Is This Justice?

A friend of mine was charged with DUI.

When the officer asked him to submit to the Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), he refused.  In fact, he refused all the tests.  He was arrested within forty-five seconds of being pulled over.  (After his case is concluded, I’ll ask him for permission to post the video on my website.)  He didn’t do the one leg stand, the walk and turn, or the HGN test at all!  This really stymied the officer!  On the video you can hear the officer ask another officer and then a second officer what he should do!  When the arresting officer asks the second officer what he should do, he changes the facts of his observation!

The first officer asked him what his observations were, and the arresting officer said he did not see him get out of the vehicle.  The first officer then instructed him to ask someone else… so the arresting officer called another officer and told him that when my friend got out of the vehicle, he stumbled.  With this information the second officer directed him to arrest.

So, he’s pulled over and arrested, right. the question then is why?  Did the officer actually suspect DUI for a reason, or was it because he saw him leave a bar?  What was the basis for suspecting and arresting him for DUI?

The reason for the original stop was an “illegal lane change.”  He made a u-turn and supposedly turned into the wrong lane.   The video in the case does not support the allegation of the officer, but there is a good distance between the officer and his car when he makes the turn.

At the Driver’s License Division, they found that the basis was solely the odor of alcohol.  This seemed outrageous to me, so we appealed to the District Court because we could not imagine that a judge would deny someone’s privilege to drive simply based on the odor of alcohol.  I reasoned that the judge wouldn’t do this because it is not illegal to operate a vehicle after you have consumed alcohol…. It only becomes illegal if you are 1) over the legal limit of .08 ,or 2) incapable of operating the vehicle safely.

In addition to refusing the SFSTs, my friend also refused to submit to a chemical test. Because they requested the breath test so there was no way to determine whether he was over the legal limit.

Unfortunately, at the driver’s license hearing, the Department of Public Safety, hearing officer, only needs to conclude that the arresting officer “reasonably suspected” that the person was operating the vehicle in violation of the DUI code or the DUI metabolite code.  This standard is hardly difficult to prove.

The judge reviewed the evidence for approximately thirty-seconds before he sustained the previous decision.  My friend’s license is suspended for eighteen-months and he will likely NOT be convicted of DUI because they don’t have the evidence to convict him!

This is the frustration of living in a society that is easily manipulated by statistics and lobbying!