If you are an owner, even in part, you need to do due diligence to ensure that your property is not being used for criminal activity, or risk losing it.

C’mon Radley, that wasn’t quite accurate was it. And I think it’d ridiculous that a car should be immune simply because it’s jointly owned. Fine, if you insist on that then have a fine equal to the assessed value of the car. Sorted.

Because of snarling attack ads in elections accusing the incumbent of being soft on drunk drivers.

But we’re now taking a car because the driver was drunk? That’s not ill-gotten property. At what point do we stop? Seriously. Forfeit the car because you’re speeding?

The point isn’t to get the FSTs video’d. The point is to give yourself room to argue later that there was no refusal to take FSTs. Rather, there was consent with a reasonable condition attached.

Will this argument win in court? Maybe. Maybe not. However, it is better than: (i) taking unrecorded FSTs; and/or (ii) straight up refusing.

FST’s are conducted to gather evidence against a suspect, not to decide whether or not to arrest the suspect. According to the lawyer who writes duiblog, a cop decides whether to arrest or not at the driver’s window, not after doing FST’s. As for videotaping them, IMHO no cop is going to do that willingly when he can just say whatever he wants to say on the arrest report, knowing that if there is a dispute, his testimony will win out 99% of the time. So if you are asked to do FST’s, I am not a lawyer, but I have read that you should politely refuse to do them unless there is some penalty for refusal.

That’s a good point. Out in Raleigh they don’t do videos for the field test.
I asked why. The answer?? Too many cops were getting in trouble for protocol violations. That’s a good reason to discontinue a practice that
would make it easy to discriminate impaired vs non-impaired drivers, aint it?

This is why it is important to refuse a PBT by saying the magic words:

“I consent to blood, non-portable breath and/or urine. That is the extent of my consent.”

What would otherwise look like consciousness of guilt now becomes consciousness of innocence.

Another good one is:

“My consent to perform FSTs is conditional upon the performance being video recorded.”

Of course, this knind of stuff works only if you have not been drinkin’.

http://stockerlawfirm.com/DUI_CRIMINAL_PENALTIES

This site (see footnote IV) seems to indicate that you can refuse a PBT in WA, but not a Bench Breath.

The company uses electric-powered carts and operates on voluntary gratuity payments…which people are evidently eager to give because the service is good. As a result the company is also not subject to the city’s complex taxi cab licensing bureaucracy & associated rate regulations. Now the city is furious and they’re trying to force Ibarra out of business by digging up a novel interpretation of a 100 year old jitney law.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2009_4772819

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6783572.html

In 2002 a couple of cops from the Harris County, Texas Sheriff’s Office roughed up two brothers, Erik and Sean Ibarra, then arrested them on false charges for the non-crime of videotaping a drug raid on a neighbor’s house. The criminal charges got thrown out and the Ibarra brothers filed a civil suit in state court. Their attorney offered to settle the suit for $50,000 and a simple apology from the deputies involved. But the sheriff and the county attorney dug in their heals and decided to fight the suit out in court. Part of the county’s strategy was to appeal the suit to federal court where they mistakenly thought they would have an easier time getting it dismissed. The results were finalized yesterday. Here is a short list of all the costs they racked up in the process:

- The verdict ended up costing the county (i.e. taxpayers) almost $4 million total.
- Two assistant county attorneys were found guilty of coaching witnesses during the case.
- The lawsuit inadvertently exposed a sex scandal from email records turned over during discovery, forcing the resignation of the District Attorney. The emails showed him engaged in an extramarital affair, as well as sending racist and sexually explicit material on county computers.
- The lawsuit became political fodder in the 2008 elections, where both the incumbent Sheriff and incumbent County Attorney were given the boot by voters.
- The Sheriff’s office is now being monitored by the USDOJ’s Civil Rights division.

And to think…all of that could have been avoided had they taken the initial deal of $50,000 and an apology. At least in this case, the thick blue wall of silence backfired. Big time.

Police like to make everything into a “training” issue. Training is not the big issue. Integrity is.

The trick that they’re employing is to turn illegal activity into administrative issues rather than criminal law issues. That way, rather than charging the officer with a crime, they get to simply mete out some faux punishment (suspension with pay, etc.) and he gets no criminal record.

Everything would change if we (society) would collectively grow a pair and properly punish *all* crimes, including those committed by on-duty law enforcement officers. That includes the “aiding and abetting”, too.

Has tere really been a case in georgia where the suspect refused some tests (eg, PBT), but not others (eg, bench breath)?

I would love to have a cite if you know of such a case.

Off topic but good news nonetheless: Cheye Calvo’s lawsuit against the PG county police is moving forward. Bastards are still stonewalling on releasing the police report of the home invasion.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/ruben-castaneda/judge-rules-suit-vs-pr-georges.html

I practice law in GA which is about middle of the road compared to other states’ dui laws. Automatic license suspension if you are arrested but at least in Altanta you can get the cop to withdraw the initial suspension if your client agrees to plead guilty. First offense in the last 5 years means you can get a temporary permit for work, then get full license back after 4 months. Interlock only for repeat offenders. You have the right to a jury trial (unlike some other states). No forced blood draws (yet?). 4th DUI in 10 years is a felony. Portable breath test is admissible in court only for presence/absence of alcohol. Intoxilyzer of .08 or above = automatic guilt and it is up to you to refute a machine you cannot cross-examine. Refusal of any/all tests is admissible against you and can be viewed as evidence of intoxication.

http://www.jasonetaylor.com/dwi_dui.cfm

http://www.totaldui.com/news/articles/breathalyzer/breathalyzer-refusal.aspx

One thing I find missing is to refuse Field Sobriety Tests (FST). All good lawyers will tell you to refuse a FST as they are usually not what is going to convict you, but are going to be extra ammunition for the clown suited thug in court.