Roadside breathalyzer is only preliminary testing and isn’t admissible in court, just request the blood test. Have them get a warrant first and then comply with the blood draw. They generally screw up the blood draw when they get the blood, testing procedures, chain of custody or some other way. They generally don’t take a second blood specimen and then have absolutely no evidence against you. Let the lawyer question everything starting with the validity of the initial stop.
Is this statement true or false? Permissible scope of a sobriety checkpoint Law enforcement officers are permitted to use nonintrusive methods in order to detect impaired driving during a checkpoint. Such methods may include observing the driver’s eyes, observing the driver’s clothing, engaging in conversation to determine if the driver emits an odor of alcohol or speech patterns indicative of impairment. Absent of reasonable suspicion, an officer MAY NOT order a driver out of his vehicle, order a driver to undergo field sobriety testing, or require the driver to submit to a portable breath test. Please note that even if reasonable suspicion of impaired driving is present, a person is never required to submit to field sobriety testing or a pre-arrest portable breath test. Read more here. Mar 25, 2020
Attorneys Dui Orlando will also advise his or her client to obey the decisions of the police and to be present when there is a court appearance necessary for the case.
Or always keep a sealed pint of your favorite liquor in your car in a paper bag. When you are pulled over, step out of your car with your bottle of booze, crack it open and chug it. Then throw the empty bottle back in the car and comply with all instruction to include all testing requests.
While it is unpleasant to be stopped at any checkpoint, various Supreme Court rulings have designated the fact that the need for assurance of public safety outweighs your 4th amendment right to be free from searches and seizures. As such, if the police are conducting a routine traffic investigation and are treating all cars equally and not profiling, they have the right to stop and inquire as to whether or not you have a valid license and registration.
mr.Payne ,why do we need a DRIVER LICENCE ? a driver is anyone who is conducting commerce in the highways,that is getting paid by an employeer,or is a self employee using the highways as a place of bussiness. if i'm going to get groceries,take my kids to school,going to video store to rent a movie,do i still need a driver licence?what happened to the HUMAN RIGHT TO TRAVEL?
I live in Yadkin County and was wondering if I have to give the police my drivers license when I go through one of these checkpoints. I know that I don't have to identify myself unless I am being committed of a crime, so do I HAVE to give them my ID, or can I just ask them "Am I free to go or am I being detained?" Thanks!
It is our routine practice to inform our clients that they certainly have the right to not answer questions by the police but they do have an obligation to comply with the traffic laws, one of which is to provide proof of license being requested by an officer. If the officer asks you why he stopped you, your response should be something like "I respectfully decline answering questions, but I would like to know why you stopped me." Good luck and hope this helps.
wow this is so bad!!!!!!you are the worst lawyer ever. you just told everybody to incriminate them self, also they need to stop every single person and ask for ID
Not so, LG. He strikes me that he is a pretty fine lawyer. And he's right. By the way having had a drink is not an offense. But denying having drunk anything when there are clues to the contrary is a guaranteed way to get lots more unwanted attention from the officer. If one has had a drink, the alcoholic beverage leaves an odor on the breath. Mouth wash, sprays, onions, garlic, mints, etc. can add more smells, but cannot fully disguise it. Admitting to having had a drink or two well prior to driving and where there is no sign of visible impairment result in nothing but some more conversation with the officer to confirm you're ok. Possibly the officer might want to double check your eyes. Red, watery, or bloodshot? Those are clue to possible impairment. Additionally, too much alcohol causes an involuntary twitching of the eyes called HGN -- "horizontal gaze nystagmus" when the eyes are moved in certain patterns. There is also vertical nystagmus, too, but that's not validated in alcohol impairment testing except at very high levels of blood alcohol. If one passes the HGN test and has no other signs of impairment, the driver is usually sent on his way without further day. As to which cars are stopped in a DUI checkpoint, the courts are unanimous that so long as the cars are not selected on an intentionally discriminatory manner (e.g., only African Americans, etc. drivers get stopped but all others are waved through) officers can stop every car, every other car, every second car, every third car, etc. I.e., any consistent pattern -- subject to any change in the pattern due to other circumstances. I've worked a lot of DUI checkpoints where we start out stopping and talking to every driver, but if traffic volume picks up, we usually get the order to check only every 3d car, and if it still gets too backed up, we are told to check only every 5th car , etc. in order to keep traffic moving through the checkpoint and avoid causing a massive traffic jam. We are not required to, and we almost NEVER check every single car, at least for very long.
What kind of advice are you giving us, if a cop says you can't record then we should document the unlawful order. Bologna, we have the absolute right to record the interaction and the camera is a witness that can't be argued. You're an attorney man, come on.
Why is it that we, as american citizens, have to rehearse the protocolto protect ourselves, when the police...the supposed 'law enforcement professionals' main goal is to protect us to begin with. It seems that their inquiry should be an INFORMED inquiry without infringing on our rights to begin with. At any point if they lie or misstate a law, they should be found at fault. Again, they are LAW ENFORCEMENT. They should KNOW THE LAW, and not LIE to ENTRAP someone.
no disrespect, but...did you actually just sayin gets a person incriminate themself by answering a question? What do morals have to do with law? Serious question.
Roadside breathalyzer is only preliminary testing and isn’t admissible in court, just request the blood test. Have them get a warrant first and then comply with the blood draw. They generally screw up the blood draw when they get the blood, testing procedures, chain of custody or some other way. They generally don’t take a second blood specimen and then have absolutely no evidence against you. Let the lawyer question everything starting with the validity of the initial stop.
Very clear
You explained it well. Thanks. You helped me a lot.
Is this statement true or false? Permissible scope of a sobriety checkpoint
Law enforcement officers are permitted to use nonintrusive methods in order to detect impaired driving during a checkpoint. Such methods may include observing the driver’s eyes, observing the driver’s clothing, engaging in conversation to determine if the driver emits an odor of alcohol or speech patterns indicative of impairment.
Absent of reasonable suspicion, an officer MAY NOT order a driver out of his vehicle, order a driver to undergo field sobriety testing, or require the driver to submit to a portable breath test. Please note that even if reasonable suspicion of impaired driving is present, a person is never required to submit to field sobriety testing or a pre-arrest portable breath test. Read more here. Mar 25, 2020
Attorneys Dui Orlando will also advise his or her client to obey the decisions of the police and to be present when there is a court appearance necessary for the case.
Or always keep a sealed pint of your favorite liquor in your car in a paper bag. When you are pulled over, step out of your car with your bottle of booze, crack it open and chug it. Then throw the empty bottle back in the car and comply with all instruction to include all testing requests.
While it is unpleasant to be stopped at any checkpoint, various Supreme Court rulings have designated the fact that the need for assurance of public safety outweighs your 4th amendment right to be free from searches and seizures. As such, if the police are conducting a routine traffic investigation and are treating all cars equally and not profiling, they have the right to stop and inquire as to whether or not you have a valid license and registration.
mr.Payne ,why do we need a DRIVER LICENCE ? a driver is anyone who is conducting commerce in the highways,that is getting paid by an employeer,or is a self employee using the highways as a place of bussiness. if i'm going to get groceries,take my kids to school,going to video store to rent a movie,do i still need a driver licence?what happened to the HUMAN RIGHT TO TRAVEL?
that made me LOL human right to travel. lol
Ha Haha Haha Haha Haha Haha Haha Haha Haha Haha Haha Haha
I live in Yadkin County and was wondering if I have to give the police my drivers license when I go through one of these checkpoints. I know that I don't have to identify myself unless I am being committed of a crime, so do I HAVE to give them my ID, or can I just ask them "Am I free to go or am I being detained?"
Thanks!
Thanks for this video, I have learned a lot and it's always fun.
It is our routine practice to inform our clients that they certainly have the right to not answer questions by the police but they do have an obligation to comply with the traffic laws, one of which is to provide proof of license being requested by an officer. If the officer asks you why he stopped you, your response should be something like "I respectfully decline answering questions, but I would like to know why you stopped me." Good luck and hope this helps.
wow this is so bad!!!!!!you are the worst lawyer ever. you just told everybody to incriminate them self, also they need to stop every single person and ask for ID
Not so, LG. He strikes me that he is a pretty fine lawyer. And he's right. By the way having had a drink is not an offense. But denying having drunk anything when there are clues to the contrary is a guaranteed way to get lots more unwanted attention from the officer. If one has had a drink, the alcoholic beverage leaves an odor on the breath. Mouth wash, sprays, onions, garlic, mints, etc. can add more smells, but cannot fully disguise it.
Admitting to having had a drink or two well prior to driving and where there is no sign of visible impairment result in nothing but some more conversation with the officer to confirm you're ok.
Possibly the officer might want to double check your eyes. Red, watery, or bloodshot? Those are clue to possible impairment. Additionally, too much alcohol causes an involuntary twitching of the eyes called HGN -- "horizontal gaze nystagmus" when the eyes are moved in certain patterns.
There is also vertical nystagmus, too, but that's not validated in alcohol impairment testing except at very high levels of blood alcohol.
If one passes the HGN test and has no other signs of impairment, the driver is usually sent on his way without further day.
As to which cars are stopped in a DUI checkpoint, the courts are unanimous that so long as the cars are not selected on an intentionally discriminatory manner (e.g., only African Americans, etc. drivers get stopped but all others are waved through) officers can stop every car, every other car, every second car, every third car, etc. I.e., any consistent pattern -- subject to any change in the pattern due to other circumstances. I've worked a lot of DUI checkpoints where we start out stopping and talking to every driver, but if traffic volume picks up, we usually get the order to check only every 3d car, and if it still gets too backed up, we are told to check only every 5th car , etc. in order to keep traffic moving through the checkpoint and avoid causing a massive traffic jam. We are not required to, and we almost NEVER check every single car, at least for very long.
What a great information.
my DWI was reduced to a speeding ticket
How
What kind of advice are you giving us, if a cop says you can't record then we should document the unlawful order. Bologna, we have the absolute right to record the interaction and the camera is a witness that can't be argued. You're an attorney man, come on.
Why is it that we, as american citizens, have to rehearse the protocolto protect ourselves, when the police...the supposed 'law enforcement professionals' main goal is to protect us to begin with. It seems that their inquiry should be an INFORMED inquiry without infringing on our rights to begin with. At any point if they lie or misstate a law, they should be found at fault. Again, they are LAW ENFORCEMENT. They should KNOW THE LAW, and not LIE to ENTRAP someone.
no disrespect, but...did you actually just sayin gets a person incriminate themself by answering a question? What do morals have to do with law? Serious question.