General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bodycam footage of Atlanta shooting of Rayshard Brooks [View all]Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The state where I live does not allow a preliminary breath test as evidence in a criminal trial. It would not be sufficient alone to provide probable cause to arrest for DUI. That test, coupled with indications of impairment would be sufficient for arrest only. A breath test at the station, would be required for evidence in a criminal trial. A blood test is used if there is a breath test refusal at the station, or just because the officer prefers a blood test (warrant required) where I live. A preliminary breath test would not be sufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not considered reliable under the rules of evidence.
Had you read my response you would have seen that I was not suggesting that "we have to do it this way," but certainly as an attorney you would realize that changing procedures does require a consideration of the current statutes and other legal authority currently in place.
I was not suggesting bringing additional police on scene. Had you thoroughly read my response, I was talking about an independent citizen who would be a monitor to perhaps put the mind of the driver at ease. Just a suggestion.
"Hauling them off" to the police station is required to complete the DUI process in most states. And, there are consequences to driving drunk. Arrest is a deterrent, provides an opportunity to gather the evidence needed to prosecute, and provides community safety while the drunk driver has time to sober up.
"I know you lawyers can, with ease, twist words and meanings as you please." ~ John Gay
Source: https://proverbicals.com/lawyers
Have a good day.