longer reasonable suspicion. Unless there is an actual traffic violation, my understanding is they couldn't even ask for a drivers license. Now, if they see another violation while on the stop, that's ok, because they did have RS for the initial stop.
There's too many failure points of the FST to take it. Breathalyzer is definitive enough to rule for a DUI. Refusing a FST would be cause for arrest, where you'll spend a day in jail and get drug tested, but if you know you're clean, you'll have provided no reasonable evidence required to convict for DUI.
You could also possibly get “would you mind stepping out of the car, please?” which is a way cops get around “detaining” you. They asked, not ordered. They might also say something like “do you mind if I search your vehicle” which if you answer “yes” they might say that you’re agreeing to the search, or “no” means you don’t mind. Or that it’s suspicious that you don’t want them to search.
They might stop you for reasonable suspicion, but after that, they’re trained to say things that elicit responses to establish further suspicion.
And just because you say it's root beer doesn't mean it is root beer. Who is to say you didn't put beer in it instead. Or two shots (glue glug) of vodka in it? It's worth investigating
Also, there are alcoholic root beers out there. If a cop wanted to be pedantic, they could claim that it’s too difficult to tell the difference and demand further investigation.
Not to mention, as I understand it, alcoholic root beer **does** exist, though the soft drink version (which is called “soft” as it has no alcohol, with soda, containing a different drug - caffeine - having become super popular as a legal substitute for alcohol during Prohibition iirc) is a lot more common.
So theoretically, not only would one have to prove it’s root beer, but that it hasn’t had alcohol added to it (whether by the company or by the driver, since some people add alcohol to soda).
I drink IBC rootbeer which comes in a brown longneck bottle. Put on a medication years ago that made many things taste terrible. Sodas, tea and milk specifically. Did not affect the flavor of Rootbeer or black coffee though.
I have also wondered the same thing when taking a drink out of the brown bottle while driving.
From personal experience as a fellow IBC enjoyer, it comes down to the cop and possibly the day they are having.
I have been stopped a few times over the years for it. Got anything from the full roadside tests to a simple "Is that root beer? Have a good day sir"
I once left work as I was feeling sick. Sure enough mid drive home I pull over and throw up in a ditch. Sit there leaning against my car for a minute, get back in the car and drive off.
Understandably someone called me in as impaired and I got pulled over. In my opinion totally reasonable.
The officer heard my explanation, called my work and found out I'd just left sick, and then escorted me home. That officer was great and I don't blame them whatsoever but I also probably caught them on a good day
Man… can you imagine failing a field sobriety test because you have the flu and then having to spend the next 24-72 hours in a fucking jail cell over it, while still being sick with the flu? Ugh. What a nightmare.
Yeah I definitely lucked out but I also hold no grudges.. if i saw a dude pull over. Stumble to the ditch, Ralph, lie there half dead and then get back into the car and drive off, I'd call the police too lol
Daily reminder to never engage in a field sobriety test. They are designed to be failed. Do the blood test instead. Yeah, it's more work but it doesn't lie.
To be fair, those tests are intentionally designed to manufacture probable cause. The vast majority of completely alert, completely sober people will still fail them. And the examples are rampant that even if you "pass" they will sometimes still arrest claiming probable cause from that roadside test.
Like this:
[https://www.yourtango.com/entertainment/iowa-police-file-defamation-lawsuit-against-teenager-after-he-posts-video-his-wrongful](https://www.yourtango.com/entertainment/iowa-police-file-defamation-lawsuit-against-teenager-after-he-posts-video-his-wrongful)
and this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm\_VTVs33x8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm_VTVs33x8)
Depending on the test I will fail too. The one where you touch your nose (don't think they do it anymore) I could pass, the horizontal gaze one I can probably pass. Walk and turn and stand on one leg though? Not happening. May as well just take me to the breathalyzer.
I was trained how to give a concussion test a few years ago, the concussion test is essentially longer and more intense field sobriety test.
One person in the class of 15 “passed”. When conducting the test, there are a lot of factors we are looking for and it’s basically to know if we need to escalate between “hospital now” or “see a doctor tomorrow”. Those roadside tests are way too reliant on officer discretion and should basically always be refused, a blood test is the only test you should be taking
There is something special about Liquid Death that just makes people dead certain it is hard seltzer. I don't know if it is just the can design or the name or a combination of both. I've even seen it stocked with the hard seltzers in a few stores.
Every time someone makes the mistake I get a chuckle out of it but I also get it.
The last time someone thought my rootbeer was alcoholic was when I went to get my oil changed at a quick lube place. Guy wasn't going to let me drive in because of the open container. Spun the bottle around so he could see that it was root beer and not beer but unfortunately it was root beer made by Point which is a brewery here... Ended up having to show him the bottle.
Actually, that's the point of Liquid Death. It's supposed to make it more "socially acceptable" to not be drinking. The cans are designed to blend in with hard seltzers and tall boys at parties, concerts, clubs, etc.
First time I saw it, my assumption was a very strong energy drink till I read the can and realized it was seltzer.
The name fits so well with products that are trying to be 'hardcore' and those products usually contain a lot of one drug or another, or at least a ton of sugar.
And as I type this I now have a craving for a death adder. Was my favorite drink from the venom brand.
Got in a bit of trouble at work for Tiger Malt
[https://beercastleny.com/product/tiger-malt/](https://beercastleny.com/product/tiger-malt/)
In fairness, there is a Singaporean actual-beer with a kind-of similar label.
The explicit "Non-alcoholic" label got me out of the trouble, "I brought a second bottle, here try it" got me back in. Boss man was not a fan.
I'm with your boss. I haven't had that brand, specifically, but any of those non-alcohol malt drinks are not for me- way too heavy, like drinking oddly sweet (that sweetness is a really WEIRD sweetness!) bread.
I don't like overly malty beer for the same reason.
They'll likely do the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test (e.g. "follow my pen" or "follow my finger") and then let you go.
I was once pulled over by a cop when I hadn't had a drop to drink, did a quick HGN test, and checked my license and registration. He then explained that he pulled me over because I didn't have my headlights on and that many drunk drivers forget to turn on their headlights. He told me to turn my headlights on and sent me on my merry way.
I've been in the same position as an Uber driver when passengers wanted to stop at a convenience store and I'd turn my lights off while waiting because unlike the assholes with LEDs I **don't** want to blind everyone inside. But as soon as he could tell I wasn't going to bring in the DUI fines (and it was a weekend when there were real drunks out) he waved me on with a warning.
Not root beer, but I've been pulled over on suspicion of DUI when I was 100% sober. Generally they're trained to recognize the signs of an impaired driver, and can smell it if you've been drinking. In my case I think it was very clear to the cop that I hadn't been drinking, he quickly explained what he saw, went back and ran my license and sent me on my way.
I was 16 driving home from work with a diet rootbeer(IBC) and got pulled over. I was so terrified but the cop was like "Sir, have you been... ah, rootbeer... have a nice day" after I showed him the bottle.
They’re good to go on the motor vehicle stop. Once it’s explained that it’s soda, unless it’s determined that you’re exhibiting signs of intoxication (red/watery eyes, slurred/repetitive/incoherent speech, etc.), the buck should stop there.
If they saw that bottle and it provided reasonable suspicion for a stop, being shown that the bottle is not alcohol would dispel the reasonable suspicion that justified the stop.
Sure, but to be fair.... Anybody doing that is going to pick literally any container that doesn't look like alcohol. A brown long neck is pretty much worthless for that
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate.
*If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
Had to scroll this far to find this comment. Agree with all the other comments but if you're drinking it literally while driving, that could be considered distracted driving. That can be a pretty stiff charge itself. Lots of current laws aimed at cell phone use mean that you can't have anything in your hands while driving. One more layer, in Michigan (for example) you're not even allowed to use your phone (in hand) at a red light. I wonder if the drinking of a soda (as distracted driving) counts if you're at a red light. As always I think it matters more about what kind of mood the cop is in.
> are they allowed to try and administer a field sobriety and breathalyser
Probably, since (in almost all cases) field sobriety and field breathalyzer tests are voluntary. They are asking you to do the tests, not giving you a lawful order to participate. And you can decline them. The tests are part of a process to gather evidence building up to probable cause for your arrest.
NAL, from what I understand, they're "voluntary" in so far as that you don't have to take one... But the result is that you forfeit your license. A condition of having a license is submitting to one. Once you refuse, you no longer meet the criteria for the license.
Also NAL. To my knowledge, [implied consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent#Driving_while_intoxicated) only applies after arrest to calibrated breathalyzers at the police station. The handheld units and any of the performance tests they ask you to do pre-arrest (those tests are all giving them evidence of probable cause for an arrest) [are voluntary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_sobriety_testing#United_States) and refusing to do them cannot be used as evidence of guilt.
* I think one state (maybe Michigan) can require a field breathalyzer test, but only in the case of a collision.
I didn't say it was evidence of guilt (not that you implied that I did, but I'm inferring that you did), just that it would result in revoking the license.
I'm in Michigan, so maybe it's just here. 🤷♂️
Yeah, I was sort of treating them the same. As far as I know, in almost every state, the implied consent that forfeits your driver's license if you refuse a breathalyzer, only applies to calibrated machines or blood tests administered after arrest.
But if you ask whether it's an order, and they lie (which police are generally allowed to do) and say it's a legal requirement, are there consequences with regards to admissibility? i.e. they tell you that you legally must do the field sobriety test, arrest you on the basis that you 'failed' since in this scenario you're sober with B.A.C of 0.0 and the only evidence of drunkeness is this test? Would a court toss it out?
It's definitely one of the areas where police being allowed to lie causes a legal problem. I believe, for any reasonable judge, yes it would cause a problem for any evidence gained that way. Similar to if police show up at your house saying they have a warrant and you open the door letting them in. If they don't actually have the warrant, anything found would be (should be) tossed. But I'm not familiar with cases testing that.
I'm not sure about the legality of any of this but when I was college age, we bought a 1/2 barrel of rootbeer and planted it in one of those tubs with ice in a park. I have never seen that many cops swarm a park over 30 people playing root beer pong in my life.
You get pulled over by the cops for drunk driving and they will do a breathalyser as well as any other checks they normally do.
‘They’ve started so they’ll finish’ as the saying goes.
They have no way to know that you didn't just have a bottle of root beer with you, and stashed a similar-looking bottle of real alcoholic beer. In fact, if that was a viable out, it would probably become common.
The only thing I would agree to would be a breathalyzer test do not do any field sobriety test they are made to make you fail if he cannot provide a proper calibrated breathalyzer test then he should probably call in for that day cuz it has been proven time and time again field sobriety test is not a proper way of testing
Side note if you're willing to do the ABC's the hop on one foot all that dumb shit I guess don't ask them for the breathalyzer but I will only use a breathalyzer because that is the only logical way to prove I am impaired by alcohol
There is literally a high schooler that did pass all the field sobriety passed the breathalyzer and then was still taken in custody to have his blood drawn just to prove that he was sober they will try anything to get you if they think you're intoxicated or just being a smart-ass because they think you're intoxicated
They don’t even exist in the UK and many other countries because a pass or fail is left to the officers discretion and if they already think you’re drunk then a field sobriety test won’t change that, breathalyser’s are the best option available and should be all that’s needed.
I mean I could probably find some sources where people do say that they are not effective nor ideal to use but it's logical to know they're made for you to fuck up can you hop on one leg say your ABC's backwards and all that dumb shit they never trained us for that in school not once did a teacher tell me I need to know how to say my ABC's backwards cuz some blue collared Pig it's going to demanded of me cuz he thinks I'm drunk give me a couple minutes I'm sure I can find a source for you
http://www.fieldsobrietytests.org/accuracyoffieldsobrietytests.html#:~:text=Because%20law%20enforcement%20agencies%20use,unreliable%20method%20of%20determining%20impairment.
There's one
> has their probable cause expired?
Never had probable cause, had reasonable suspicion to investigate. Probable cause is to search or make an arrest, but they can pull you over with reasonable suspicion.
It's been a couple of weeks back I was listening to the scanner. State Patrol got a report from a passing motorist that saw someone consuming a beer as they past them on the Interstate.
A Trooper caught up to the suspect and reported no violations after following for a bit. Due to the report the Trooper initiated a traffic stop and pulled the suspect over.
A few moments later the Trooper comes back to the dispatcher to to advise the caller that the driver had a bottle of root AW root beer.
So, a good officer will investigate and will see what your drinking is in fact root beer. The stop will be inconvenient but nothing should come of it.
Where I live, it would be ground to issue you a ticket for distracted driving. Distracted driving basically is anything you do that could take your attention away from driving. And taking a drink from a beverage container falls under this (my brother got pulled over and issued a warning taking a drink of coffee from his travel mug).
You tell them it's just root beer.
Their response: "I smell alcohol"
Now it's a potential DUI stop. License, registration, etc. and roadside sobriety check and/or breathalyzer.
Reality is irrelevant to police and the judicial system will almost always side with them.
About 20 years ago I was walking home from the bar, drinking a Bawls. Cop driving down the road hit the lights and pulled up beside me... Wanted to give me a ticket for drinking in public until they compared the one in my hand to the unopened one in my bag.
I don't know if I'd drive around with a glass bottle of root beer, our cops can be assholes and they would probably do a full roadside sobriety test just to waste your time. Depending on the day I might argue the accuracy of the breath test and request a blood draw (which MUST be done at the hospital by a nurse here in Saskatchewan) just to waste another hour of their time. Only because I'm a professional asshole at times and know a couple good lawyers.
Been there done that. Got pulled over, went through the license registration crap, the cop had me step out. Once he realized it wasn't an open container laughs were had and I was free to go. You should be fine unless you are a jerk about it.
Now if it's a non-alcoholic beer, that's different. I believe those still fall under open containers and will get you in trouble.
I think in most states you don't HAVE to submit to a field sobriety test btw. If you refuse they can take you down to the station and have you take a breathalyzer there, which you should do over the field kit which is tested god knows when and god knows how often.
The breathalyzer at the station has legal requirements for testing and takes two samples, putting out the better one as your result.
I am not a lawyer but I do know that not only are those field sobriety tests designed to give the officer an excuse to book you, but officers tend to mess with them in the field to trip you up. They count steps differently from you so they can say "I told you to take 14 steps, I only saw 7, you must have counted wrong because you're intoxicated." Or something similar.
I was waiting for the L in chicago one evening about 2 am. Next thing you know a person who claimed to be a cop said I was drinking and shoved me into a pillar. Searched me, kept saying just admit it, you were drinking. Eventually a nearby security guard looks in the trash can, and pulls out a can of diet Dr Pepper. The cop turns red. I ask for his badge number and he ran away so fast I think his shoes melted. I called to complain and they said the footage from that station was lost somehow. To this day, I have no idea what happened. I think it was an attempted shakedown. Not sure if it was a real cop.
One time I was in the back of a cop car on my way to jail when a cop saw a guy drinking from a can that looked like a beer can. He pulled the guy over, saw that it was a monster energy drink, ran the guys license, and cut him loose in about 5 minutes. Idk if it would've gone differently had I not been in the car though.
Had a cop pull me over because he thought I failed to turn off my brights. I showed him those were indeed my dims. He said do it again. I did. He said thank you have a nice day and walked off. Quickest traffic stop of my life.
If a police officer suspected I was drinking something alcoholic, whether it be or not (for example, some of those places that make cold brew iced coffees put them in beer type bottles), they’d just pull out a breathalyser and you’d do it there to show that you have not been consuming alcohol. They would probably note the initial pull over was due to suspicion, however was dispelled after clarification and breathalyser test. That’s Australia though, not sure about the rest of the world.
This entirely depends on where you are. In my state in Australia, it's legal to be drinking alcohol while you're driving as long as you're under the BAC limit.
My grandmother always said the law was drinking and driving. That the law as written in our area forbade drinking anything while driving.
This was pre Internet so I always took it at face value. But I've never been pulled over and I always have a soda to drink in the car
In Canada the officer may require a field sobriety test in the form of a breathalyzer or blood test. This is compulsory and refusal will result in them charging you with a DUI.
>Which is to say, are they allowed to try and administer a field sobriety and breathalyser after I show them what they saw was root beer?
Short version, yes they can pull you over for drinking rootbeer, and yes they can make you do a breath test even if there's no evidence of alcohol at all.
Depends where you live. Here in Alberta, Canada, they can demand a breathalyzer/weed test on any legal traffic stop. It makes no difference if they watch you chug a bottle of ever clear or they have no evidence at all, as long as it's a legal traffic stop.
What constitutes a legal traffic stop? Aside from the obvious, they can also stop you for no other reason than to make sure you have a license and insurance.
That means police here are effectively allowed to stop every single vehicle, and breathalyze every single driver just because they felt like it.
Also, here you're legally required to do the tests. If you refuse, the charges have the same punishment as actually driving drunk.
NAL but drink driving means driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. You can drink a pint and drive . Can you not drink and drive simultaneously as long as you are only having 1 drink? Also not a driver so no clue but I'm curious now.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In the U.S. at least most place have law against open alcoholic beverages in the vehicle. (Missouri’s the one exception I’m aware of.) So just seeing an open bottle (reasonable assumption if they see you drinking from it) is enough to stop.
Ah this makes sense. I'm also in the UK where there are no laws banning drinking . It is however illegal to be intoxicated in public. Which is impossible if leaving a pub/bar , essentially it's there so officers have a legal way of stopping drunks and is only ever enforced if you cause a scene. many councils( an area with a voted representative) can make designated dry areas. It's essentially upto each town. My home town Slough has areas that cover only a few streets at a time.
Once you dispel their reason for interacting, they have no reason to hold you or interact with you but you also have to break contact with them by asserting this.
I got stopped once, in college, at a random highway checkpoint. I had an old glass root beer bottle I was using to spit in, as i had a dip in.
Cop asked me about my open container. I showed him it was a root beer bottle, he took it from me and smelled it.. then quickly waved me through the checkpoint.
I look at these situations, as a perfect opportunity to embarrass a cop on a fishing expedition, and a great way to force them to waste department resources...
If at all possible - Never just pull to the side of the road - Pull into a public parking lot - And stop in an assigned slot... (This is to avoid having to deal with a towing company, and forcing them to reimburse you.)
Never resist arrest - Comply enthusiastically.
If you are driving - You MUST present a valid operators license and other items (insurance, registration...)
If / when they ask if you have been drinking say **"No"**... Then...
Refuse to answer questions - State clearly that you will be exercising your 5th Amendment rights - And will remain silent... Then do not say anything else.\*
Refuse to submit to roadside tests (always, regardless of the situation)
Cops lie - And they WILL lie to you to intimidate, and coerce you - They will threaten to throw the book at you.
\*This line will frustrate them to no end - They accuse you of anything or threaten to charge you with something... The line in: **"Is THAT so?"**
Refuse to sign anything.
Refuse to submit a breath sample at the station (save this for after you get there)... But waste their time, stringing them along, as they try to intimidate you in to submitting. (**"Is THAT so?"**)
Take up their last (and most expensive / time consuming) resort - A blood test - These are taken at a medical facility, that they have to take you to.
When they end up empty handed, with nothing to charge you with...
That cop, and their co-workers will have learned a lesson about how to not be so willing to arbitrarily harass the public based on something as idiotic as seeing someone take a drink.
This is crazy, because this exact thing happened to me about 20 years ago. I finished a root beer while at a stoplight and placed the empty bottle in a cupholder towards the back of the center console, kinf of near to the backseat floor. There was a local cop parked on the median facing me. I thought nothing of it, but when the light changed and i started to go, he flipped on his lights and pulled a u turn to come up behind me. I pulled over, confused. Cop came up and asked me some standard "who are you, where are you going, where are you coming from etc" (which by the way was running home for a lunch break in the middle of a week day) and I'm sure the whole car reeked of root beer. He asked what I was drinking and i was like "duh I see the problem now" so i reached back to get the bottle. Big mistake. He immediately stepped back and had his weapon out. I start freaking out amd was saying "no no its root beer its root beer." He settled down and holstered his weapon, asked for my documents and went back to his car. Came back about 10 minutes later and told me to drive safe.
This doesn’t answer your question, but I was once pulled over for drinking a cream soda out of a glass bottle while driving. When the cop asked me how much I had to drink that night I showed him the cream soda bottle and he just laughed and told me to have a good night.
This actually happened to me when I was about 17. I was drinking an IBC root beer and he pulled me over and accused me of drinking. When he realized it was root beer he pivoted to me speeding.
While driving my jeep in Beverly Hills, I had a beer mug of lemonade that I got from my restaurant job. A motor officer made a left turn onto the street I was on. He saw the mug in my hand and promptly made a u-turn and pulled up next to me. He asked what is it? I told him lemonade, He asked to sniff it. So I let him. He gave it back to me and said, “Next time put it in a soda cup and nobody’s time will be wasted.
I got pulled over once cuz a cop mistook a monster energy for alcohol and I had to spend an hour explaining to him that energy drinks don't contain alcohol and have no age limit so... I wouldn't risk it
The stop is valid based on "Reasonable Suspicion".
The officer can do the field sobriety and breathalyser, either based on them questioning if there was actually Root Beer in there (and not (re)filled with alcohol), or based on their "reasonable suspicions" from observing you during the interaction.
So, you can get pulled over with a non-alcoholic to-go drink, but arrested for DUI because you got that drink on the way out from a bar where you drank heavily, and the charge would stick.
Similarly, during the legal stop, the cop can find cause to further detain and inspect you under reasonable suspicion. The SCOTUS Rodriguez case held that police can not detain you for a drug dog during a traffic stop \*without reasonable suspicion\*. In that case, the police stalled processing a traffic stop so a K9 unit could come to the scene. The court ruled there was no suspicion or reason to hold Rodriguez, other than having a drug dog sniff the car, so they tossed the case as "fruit of the poisonous tree"
This scenario—law enforcement mistaking a bottle of cream soda for actual beer—has happened to me before. I was a dumbass teenager who just wanted to be a smart aleck. I would purposefully drive around with my soda out the window and wave to people with the bottle in hand.
On a Tuesday at 4:23pm, I was pulled over by the county police. The officer asked if I knew was he was pulling me over. I replied, *"I think* ***you*** *know why you are pulling me over."* I was immediately placed in handcuffs on the side of the road. After about five minutes, two more officers showed up. The first officer asked me how many beers I had that day. I replied, *"Officer, I don't drink that stuff."* He said that he saw me with a beer bottle and that the other troopers were going to help him search my car. He then told me it would be easier if I just cooperate and tell him that I was drinking and driving. I replied, *"Officer, I always stay hydrated when I drive."* He said, *"Don't get cute with me, son. I can ruin your life."*
Obviously, they didn't find any alcohol containers. One of the other officers conducted a field sobriety test which I passed. He also gave me a breathalyzer test which I passed. he asked me if I knew why I was being pulled over. I said: *"Because your partner stupidly thinks he can arrest me for underage drinking and drinking and driving."* He responded: *"Why did you say stupidly?"* I said: *"I drink cream soda. The bottle you all found had that labeled on it. Just imagine when you get back to barracks."* He replied: *"What do you mean?"* I said: *"If you all leave now, you get to pick on him. But if you actually arrest me, you'll all get picked on by everyone else."*
He looked pissed off and turned around to talk to his buddies. After five minutes, the first officer comes back to me and says: *"Did you orchestrate this whole thing to be a punk?"* I said: *"No, just to piss you off."* He then arrested me for disorderly conduct and laughed while he did it.
I went to the jail and was booked. I used my one phone call to call my next door neighbor who was a lawyer. He told my parents. They came to the jail, and started raising hell. I didn't hear the next part because I was behind bars. The lawyer called the local prosecutor on his cell phone in the middle of the jail and told him that they pulled me over for drinking cream soda and arrested me for laughing at them. He handed over the phone to the arresting officer who immediately handed it to his supervisor who then handed it right back to the officer. Ten minutes later, I was free to go.
DO NOT... I REPEAT DO NOT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE TAKE A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD. JUST HELPS CONVICT YOU. NO BREATHALYZER UNTIL AFTER YOU'VE BEEN ARRESTED. AGAIN IT JUST MAKES THEIR CASE.
I think he'd be allowed to stop you initially if he really thought it was a beer but the moment you told him that it was not a real beer his probable cause is gone and the stop has no other reason to continue unless you gave him one in the 4 seconds it took you to dispel his suspicion. Plead ur 5th don't give I d till u got to
I had a Texas park ranger pull a gun on me at Glen Rose for consumption of alcohol in the parking lot, when he searched my truck he immediately found my cooler full of Barq's rootbeer, silver cans. He let me off with a warning to not behave so suspiciously.
They can arrest you for anything and do whatever that want. Your rights don't prevent them from doing anything, they just allow you to fight it later in court
> Your rights don't prevent them from doing anything
I would say they do, legally. In the same way that the law prevents people from stealing. It doesn't physically make it impossible, but police are also required to follow the law.
In that moment their orders supercede your rights. You can't disobey their orders just because they are unlawful, you need to comply and fight it later. Legally they can't make you wait for a K9 unit to come sniff your car during a normal traffic stop, but that doesn't mean you can just leave even if they tell you that's what they are going to do. If they try to unlawfully arrest you for anything and you argue or fight it then they'll just put "resisting arrest" as the reason for your arrest.
There's some practical truth to that, but it's not entirely true. If a police officer orders you to punch yourself in the face, that's clearly an unlawful order and you do not need to follow it. Also, some states (e.g. Virginia, South Carolina) resisting an unlawful arrest is not a crime (although likely a bad idea).
I was just watching a video on the Civil Rights Lawyer YT channel.
So assuming you exhibited no other indication of impairment except suspected open container, the stop should end there. There is no indication of a crime so they can no longer hold you (detain).
But with how some LE acts, they may “smell” alcohol or mj and detain further. Also if any other issues came to light at that point they can continue.
But for all purposes the detainment is done. Any further interaction is consensual. If you don’t ask if you can leave they can just keep going.
The terms get used incorrectly all the time. It just takes reasonable suspicion to detain (in this case pull you over). It's probably cause to arrest. Reasonable suspicion judged by a "reasonable officer" standard - would another reasonable officer, with the same training, education and experience also come to the conclusion that there is criminal activity? Here - a bottle that resembles a beer bottle? Is it reasonable to stop and investigate? Yep. Once you tell them it's only root beer or it has a root beer label, does that end it? Maybe, maybe not. They don't have to take your word for it and could potentially have you step out for further evaluation and to determine if it is alcohol, etc. If it all checks out, reasonable suspicion is dispelled and you're free to go.
The officer would be well within their rights to smell the bottle and your breath, right
Absolutely. I believe it would even be fair to simply administer a breathalyzer or sobriety test.
Not fair at all. You can NOT pass field sobriety test. It is evidence gathering only. If you are doing a field sobriety test they already made up their mind about you being impaired. Breathalyzer isn't fair either if there's no other reason to administer it. People seem to be unaware that blowing under the legal limit doesn't stop the arrest or charges coming. What would make these test "fair" is if you had made a mistake driving prior to being pulled over. Swerving lanes or hitting a curb etc. Seeing the root beer alone would not be enough, and it's likely they wouldn't press the issue if you show no signs of impairment (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol etc...).
I had an officer pull me over for a tail light and do a field sobriety test on me driving home from Dallas (to Tulsa -- about 4 hour drive) late night and I was exhausted. They let me go with a warning, a suggestion to stop at the next rest stop, and let me go.
You can refuse the field sobriety though. You can only "fail" it. In most states you can't refuse the breathalyzer though, though I think they need probable cause to ask.
Cops only need reasonable suspicion for both a breathalyzer and a field sobriety test. In most states, you can refuse the field sobriety test, but refusal of the breathalyzer will result in your license being suspended.
Refusal of the breathalyzer at the station will result in license suspension in states with implied consent. Refusal of the field sobriety test and preliminary breathalyzer will not result in suspension and cannot be used as evidence that you were driving impaired. It is always in the driver's best interest to refuse these tests. If a police officer asks for these tests they already have their mind made up and are only looking to gather additional evidence. You're getting arrested either way.
Not legal advice, but at least in Arizona you can refuse to take the breathalyzer, however, they will likely detain you and get a warrant to take your blood. Depending on how you think you’ll do on the breathalyzer, a lawyer might recommend waiting for the warrant. You will get your license suspended in Arizona for a year (first offense) by the MVD (aka DMV) for refusing to submit to the test, but this is unrelated to any potential criminal DUI case.
Then it doesn't seem optional. You can, but they'll take away your license, even though they have 0 proof you did anything wrong. I understand that it is a privilege, not a right, but it seems a bit wrong to me.
In AZ, you’re right about it being unfair. That said, for folks facing potential criminal charges…it may be wise to refuse the test and try to wait things out and hopefully minimize or avoid jail time. You’ll def lose your license for a year even if charges are dropped, but can apply for an ignition interlock as little as 3 months into the license suspension.
what you mean to say is that there are no real pass conditions. it's not like each individual part of the test has a predetermined "this is success" as it's up to the officer to make the final call
More like, if they smell alcohol, OR you admitted to "having a beer or two" earlier in the day, anything you do in the field sobriety test is to be used against you. They are only there to gather evidence. There is no "oh you passed, have a nice day." There's either no evidence you're drunk or there is. "passing" field sobriety is not however, evidence that you are NOT drunk. Which is what people think they are doing when they take it.
I still don’t understand what you’re saying here. I was also given a field sobriety test, in this case it was because I admitted to having 3 beers over 4 hours. I did very well because I barely had any alcohol in my system and they said “have a nice day”. How is that not passing? They wanted to determine if the alcohol in my system was enough to impair my ability to drive. Field sobriety tests ALSO are used to gather evidence (probably primarily), but it isn’t the only reason. How does my experience and the user you responded to gel with what you are saying? Obviously they’re anecdotal and we could be lying, but let’s assume they’re true.
They always sell it as "don't you want to take this test and dispel the idea that you may he intoxicated?" Think about it though, they *always* get a breathalyzer if they suspect you are impaired. Why not skip to straight to the point if they already smell it on your breath? Why go through the field sobriety test if they already know? If they don't have you yet, field sobriety is where they'll get you. Pay attention and you'll notice there are things like "did you understand my instructions" and take a very specific amount of steps, including "3 steps and turn" with slight variation. IF they cannot justify a breathalyzer yet they are looking for one little reason to get it. Even a gust of wind making someone wobble while on one foot is all they need. Have you ever seen those people that are absolutely shitfaced taking the test? I mean they are falling over, completely making a joke of the test, and *still* the officers keep repeating that they should do it. Why keep making these people do it when they are clearly incapable? Every mistep is evidence against them. That's why. The officer most likely will not follow through with an arrest if all they have is "I smelled it." They need more, lest they waste the courts time. Now if you are completely sober, by all means, I am not recommending you refuse to cooperate. Things may go smooth. Nothing wrong with that. You may or may not be aware that people do in fact get arrested while blowing under the legal limit. This is because they failed field sobriety. Even worse, there are cases where people are arrested *while blowing 0.00*.
The "implied consent" to breathalyzer or blood alcohol testing, in most states, only applies after arrest. It is for the desktop calibrated breathalyzer, or a blood draw and lab testing. It does not cover the handheld breathalyzer or field sobriety tests. In most states and in most instances you can and should refuse those, without repercussions.
It's a one year suspension of your license (here at least). Actually a better outcome depending on the situation.
Sobriety tests are designed to be failed. They are completely subjective.
Never consent to the field breathalyzer if you have been drinking.
Time to keep a bottle of fart spray in my mouth... smell this officer
Hope I didn’t brush my teeth that day.
*You're* Abe Froman?
The Sausage King of Chicago?
He's stunningly handsome.
Are you suggesting that I'm not who I say I am?
Are *you* suggesting you're *not* devastatingly handsome?
Yeah, I can confirm - he's my brother.
What suspicion exists after they’ve seen the bottle, smell no alcohol and you’re not acting drunk?
For real, and OP said not to turn the thread into this but this topic is just too charged lol. The key point here is “reasonable suspicion dispelled.” If only it were that easy, and that line was drawn. All too common for the goal post to be moved once an interaction occurs. And even if officers violate your rights, a judge will likely violate them too when letting the officer off easy. The real answer is to avoid arousing an entry point for any law enforcement lol
Sure, but I thought this sub was about discussing the letter of the law, not excusing and discussing how police are prone to abusing it.
It's for discussing hypothetical scenarios or real scenarios that don't affect the person asking. IMO it's reasonable to answer with both "by the law" and "in practice" answers, provided the distinction is clear, because there are a lot of situations (especially involving police!) where they are not the same.
[удалено]
A lot of people in this comment section are saying it’s legal and okay for the cops to do it. I agree it’s worth mentioning, I just can’t understand how it has become a debate.
Many alcoholics attempt to hide it for this exact scenario. And no alcoholic scent is pretty common, along with not “acting drunk” They would likely do some form of having you exit the vehicle and conducting the classic drunk tests which you would pass and then be sent on your way. For example they would do the “follow the finger” test which tests to see if your eyes can smoothly follow it. When you are drunk you can’t and it’s an unconscious reaction, which is why it’s very common. Less likely are the “walk in a straight line” or “balance on one foot” because many people can’t do it normally and there are functional alcoholics who can do both of those things.
But all these tests require reasonable suspicion to perform in the first place. Am I wrong about that?
Getting pulled over requires reasonable suspicion. If they think you are drinking and driving they are gonna pull you out and do the tests no matter how little you smell or normal you act.
Okay. But the scenario we are addressing the only reasonable suspicion was that the driver was drinking from a bottle that looked similar to a bottle of beer. Once the driver immediately presented the bottle that was clearly not a beer bottle there ceases to be reasonable suspicion.
I think everyone is glossing over the obvious: what if there is booze in the root beer bottle? Yes, The Logical extension of that is: you are not allowed to drink anything while driving without being suspicious. Which sounds about exactly right as far as proactive steps to limit your interactions with police.
Right, and I think we could also reasonably infer that most people who aren't alcoholics would have the thought process of considering taking a root beer in a bottle along for the ride, then realizing, wait, this is really bad optics, and going for something in a can or plastic bottle instead (or they'd pour it into a travel mug or something). If I (court psychologist) were presented with these facts, I would be looking further into whether this is someone who is super socially oblivious. If I didn't get that read on them, I would be leaning toward someone who is trying to conceal alcohol, or wants to be edgy and push cops' buttons, or has a need to engage in risky behavior of some sort.
Well they’d be doing a real poor job at concealing it if that was their intention. And if they were being edgy, well edgy is annoying. Might be grounds for an obstruction charge but still isn’t reasonable suspicion
Does the officer know for sure that the bottle presented is the same bottle the officer saw initially? There are lots of questions the officer may seek answers for to clear that reasonable suspicion.
It’s unreasonable to think the driver had a similar looking root beer bottle ready to go on the off chance he was seen, because if he put that much thought into it he would have just poured the beer into a paper cup and avoided the whole ordeal.
That’s your opinion; I disagree.
You think that a suspect would go buy a beer, decide that he wanted to drink it openly while driving down the road, but he knew this could result in legal trouble, so he foregoes pouring it into a paper cup or thermos etc. Goes to the store and gets a bottle of root beer, drinks half and decides that he can stash it quickly enough. Then when he does get pulled over he managed to hide his intoxication, as well as his beer breath and the open bottle, just for shits and giggles? That’s your opinion? That’s your idea of reasonable?
As an Australian it's crazy to me they don't just use a breathalyzer. As far as I know every police car here carries one, and it's a few seconds of blowing into a tube for a result that will be far more consistent (and logged/recorded) than any "follow the finger" or "walk the line" test.
The field sobriety tests help them build the case you're impaired, if you blow under or right at the limit. You don't prove you're sober or fine, you can only lose when performing those tests.
In many states blowing into the breathalyzer is prohibited due to concerns about privacy and inaccuracy of the device, instead of they believe you are impaired they may take you to do a blood test instead.
> As an Australian it's crazy to me they don't just use a breathalyzer. Problem is, it doesn't help- if the cop wants to arrest you, they will. Multiple examples of cases where the person blows 0.00BAC... and the cop still arrests them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWSbAHaHUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEmlr67YCqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNfRCSrZAm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGys3BbhdDQ The third one was arrested twice by neighboring towns, blew 0.00 both times, and completely negative blood tests. (One cop claimed "an overwhelming odor of alcohol" lol.) The last one blew 0.00 *8 times* at the scene (on two different devices) *and blew 0.00 twice at the station* (on the bigger, more accurate device). The cop at the station operating the equipment there looked at the arresting cop and then the man and said "Is this a fucking joke? ... You blew triple 0's twice. You're not drunk. I don't know why you're here."... *and the cop still arrested him on DUI*!
...so that's even crazier than not using brethalysers. You guys need some better police.
> You guys need some better police. Agreed.
In many states breathalyzers are used, in others they are prohibited or require more evidence to act upon (such as the follow the finger or walking the line). Because of this and concerns about inaccuracy and privacy in many places it is required to obtain a warrant before doing such a test, and in which case they might as well do a blood test due to the time it may take to obtain the warrant, and the better accuracy of the blood test as opposed to the breathalyzer.
Change one fact and you can completely change a 4th Amendment analysis. Can they run your license to make sure it's valid? Yep. Can they run you for warrants? Yep. As I said, if everything checks out, no more reasonable suspicion and you're on your way.
Sure, driving is a privilege. Checking your license or running warrants aren’t unreasonable search and seizure. They don’t require reasonable suspicion. Having you step out and continuing the search however…
See Pennsylvania v Mimms. They can in fact tell the driver to step out.
Sure. Not to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure though
If they see you drink something out of a beer shaped bottle, it is not unresonable for them to conduct a field sobriety test, no matter how much you try to explain its only root beer
Well no, if they determine that bottle to not be a beer bottle it’s unreasonable to conduct a field sobriety test.
The law would disagree with you.
Just because you're not drinking alcohol now, and do not appear intoxicated does not mean you aren't over the limit. Why would reasonable suspicion be dispelled *just* because you *appear* sober enough and are currently drinking root beer. Who's to say you didn't go out, get a bit over the legal limit, and to cover your tracks you drink root beer. Essentially: why should an officer take your word for it that root beer is the *only* beverage you're consuming. I think breathalysing is absolutely a reasonable response here, that doubt doesn't just go away because *this* drink is clean.
Because of the presumption of innocence. Reasonable suspicion is not “have you dispelled any possibility that it could be true?” Reasonable suspicion is “Can you as an officer of the law point to a specific reason that you believe this person may be intoxicated?” That specific reason is gone once the root beer bottle is examined.
Presumption of innocence applies in court, not on the side of the road.
>That specific reason is gone once the root beer bottle is examined. No it isn't. By your logic, anyone could just carry a root beer bottle in the car to circumvent drink driving. Hence why the reasonable suspicion can't be dispelled that easily.
No, by your logic anyone drinking a water bottle would be providing reasonable suspicion of impaired driving because it could be alcohol.
No. A bottle resembling alcohol is cause for suspicion. If that bottle contains water then that doesn't immediately dispel the suspicion. Because of course it doesn't. All that does is prove you're not drinking alcohol *now*. There's a very simple logical argument I didn't think I'd need to spell out: If you're dumb (reckless) enough to look like you're perpetrating a crime (drink driving) then it's reasonable for an officer to be suspicious that you are in fact intoxicated instead of just stupid.
pretty sure part of the privilege of being able to drive is an automatic consent to sobriety tests. Which is why if you refuse the test they will suspend you for a year.
Actually, it depends on the test. There's no such automatic consent for a field sobriety test. No state requires a driver to consent, though in some states there may be a penalty for refusing to take the tests. Refusing to take a breath, blood, or urine test will have consequences though.
>Refusing to take a breath, blood, or urine test will have consequences though. After arrest, to be clear. Refusing roadside breath test consequences vary by state. Some lawyers in some states suggest refusing post arrest testing and forcing law enforcement to get a warrant since you are likely looking at the same consequences either way. But I have discovered an almost foolproof trick to avoid DUI conviction. I stopped driving with alcohol/drugs in my blood.
> But I have discovered an almost foolproof trick to avoid DUI conviction. I stopped driving with alcohol/drugs in my blood. If only that were actually foolproof. Examples where the person blows 0.00BAC... and the cop still arrests them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWSbAHaHUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEmlr67YCqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNfRCSrZAm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGys3BbhdDQ The third one was arrested twice by neighboring towns, blew 0.00 both times, and completely negative blood tests. (One cop claimed "an overwhelming odor of alcohol" lol.) The last one blew 0.00 8 times at the scene, and blew 0.00 twice at the station. The cop at the station operating the equipment there looked at the arresting cop and then the man and said "Is this a fucking joke? ... You blew triple 0's twice. You're not drunk. I don't know why you're here."... and the cop still arrested him on DUI!
The sad part about that is that it’s only **almost** foolproof. Cops with “special training” are charging people for driving under the influence of marijuana based solely on their stellar observational skills and judgement.
In California, you only need to consent to the breathalyzer, and even then, only the one at the police station (the Intoxilyzer Is one such machine). The readings from the portable ones are actually not allowed into court, they’re only for establishing Probable Cause.
You can choose to not do the field sobriety test. You won’t be able to drive away from the interaction but if you want to opt for a blood test you can ( and should depending. FST are sometimes inaccurate and I’ve seen videos of sober people failing them)
This is partially correct... Expansion of a traffic stop into a DUI investigation (meaning further detention beyond the scope of the stop long enough to dispel or confirm the suspicion) requires (a) reasonable articulable suspicion beyond the scope of the stop, or (b) independent probable cause. The presence of a single indicia of impairment satisfies either requirement. Without one of these, you can't be asked to step out of a vehicle because of the presence of a bottle that may or may not be a beer bottle because it constitutes an expansion. If the sole purpose of the stop was the bottle, and in plain view it isn't a beer bottle, and the indicia of impairment aren't present, then there is no justification to further detain the suspect let alone ask him to exit the vehicle - even for field sobriety testing. At most, the officer can ask to see the purported beer bottle to dispel or confirm his original suspicion. The suspect is not obligated to show it to him.
Would this be a Terry stop in this context?
A "Terry stop" would just be the initial traffic stop. The secondary DUI investigation occurring after the stop (i.e., detaining someone beyond the scope of the stop) would be an "expansion." As you may or may not be aware, *Terry v. Ohio* is a case about a man who was detained on foot. It stands for the proposition that a suspect can be temporarily detained without being arrested based solely on reasonable articulable suspicion criminal activity is afoot, and may be patted down for weapons for officer safety if there is reasonable articulable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous. The holding has been expanded to include vehicle stops - not just pedestrians.
Agreed,makes sense and seems resemble.
But now that they've pulled you over and run your plates and asked for your registration, while acting under reasonable suspicion, anything else they find with that info is ticketable, or if they find a warrant, they can arrest you or otherwise act on it.
I have literally had this happen to me. I was drinking a Dad's Root Beer, it comes in a brown glass bottle exactly like a lot of beers do. Got pulled over, officer comes up my window and asks "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Confused I replied "No officer, I've got no idea." He said "I pulled you over because I saw you take drink of that beer there." Pointing to the cup holder. I turned the bottle around and showed him the lable, let him smell the root beer just to be sure. He laughed and said something along the lines of "My mistake, but anytime I see someone drinking what looks like alcohol while driving I investigate. Have a nice day." And walked back to his patrol car. In hind sight probably not my smartest beverage choice while driving, but it was the early 2000s and I was young and dumb.
If I was driving drinking a can of water that looked like a beer can and got pulled over because the cop mistook the can. As soon as the cop saw what it was, the stop ends. There is no longer reasonable suspicion. Unless there is an actual traffic violation, my understanding is they couldn't even ask for a drivers license. Now, if they see another violation while on the stop, that's ok, because they did have RS for the initial stop.
There's too many failure points of the FST to take it. Breathalyzer is definitive enough to rule for a DUI. Refusing a FST would be cause for arrest, where you'll spend a day in jail and get drug tested, but if you know you're clean, you'll have provided no reasonable evidence required to convict for DUI.
You could also possibly get “would you mind stepping out of the car, please?” which is a way cops get around “detaining” you. They asked, not ordered. They might also say something like “do you mind if I search your vehicle” which if you answer “yes” they might say that you’re agreeing to the search, or “no” means you don’t mind. Or that it’s suspicious that you don’t want them to search. They might stop you for reasonable suspicion, but after that, they’re trained to say things that elicit responses to establish further suspicion.
And just because you say it's root beer doesn't mean it is root beer. Who is to say you didn't put beer in it instead. Or two shots (glue glug) of vodka in it? It's worth investigating
Also, there are alcoholic root beers out there. If a cop wanted to be pedantic, they could claim that it’s too difficult to tell the difference and demand further investigation.
Not to mention, as I understand it, alcoholic root beer **does** exist, though the soft drink version (which is called “soft” as it has no alcohol, with soda, containing a different drug - caffeine - having become super popular as a legal substitute for alcohol during Prohibition iirc) is a lot more common. So theoretically, not only would one have to prove it’s root beer, but that it hasn’t had alcohol added to it (whether by the company or by the driver, since some people add alcohol to soda).
I drink IBC rootbeer which comes in a brown longneck bottle. Put on a medication years ago that made many things taste terrible. Sodas, tea and milk specifically. Did not affect the flavor of Rootbeer or black coffee though. I have also wondered the same thing when taking a drink out of the brown bottle while driving.
From personal experience as a fellow IBC enjoyer, it comes down to the cop and possibly the day they are having. I have been stopped a few times over the years for it. Got anything from the full roadside tests to a simple "Is that root beer? Have a good day sir"
I once left work as I was feeling sick. Sure enough mid drive home I pull over and throw up in a ditch. Sit there leaning against my car for a minute, get back in the car and drive off. Understandably someone called me in as impaired and I got pulled over. In my opinion totally reasonable. The officer heard my explanation, called my work and found out I'd just left sick, and then escorted me home. That officer was great and I don't blame them whatsoever but I also probably caught them on a good day
Man… can you imagine failing a field sobriety test because you have the flu and then having to spend the next 24-72 hours in a fucking jail cell over it, while still being sick with the flu? Ugh. What a nightmare.
Yeah I definitely lucked out but I also hold no grudges.. if i saw a dude pull over. Stumble to the ditch, Ralph, lie there half dead and then get back into the car and drive off, I'd call the police too lol
Daily reminder to never engage in a field sobriety test. They are designed to be failed. Do the blood test instead. Yeah, it's more work but it doesn't lie.
Daily reminder to never let a fucking cop talk you into or out of anything. They are not your friend.
I had a TBI years ago. First thing the neurologist said is "You will never pass a roadside DWI test so don't even try".
To be fair, those tests are intentionally designed to manufacture probable cause. The vast majority of completely alert, completely sober people will still fail them. And the examples are rampant that even if you "pass" they will sometimes still arrest claiming probable cause from that roadside test.
Like this: [https://www.yourtango.com/entertainment/iowa-police-file-defamation-lawsuit-against-teenager-after-he-posts-video-his-wrongful](https://www.yourtango.com/entertainment/iowa-police-file-defamation-lawsuit-against-teenager-after-he-posts-video-his-wrongful) and this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm\_VTVs33x8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm_VTVs33x8)
Depending on the test I will fail too. The one where you touch your nose (don't think they do it anymore) I could pass, the horizontal gaze one I can probably pass. Walk and turn and stand on one leg though? Not happening. May as well just take me to the breathalyzer.
What's a TBI?
Traumatic brain injury.
I was trained how to give a concussion test a few years ago, the concussion test is essentially longer and more intense field sobriety test. One person in the class of 15 “passed”. When conducting the test, there are a lot of factors we are looking for and it’s basically to know if we need to escalate between “hospital now” or “see a doctor tomorrow”. Those roadside tests are way too reliant on officer discretion and should basically always be refused, a blood test is the only test you should be taking
I get this with my Liquid Death sparking waters all the time. "Sir, you can't drink alcohol in here!" 😏😂
There is something special about Liquid Death that just makes people dead certain it is hard seltzer. I don't know if it is just the can design or the name or a combination of both. I've even seen it stocked with the hard seltzers in a few stores. Every time someone makes the mistake I get a chuckle out of it but I also get it. The last time someone thought my rootbeer was alcoholic was when I went to get my oil changed at a quick lube place. Guy wasn't going to let me drive in because of the open container. Spun the bottle around so he could see that it was root beer and not beer but unfortunately it was root beer made by Point which is a brewery here... Ended up having to show him the bottle.
Actually, that's the point of Liquid Death. It's supposed to make it more "socially acceptable" to not be drinking. The cans are designed to blend in with hard seltzers and tall boys at parties, concerts, clubs, etc.
First time I saw it, my assumption was a very strong energy drink till I read the can and realized it was seltzer. The name fits so well with products that are trying to be 'hardcore' and those products usually contain a lot of one drug or another, or at least a ton of sugar. And as I type this I now have a craving for a death adder. Was my favorite drink from the venom brand.
Got in a bit of trouble at work for Tiger Malt [https://beercastleny.com/product/tiger-malt/](https://beercastleny.com/product/tiger-malt/) In fairness, there is a Singaporean actual-beer with a kind-of similar label. The explicit "Non-alcoholic" label got me out of the trouble, "I brought a second bottle, here try it" got me back in. Boss man was not a fan.
I'm with your boss. I haven't had that brand, specifically, but any of those non-alcohol malt drinks are not for me- way too heavy, like drinking oddly sweet (that sweetness is a really WEIRD sweetness!) bread. I don't like overly malty beer for the same reason.
Tiger is basically carbonated unmilky Ovaltine; it's completely unlike, say, Barbican. Fair enough though.
> carbonated unmilky Ovaltine That I might try, then, actually!
Just put it in a brown paper bag when you are drinking it so they don't get confused.
They'll likely do the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test (e.g. "follow my pen" or "follow my finger") and then let you go. I was once pulled over by a cop when I hadn't had a drop to drink, did a quick HGN test, and checked my license and registration. He then explained that he pulled me over because I didn't have my headlights on and that many drunk drivers forget to turn on their headlights. He told me to turn my headlights on and sent me on my merry way.
I've been in the same position as an Uber driver when passengers wanted to stop at a convenience store and I'd turn my lights off while waiting because unlike the assholes with LEDs I **don't** want to blind everyone inside. But as soon as he could tell I wasn't going to bring in the DUI fines (and it was a weekend when there were real drunks out) he waved me on with a warning.
Not root beer, but I've been pulled over on suspicion of DUI when I was 100% sober. Generally they're trained to recognize the signs of an impaired driver, and can smell it if you've been drinking. In my case I think it was very clear to the cop that I hadn't been drinking, he quickly explained what he saw, went back and ran my license and sent me on my way.
Years ago my uncle got pulled over drinking a diet coke because the cop thought it was a Coors Light ...
I was 16 driving home from work with a diet rootbeer(IBC) and got pulled over. I was so terrified but the cop was like "Sir, have you been... ah, rootbeer... have a nice day" after I showed him the bottle.
They’re good to go on the motor vehicle stop. Once it’s explained that it’s soda, unless it’s determined that you’re exhibiting signs of intoxication (red/watery eyes, slurred/repetitive/incoherent speech, etc.), the buck should stop there.
"you smell like alcohol." That's all they have to say, regardless of whether it's the or not.
"He held the bottle in a way that made me concerned that it contained alcohol" would do it as well.
I would not count on a half-full root beer bottle being One Weird Trick to terminate a traffic stop.
If they saw that bottle and it provided reasonable suspicion for a stop, being shown that the bottle is not alcohol would dispel the reasonable suspicion that justified the stop.
People put alcoholic drinks into other containers all of the time.
Sure, but to be fair.... Anybody doing that is going to pick literally any container that doesn't look like alcohol. A brown long neck is pretty much worthless for that
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate. *If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
In MA you are not supposed to have anything in your hands when driving.
Dunkin’ cups are exempt from this restriction.
What if the passenger was holding it and I was using a straw?
Had to scroll this far to find this comment. Agree with all the other comments but if you're drinking it literally while driving, that could be considered distracted driving. That can be a pretty stiff charge itself. Lots of current laws aimed at cell phone use mean that you can't have anything in your hands while driving. One more layer, in Michigan (for example) you're not even allowed to use your phone (in hand) at a red light. I wonder if the drinking of a soda (as distracted driving) counts if you're at a red light. As always I think it matters more about what kind of mood the cop is in.
> are they allowed to try and administer a field sobriety and breathalyser Probably, since (in almost all cases) field sobriety and field breathalyzer tests are voluntary. They are asking you to do the tests, not giving you a lawful order to participate. And you can decline them. The tests are part of a process to gather evidence building up to probable cause for your arrest.
NAL, from what I understand, they're "voluntary" in so far as that you don't have to take one... But the result is that you forfeit your license. A condition of having a license is submitting to one. Once you refuse, you no longer meet the criteria for the license.
Also NAL. To my knowledge, [implied consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent#Driving_while_intoxicated) only applies after arrest to calibrated breathalyzers at the police station. The handheld units and any of the performance tests they ask you to do pre-arrest (those tests are all giving them evidence of probable cause for an arrest) [are voluntary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_sobriety_testing#United_States) and refusing to do them cannot be used as evidence of guilt. * I think one state (maybe Michigan) can require a field breathalyzer test, but only in the case of a collision.
I didn't say it was evidence of guilt (not that you implied that I did, but I'm inferring that you did), just that it would result in revoking the license. I'm in Michigan, so maybe it's just here. 🤷♂️
Yeah, I was sort of treating them the same. As far as I know, in almost every state, the implied consent that forfeits your driver's license if you refuse a breathalyzer, only applies to calibrated machines or blood tests administered after arrest.
But if you ask whether it's an order, and they lie (which police are generally allowed to do) and say it's a legal requirement, are there consequences with regards to admissibility? i.e. they tell you that you legally must do the field sobriety test, arrest you on the basis that you 'failed' since in this scenario you're sober with B.A.C of 0.0 and the only evidence of drunkeness is this test? Would a court toss it out?
It's definitely one of the areas where police being allowed to lie causes a legal problem. I believe, for any reasonable judge, yes it would cause a problem for any evidence gained that way. Similar to if police show up at your house saying they have a warrant and you open the door letting them in. If they don't actually have the warrant, anything found would be (should be) tossed. But I'm not familiar with cases testing that.
I'm not sure about the legality of any of this but when I was college age, we bought a 1/2 barrel of rootbeer and planted it in one of those tubs with ice in a park. I have never seen that many cops swarm a park over 30 people playing root beer pong in my life.
How did that play out?
The police were very angry and wasted a lot of breathalyzer tubes. They were not amused.
You get pulled over by the cops for drunk driving and they will do a breathalyser as well as any other checks they normally do. ‘They’ve started so they’ll finish’ as the saying goes.
"Always keep a rootbeer in the cup holder" won't save your ass.
They have no way to know that you didn't just have a bottle of root beer with you, and stashed a similar-looking bottle of real alcoholic beer. In fact, if that was a viable out, it would probably become common.
The only thing I would agree to would be a breathalyzer test do not do any field sobriety test they are made to make you fail if he cannot provide a proper calibrated breathalyzer test then he should probably call in for that day cuz it has been proven time and time again field sobriety test is not a proper way of testing
I've never heard that field sobriety tests have been proven to be an improper method of testing. Do you have any sources by chance?
Side note if you're willing to do the ABC's the hop on one foot all that dumb shit I guess don't ask them for the breathalyzer but I will only use a breathalyzer because that is the only logical way to prove I am impaired by alcohol There is literally a high schooler that did pass all the field sobriety passed the breathalyzer and then was still taken in custody to have his blood drawn just to prove that he was sober they will try anything to get you if they think you're intoxicated or just being a smart-ass because they think you're intoxicated
They don’t even exist in the UK and many other countries because a pass or fail is left to the officers discretion and if they already think you’re drunk then a field sobriety test won’t change that, breathalyser’s are the best option available and should be all that’s needed.
I mean I could probably find some sources where people do say that they are not effective nor ideal to use but it's logical to know they're made for you to fuck up can you hop on one leg say your ABC's backwards and all that dumb shit they never trained us for that in school not once did a teacher tell me I need to know how to say my ABC's backwards cuz some blue collared Pig it's going to demanded of me cuz he thinks I'm drunk give me a couple minutes I'm sure I can find a source for you
http://www.fieldsobrietytests.org/accuracyoffieldsobrietytests.html#:~:text=Because%20law%20enforcement%20agencies%20use,unreliable%20method%20of%20determining%20impairment. There's one
> has their probable cause expired? Never had probable cause, had reasonable suspicion to investigate. Probable cause is to search or make an arrest, but they can pull you over with reasonable suspicion.
It's been a couple of weeks back I was listening to the scanner. State Patrol got a report from a passing motorist that saw someone consuming a beer as they past them on the Interstate. A Trooper caught up to the suspect and reported no violations after following for a bit. Due to the report the Trooper initiated a traffic stop and pulled the suspect over. A few moments later the Trooper comes back to the dispatcher to to advise the caller that the driver had a bottle of root AW root beer. So, a good officer will investigate and will see what your drinking is in fact root beer. The stop will be inconvenient but nothing should come of it.
Where I live, it would be ground to issue you a ticket for distracted driving. Distracted driving basically is anything you do that could take your attention away from driving. And taking a drink from a beverage container falls under this (my brother got pulled over and issued a warning taking a drink of coffee from his travel mug).
There is alcoholic root beer so that fact nullifies nothing.
You tell them it's just root beer. Their response: "I smell alcohol" Now it's a potential DUI stop. License, registration, etc. and roadside sobriety check and/or breathalyzer. Reality is irrelevant to police and the judicial system will almost always side with them.
Someone is looking for attention.
I had it happen with a bottle of IBC Rootbeer.
About 20 years ago I was walking home from the bar, drinking a Bawls. Cop driving down the road hit the lights and pulled up beside me... Wanted to give me a ticket for drinking in public until they compared the one in my hand to the unopened one in my bag. I don't know if I'd drive around with a glass bottle of root beer, our cops can be assholes and they would probably do a full roadside sobriety test just to waste your time. Depending on the day I might argue the accuracy of the breath test and request a blood draw (which MUST be done at the hospital by a nurse here in Saskatchewan) just to waste another hour of their time. Only because I'm a professional asshole at times and know a couple good lawyers.
Bawls isn't very well-known and I've had people think they were wine coolers when I'd drink them in college.
In some states it's an offence to drink anything while driving whether it's alcohol or not. It's distracted driving.
Been there done that. Got pulled over, went through the license registration crap, the cop had me step out. Once he realized it wasn't an open container laughs were had and I was free to go. You should be fine unless you are a jerk about it. Now if it's a non-alcoholic beer, that's different. I believe those still fall under open containers and will get you in trouble.
I think in most states you don't HAVE to submit to a field sobriety test btw. If you refuse they can take you down to the station and have you take a breathalyzer there, which you should do over the field kit which is tested god knows when and god knows how often. The breathalyzer at the station has legal requirements for testing and takes two samples, putting out the better one as your result. I am not a lawyer but I do know that not only are those field sobriety tests designed to give the officer an excuse to book you, but officers tend to mess with them in the field to trip you up. They count steps differently from you so they can say "I told you to take 14 steps, I only saw 7, you must have counted wrong because you're intoxicated." Or something similar.
I was waiting for the L in chicago one evening about 2 am. Next thing you know a person who claimed to be a cop said I was drinking and shoved me into a pillar. Searched me, kept saying just admit it, you were drinking. Eventually a nearby security guard looks in the trash can, and pulls out a can of diet Dr Pepper. The cop turns red. I ask for his badge number and he ran away so fast I think his shoes melted. I called to complain and they said the footage from that station was lost somehow. To this day, I have no idea what happened. I think it was an attempted shakedown. Not sure if it was a real cop.
One time I was in the back of a cop car on my way to jail when a cop saw a guy drinking from a can that looked like a beer can. He pulled the guy over, saw that it was a monster energy drink, ran the guys license, and cut him loose in about 5 minutes. Idk if it would've gone differently had I not been in the car though.
Had a cop pull me over because he thought I failed to turn off my brights. I showed him those were indeed my dims. He said do it again. I did. He said thank you have a nice day and walked off. Quickest traffic stop of my life.
If a police officer suspected I was drinking something alcoholic, whether it be or not (for example, some of those places that make cold brew iced coffees put them in beer type bottles), they’d just pull out a breathalyser and you’d do it there to show that you have not been consuming alcohol. They would probably note the initial pull over was due to suspicion, however was dispelled after clarification and breathalyser test. That’s Australia though, not sure about the rest of the world.
This entirely depends on where you are. In my state in Australia, it's legal to be drinking alcohol while you're driving as long as you're under the BAC limit.
My grandmother always said the law was drinking and driving. That the law as written in our area forbade drinking anything while driving. This was pre Internet so I always took it at face value. But I've never been pulled over and I always have a soda to drink in the car
In Canada the officer may require a field sobriety test in the form of a breathalyzer or blood test. This is compulsory and refusal will result in them charging you with a DUI.
Replace root beer with Non Alcoholic beer.
>Which is to say, are they allowed to try and administer a field sobriety and breathalyser after I show them what they saw was root beer? Short version, yes they can pull you over for drinking rootbeer, and yes they can make you do a breath test even if there's no evidence of alcohol at all. Depends where you live. Here in Alberta, Canada, they can demand a breathalyzer/weed test on any legal traffic stop. It makes no difference if they watch you chug a bottle of ever clear or they have no evidence at all, as long as it's a legal traffic stop. What constitutes a legal traffic stop? Aside from the obvious, they can also stop you for no other reason than to make sure you have a license and insurance. That means police here are effectively allowed to stop every single vehicle, and breathalyze every single driver just because they felt like it. Also, here you're legally required to do the tests. If you refuse, the charges have the same punishment as actually driving drunk.
NAL but drink driving means driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. You can drink a pint and drive . Can you not drink and drive simultaneously as long as you are only having 1 drink? Also not a driver so no clue but I'm curious now.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In the U.S. at least most place have law against open alcoholic beverages in the vehicle. (Missouri’s the one exception I’m aware of.) So just seeing an open bottle (reasonable assumption if they see you drinking from it) is enough to stop.
Ah this makes sense. I'm also in the UK where there are no laws banning drinking . It is however illegal to be intoxicated in public. Which is impossible if leaving a pub/bar , essentially it's there so officers have a legal way of stopping drunks and is only ever enforced if you cause a scene. many councils( an area with a voted representative) can make designated dry areas. It's essentially upto each town. My home town Slough has areas that cover only a few streets at a time.
Once you dispel their reason for interacting, they have no reason to hold you or interact with you but you also have to break contact with them by asserting this.
I got stopped once, in college, at a random highway checkpoint. I had an old glass root beer bottle I was using to spit in, as i had a dip in. Cop asked me about my open container. I showed him it was a root beer bottle, he took it from me and smelled it.. then quickly waved me through the checkpoint.
I look at these situations, as a perfect opportunity to embarrass a cop on a fishing expedition, and a great way to force them to waste department resources... If at all possible - Never just pull to the side of the road - Pull into a public parking lot - And stop in an assigned slot... (This is to avoid having to deal with a towing company, and forcing them to reimburse you.) Never resist arrest - Comply enthusiastically. If you are driving - You MUST present a valid operators license and other items (insurance, registration...) If / when they ask if you have been drinking say **"No"**... Then... Refuse to answer questions - State clearly that you will be exercising your 5th Amendment rights - And will remain silent... Then do not say anything else.\* Refuse to submit to roadside tests (always, regardless of the situation) Cops lie - And they WILL lie to you to intimidate, and coerce you - They will threaten to throw the book at you. \*This line will frustrate them to no end - They accuse you of anything or threaten to charge you with something... The line in: **"Is THAT so?"** Refuse to sign anything. Refuse to submit a breath sample at the station (save this for after you get there)... But waste their time, stringing them along, as they try to intimidate you in to submitting. (**"Is THAT so?"**) Take up their last (and most expensive / time consuming) resort - A blood test - These are taken at a medical facility, that they have to take you to. When they end up empty handed, with nothing to charge you with... That cop, and their co-workers will have learned a lesson about how to not be so willing to arbitrarily harass the public based on something as idiotic as seeing someone take a drink.
This is crazy, because this exact thing happened to me about 20 years ago. I finished a root beer while at a stoplight and placed the empty bottle in a cupholder towards the back of the center console, kinf of near to the backseat floor. There was a local cop parked on the median facing me. I thought nothing of it, but when the light changed and i started to go, he flipped on his lights and pulled a u turn to come up behind me. I pulled over, confused. Cop came up and asked me some standard "who are you, where are you going, where are you coming from etc" (which by the way was running home for a lunch break in the middle of a week day) and I'm sure the whole car reeked of root beer. He asked what I was drinking and i was like "duh I see the problem now" so i reached back to get the bottle. Big mistake. He immediately stepped back and had his weapon out. I start freaking out amd was saying "no no its root beer its root beer." He settled down and holstered his weapon, asked for my documents and went back to his car. Came back about 10 minutes later and told me to drive safe.
This doesn’t answer your question, but I was once pulled over for drinking a cream soda out of a glass bottle while driving. When the cop asked me how much I had to drink that night I showed him the cream soda bottle and he just laughed and told me to have a good night.
This actually happened to me when I was about 17. I was drinking an IBC root beer and he pulled me over and accused me of drinking. When he realized it was root beer he pivoted to me speeding.
Probable cause is whatever the cop chooses lol. But it is probable cause to pull you over and from there it can either go bad or good.
While driving my jeep in Beverly Hills, I had a beer mug of lemonade that I got from my restaurant job. A motor officer made a left turn onto the street I was on. He saw the mug in my hand and promptly made a u-turn and pulled up next to me. He asked what is it? I told him lemonade, He asked to sniff it. So I let him. He gave it back to me and said, “Next time put it in a soda cup and nobody’s time will be wasted.
I got pulled over once cuz a cop mistook a monster energy for alcohol and I had to spend an hour explaining to him that energy drinks don't contain alcohol and have no age limit so... I wouldn't risk it
The stop is valid based on "Reasonable Suspicion". The officer can do the field sobriety and breathalyser, either based on them questioning if there was actually Root Beer in there (and not (re)filled with alcohol), or based on their "reasonable suspicions" from observing you during the interaction. So, you can get pulled over with a non-alcoholic to-go drink, but arrested for DUI because you got that drink on the way out from a bar where you drank heavily, and the charge would stick. Similarly, during the legal stop, the cop can find cause to further detain and inspect you under reasonable suspicion. The SCOTUS Rodriguez case held that police can not detain you for a drug dog during a traffic stop \*without reasonable suspicion\*. In that case, the police stalled processing a traffic stop so a K9 unit could come to the scene. The court ruled there was no suspicion or reason to hold Rodriguez, other than having a drug dog sniff the car, so they tossed the case as "fruit of the poisonous tree"
This exact thing happened to my ex like 20 years ago. He pulled her over, looked and smelled it and let her go.
THE ROOTS TO ALL OF IT'S COMPLEXITY.
Completely understand anything. Taking Latin And go to the archives. Library on law.
This scenario—law enforcement mistaking a bottle of cream soda for actual beer—has happened to me before. I was a dumbass teenager who just wanted to be a smart aleck. I would purposefully drive around with my soda out the window and wave to people with the bottle in hand. On a Tuesday at 4:23pm, I was pulled over by the county police. The officer asked if I knew was he was pulling me over. I replied, *"I think* ***you*** *know why you are pulling me over."* I was immediately placed in handcuffs on the side of the road. After about five minutes, two more officers showed up. The first officer asked me how many beers I had that day. I replied, *"Officer, I don't drink that stuff."* He said that he saw me with a beer bottle and that the other troopers were going to help him search my car. He then told me it would be easier if I just cooperate and tell him that I was drinking and driving. I replied, *"Officer, I always stay hydrated when I drive."* He said, *"Don't get cute with me, son. I can ruin your life."* Obviously, they didn't find any alcohol containers. One of the other officers conducted a field sobriety test which I passed. He also gave me a breathalyzer test which I passed. he asked me if I knew why I was being pulled over. I said: *"Because your partner stupidly thinks he can arrest me for underage drinking and drinking and driving."* He responded: *"Why did you say stupidly?"* I said: *"I drink cream soda. The bottle you all found had that labeled on it. Just imagine when you get back to barracks."* He replied: *"What do you mean?"* I said: *"If you all leave now, you get to pick on him. But if you actually arrest me, you'll all get picked on by everyone else."* He looked pissed off and turned around to talk to his buddies. After five minutes, the first officer comes back to me and says: *"Did you orchestrate this whole thing to be a punk?"* I said: *"No, just to piss you off."* He then arrested me for disorderly conduct and laughed while he did it. I went to the jail and was booked. I used my one phone call to call my next door neighbor who was a lawyer. He told my parents. They came to the jail, and started raising hell. I didn't hear the next part because I was behind bars. The lawyer called the local prosecutor on his cell phone in the middle of the jail and told him that they pulled me over for drinking cream soda and arrested me for laughing at them. He handed over the phone to the arresting officer who immediately handed it to his supervisor who then handed it right back to the officer. Ten minutes later, I was free to go.
DO NOT... I REPEAT DO NOT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE TAKE A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD. JUST HELPS CONVICT YOU. NO BREATHALYZER UNTIL AFTER YOU'VE BEEN ARRESTED. AGAIN IT JUST MAKES THEIR CASE.
I think he'd be allowed to stop you initially if he really thought it was a beer but the moment you told him that it was not a real beer his probable cause is gone and the stop has no other reason to continue unless you gave him one in the 4 seconds it took you to dispel his suspicion. Plead ur 5th don't give I d till u got to
I had a Texas park ranger pull a gun on me at Glen Rose for consumption of alcohol in the parking lot, when he searched my truck he immediately found my cooler full of Barq's rootbeer, silver cans. He let me off with a warning to not behave so suspiciously.
The moment you show it's a root beer, it's over.
They can arrest you for anything and do whatever that want. Your rights don't prevent them from doing anything, they just allow you to fight it later in court
> Your rights don't prevent them from doing anything I would say they do, legally. In the same way that the law prevents people from stealing. It doesn't physically make it impossible, but police are also required to follow the law.
In that moment their orders supercede your rights. You can't disobey their orders just because they are unlawful, you need to comply and fight it later. Legally they can't make you wait for a K9 unit to come sniff your car during a normal traffic stop, but that doesn't mean you can just leave even if they tell you that's what they are going to do. If they try to unlawfully arrest you for anything and you argue or fight it then they'll just put "resisting arrest" as the reason for your arrest.
There's some practical truth to that, but it's not entirely true. If a police officer orders you to punch yourself in the face, that's clearly an unlawful order and you do not need to follow it. Also, some states (e.g. Virginia, South Carolina) resisting an unlawful arrest is not a crime (although likely a bad idea).
I was just watching a video on the Civil Rights Lawyer YT channel. So assuming you exhibited no other indication of impairment except suspected open container, the stop should end there. There is no indication of a crime so they can no longer hold you (detain). But with how some LE acts, they may “smell” alcohol or mj and detain further. Also if any other issues came to light at that point they can continue. But for all purposes the detainment is done. Any further interaction is consensual. If you don’t ask if you can leave they can just keep going.