If a mayor 's daughter gets stopped for DUI and she refuses to take a sobriety test and her father, the mayor says on public tv, "oh, there has been a mistake"; do you think she should get charged and will be charged just like everyone else gets a charged for not taking the Sobriety test? It happened today.
2006-08-01 18:03:20 · 10 answers · asked by msflightatt 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
It's called the implied consent law. When you get your driver's license from DMV, you are giving your consent to submit to the breathalizer test. If you refuse, that is an additional charge. You can still be charged with DUI based on the officer's testimony.
2006-08-01 19:43:06 · answer #1 · answered by Family Guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-12 08:54:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The daughter in this case is 17 years old. In Texas, which is where this occurred, a minor may not have ANY detectable amount of alcohol and operate a vehicle. If they do, they can be charged with DWI. A minor for this purpose is anyone under the legal drinking age of 21. Whether she was impaired and passed or failed a field sobriety task is a non-issue because she did not have to be "drunk" in order to be arrested and charged. Also, the fact that she refused to submit to a breath test is not a problem, if you can smell it on their breath, it's detectable.
Yes, she should be charged and she has been charged. Politics may play a big role in whether or not the charged later gets dismissed.
As far as refusing to provide a breath sample: There is no criminal charge for refusing, but the driver's license gets suspended for a longer period of time than if she provided a sample and failed.
2006-08-01 19:07:29 · answer #3 · answered by jkc6229 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes she should be charged.
It's not illegal to refuse to take a field sobriety test, that's your right. However, that refusal is admissable as evidence in court. That admission has been tested over and over again and has been found to be admissable.
Denying a field sobriety test on the grounds of self-incrimination does not fly.
From one such test in the Washington state court system:
230 CITY OF SEATTLE v. STALSBROTEN June 1999
138 Wn.2d 227
DURHAM, J. - This case presents the question of whether it is constitutionally permissible for a trial court to admit evidence that a drunk driving defendant refused to perform field sobriety tests. Specifically, we must determine whether admitting such evidence violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Because we conclude that a defendant's refusal to perform a field sobriety test (FST) is nontestimonial evidence that is not compelled by the State, we hold that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit admitting such refusal evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that admitting evidence of Stalsbroten's refusal to perform an FST violated his right against self-incrimination. Finding no constitutional error in the trial court's admission of this evidence, we affirm Stalsbroten's conviction for drunk driving.
It's different to refuse the sobriety test ( BAC) at the police station. In most jurisdictions, that refusal is an offense.
Either way, refusing a field or station sobriety test is a bad idea.
Some people try to buy time by requesting a lawyer before they submit to the test at the station. People operate under the assumption that police departments are obligated to find a lawyer for you. Not so, they are required to give you the opportunity to CALL an attorney but if you can't reach one, that is your issue not theirs. At that point the decision is to either take the test and risk prosecution or not take the test and risk your license.
2006-08-01 18:33:41 · answer #4 · answered by sarhibar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually a person who fails FST's (field sobriety tests) will be arrested, the Breathalyzer is sort of the icing on the cake. If they don't take it, a warrant can be issued for blood/alcohol if the city has a really aggressive campaign against drinking and driving the DA can have a warrant issued pretty quickly.
2006-08-01 18:30:31 · answer #5 · answered by Rebecca - 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my part of California, we don't accept a refusal. For misdemeanor and felony DUIs we force a blood draw, without a warrant. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court due to the exigent circumstances that the evidence (Blood Alcohol Concentration) will be destroyed. But the refusal will be noted as it is an enhancement on both the criminal and civil (DMV) penalties.
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE
2006-08-02 00:50:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
She did right by not taking the sobriety test, a person should NEVER take a sobriety test, unless they have not been drinking- that way they (the police) have no proof.
She might not get charged, it most likely just depends on her conduct with the police.
2006-08-01 18:09:11 · answer #7 · answered by playdoh1986 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In NY you will be suspended if you refuse to take the breathalyzer. If you refuse the alco-sensor in the field, it's another ticket on top of what they already have.
She (the girl in the question) should definitely be charged...depends, though, on what you mean by "the sobriety test"...do you mean the FST? the alco-sensor? the datamaster?
2006-08-01 18:51:35 · answer #8 · answered by fieonthee183 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well she has the right to refuse a field sobriety test. but the police can also arrest her for that. but the rest of it is just how the world works. rich people get away with everything and poor people get the shaft. if anything, she might get community service and probation. it's not right but rich people can buy their way out of just about anything. especially rich people who's father runs the city.
2006-08-01 18:18:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
she should be charged, but since its the mayors daughter then she probably wont
2006-08-02 02:43:51 · answer #10 · answered by mike g 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋