I may have this wrong about the Rayshard Brooks shooting in Atlanta

[LiberalFighter]

The police officer used this test and from what I viewed on video it appeared the officer went beyond the testing requirements. And in my opinion was testing until he got the desired result.

And then there is this.
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test: Faulty Science in DUI Investigations and the American Courts?

[Hoyt]

1. While not a capital offense, the Breathalyzer did him in.

[Nevilledog]

2. They use a portable breath tester (PBT) at the scene to get probable cause.

That result is not admissible in court. However, its reading can give the officer reason to suspect DUI and require the person to go to the station and be tested by an intoxilyzor and/or give a blood sample for lab analysis.


The PBT results are not admissible because the units do have have sufficient reliability. They are used solely to detect the presence of alcohol and used to support probable cause for arrest.

[Hoyt]

4. Autopsy also included a blood alcohol that was reported. In any event, the Breathalyzer got him.

Again, DUI -- with a relatively low .108 -- is not a capital offense.

[Nevilledog]

7. Guess I think the BAC is irrelevant.

Cops didn't know it before they killed him.

And of course a DUI is not a capitol offense.

[Hoyt]

8. BAC is irrelevant, except it supports failing the breathalyzer.

I'm sure you and I would have let him walk home. Unfortunately, police nowadays would incur the wrath of Mom's Against Drunk Driving. Police just don't do that much, anymore, at least in a large city.

[Nevilledog]

9. Agreed.

[jayfish]

16. It's Been A While Since I Trained For This But;...

a field sobriety test is used to justify a PBT which is used to justify a hospital blood, breath or urine test. The OP has a good point.

[Nevilledog]

20. They don't have to follow that progression.

People refuse to take tests or perform FSTs all the time. When that happens the cop will base his probable cause to arrest by noting the odor of alcohol, bad driving, slurring of words, etc.

If people refuse to take an actual breath test the cops just call you a judge and get a telephonic search warrant to take the person's blood.

Probable cause is a low threshold. It's just "more likely than not". Lots of cops do not even have PBTs and some that do don't use them all the time.

[jayfish]

23. Right, But You have To Refuse The FST/PBT First.

Also, I hope a cop tin 2020 wouldn't testify that they "smelled" alcohol.

[Nevilledog]

24. You do not have to refuse them first.

It is totally the cop's discretion which steps he takes before arresting someone for suspicion of DUI. Obviously, the better the case for probable cause the less likely it would be challenged in court.

There is no legal requirement for a cop to give FSTs or a PBT. Some people can't do FSTs for physical reasons, that refusal does not give rise to probable cause nor does it grant some privilege to then ask for a PBT.

Think of when there's an alcohol related accident. The driver is transported from the scene. That person obviously didn't do FSTs or a PBT. The cop then makes a request for a sample of blood drawn at the hospital, so long as it was drawn for a medical purpose. If a blood draw was not part of their treatment, a telephonic warrant to have blood drawn is needed.

A very small percentage of cases I handled actually had PBT readings. It's just an option to shore up probable cause.

Also consider that PBTs do not test for the presence of drugs. In a DUI drugs only case the PBT would show zero alcohol and the cop would have to rely on the behavior he witnessed and why his training led him to believe the driver was impaired. If the officer concluded he had probable cause he would ask the suspect for a blood sample and if they refused, get a telephonic warrant for the draw.

As to testifying about the odor of alcohol..... I've never handled a DUI based on alcohol where the cop said he DIDN'T smell alcohol. Saying there was an odor of alcohol is a gimme. There's no way you can go back and prove there was NO odor of alcohol. It's just like cops saying they smelled marijuana. Gives them reason to search a car. If you have nothing, no harm, no foul to a cop. If they find something it "proves" they were right.

(Kinda off topic: for a DUI drugs they don't even have to prove impairment. Just that a metabolite of the drug was in your system at the time you drove or were in actual physical control of the vehicle)

[soothsayer]

3. He's in a private parking lot, not on the street

He’s not driving. The bad cop baits him into driving by telling him to drive his car “over there” and park so he can sleep.

NOW he’s broken the law.

I hate that crap.

[cwydro]

5. Yes, he could have gotten out of that DUI. A friend of mine was nabbed in a similar situation.

Not driving, but behind the wheel.

He was acquitted. The cop never even showed up to testify, which was the funny thing.

[PTWB]

17. Look up actual physical control.

The cop not showing up was what got your friend acquitted, not his lack of guilt.

If you’re behind the wheel it is just as illegal to be passed out drunk, or parked in a lot or on the street, as it is to be weaving from lane to lane on the highway.

[cwydro]

26. Well, there were three conditions the attorney used to acquit my friend.

He would have got out of it even if the dumbass showed up.

But of course, he had the money to pay for a top notch attorney.

[PTWB]

14. That isn't how DUI law works.

You can be passed out drunk in the drive through of a Wendy’s and be just as guilty of DUI as if you were weaving from lane to one on the highway.

Look up “actual physical control” and how it applies in DUI cases where folks are found parked but drunk.

This in no way excuses the cop for their murderous actions, but I do think it is important we get the facts straight when we discuss these situations.

You’ve posted this same line in other threads, been corrected and yet continue posting it. Are you intentionally trying to mislead people or did you just miss it before?

[delisen]

15. Read GA law on DUI. State laws differ

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Here In Illinois...

...you can get DUI for being parked but keys in the ignition.
If you're sleeping to get straight, better have keys in your pocket.
We know a woman that this happened to in a club parking lot.
After about a week, they decided to drop charges, but she was sweating it. She paid a fine for something minor. Of course, she didn't have much money, so the fine stung.

[avebury]

6. Being drunk is not a death penalty offense.

I bet that, if he had been white, they would have let him lock up the car and either walk home or call someone to pick him up.

[Hoyt]

10. Agree, it's not a capital offense. But since Mom's Against Drunk Driving, police don't let people

go very often.

Just look at this list of influential politicians nailed for DUI:

https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/politicians-arrested-for-drunk-driving/

[SoonerPride]

12. Being drunk is not a death penalty offense.

Being black is.

Welcome to Amerikkka.

[soothsayer]

13. Was not on a road. Was not driving

Until duped into doing so by cop.

Drunk in public, sure, if you need to hassle the guy after 40 peaceful and polite minutes.

[PTWB]

21. That's not how DUI works. You've been told numerous times.

[cigsandcoffee]

19. They did, actually. They told him to go take a nap. n/t

[arthritisR_US]

11. My daughter and me thought the same.

[cigsandcoffee]

18. What makes me really sad about this is that the cop initially let him go

I'm not a big fan of letting drunk drivers go free, but was amazed to see in the video that the cop told Mr. Brooks to go take a nap somewhere - and then Mr. Brooks immediately went back to sleep in his car in the drive through lane, which led to a continuation of the incident, and eventually a very unfortunate outcome.

If he'd just pulled in to a spot, he'd still be alive today. One split second little thing and it all would have been different.

[quickesst]

22. what they should do....

.... is take the breathalyzer test first. If the person registers over the legal limit, it's a done deal. If however the person does not register over the legal limit but is within a certain parameter, say .06 or .07 they could, at their discretion do a field sobriety test to determine the person's ability to drive as a precaution. If the field sobriety tests are accomplished successfully a person should be able to drive away. My point is, if the breathalyzer determines guilt, even if the person passes the field sobriety test, then the breathalyzer should be given first and any field sobriety test should be based on the result of the breathalyzer test.

Of course this should apply only to decent human beings who happen to be policemen, and not to racist pieces of shit looking for an excuse to kill a black man.

[Nevilledog]

25. Don't confuse a breathalyzer with what was used here.

A PBT result is not admissible in court and it often unreliable. It is only used to support probable cause to arrest.

[quickesst]

27. okay

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Nevilledog]

28. You're welcome.