He was telling you the truth.  If he had PC to believe you were intoxicated he could arrest you.  Intoxication includes alcohol, a controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug or any combination.

Word. Bomb the SFSTs, and you are likely going to jail absent an issue like a diabetic episode...(hopefully that gets figured out before SFSTs lol)

Which is very true but sucks because there are a lot of people, myself included due to other health issues can't pass SFSTs stone cold sober.  I've never been arrested for DUI, but I've been advised by counsel that I should always refuse to take SFST because there is usually nothing to be gained from them.  It was his opinion that if they ask you to take SFST they've pretty much already decided they are going to arrest you anyway.

At my department, we make a habit of asking about medical/physical limitations before conducting SFSTs. Between the three standard and a few alternative tests, we can usually gather enough information to make a solid decision. Refusing SFSTs is certainly an option for anyone. That may have been the lawyer's opinion, but I can honestly say I release more people after SFSTs than I arrest.

I'm 100% fine legalizing pot, but I'd rather have it done on a federal level. I just got back from visiting friends in Colorado and they were saying that they have had a huge influx of homeless from surrounding states flocking to colorado because of the laws. I really don't want to attract all the trash from LA, NM, and AR.

Same here....  If you have medical issues such as natural nystagmus, ect I would recommend getting a letter from your Dr and keeping it in the vehicle.  All criminal attorneys will tell you to refuse SFST's, even if your sober because they know you WILL be arrested and you'll be back paying them $5-10K on a DWI 1st to represent you.....  

Why would you need representation for a DWI if you're sober?

Read softwarejanitor's post...  

And why did you edit out my post?

Because even though you are not legally required to submit to SFSTs or answer any questions, nor can such refusals legally be considered probable cause, many LEOs will be so pissed off by lack of "cooperation" that they will arrest even with little to no evidence to back up DUI charges.  LEOs are given extremely wide latitude to arrest and let the courts figure it out and there's basically no repercussions for them if they make a questionable arrest.  Even if a defendant blows 0.0 on the breathalyzer and a blood draw shows nothing many DAs will still file and they can often still get a conviction because the courts will generally assume that anyone arrested is guilty until proven innocent.

If you go to jail for anything but traffic warrants, getting a lawyer is a pretty good idea.

I agree about needing representation if your locked up for doing something illegal. But why would there be any further need for detainment if the person is found sober after a breathalyzer and/or blood test?

Not that I would want to put myself in a situation that my sobriety is questioned but....
If I were driving home after a long day at work and get pulled over, I'm probably already limping from working in friggin dress shoes all day. I know that there's no way I could pass a field sobriety test. So if I pass a breathalyzer and gave no other clues of being impaired, would there really be any need to escalate things?

Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to call anyone out, just want to understand what the process is.

Got a few contact highs at the Summit.  Could not see across so much smoke.  Never smoked it .  We will still have drug testing even if it is legal and besides I'm too old at 55 to be a stoner, Willie Nelson can cut my slack.

LONE STAR beer for the win.

There shouldn't be.  Things don't always work the way they are supposed to.  Innocent people are arrested, charged and convicted all the time on circumstantial or basically no evidence at all.  Having a good attorney should dramatically reduce the likelihood of that happening.



Again, shouldn't be, but you never know when you are going to run into the wrong person on the wrong day or something like that.



It certainly will vary depending on where you are.  It isn't worth spending a lot of time worrying about because hopefully problems like we are talking about are rare...  and if they happen there probably isn't much you can do about it anyway.

Intoxilyzer will not register anything but alcohol. Blood tests take weeks/months to see the results.

For one, you probably are not giving yourself enough credit on the SFSTs. I have done countless batteries on people that have been dancing their ass off in dress shoes or heels that have passed the SFSTs. Besides, by the time we do walk and turn, I would have already administered HGN, which is generally more telling and reliable.

To break this down a bit, understanding the typical process may help. Vehicle in motion: Traffic stop after violation/erratic driving/other motorist calls in. Personal contact: observations such as red, glassy eyes, slurred speech, clumsy handling of documents, open containers/drug paraphernalia, admissions to drinking/drugs, alcohol on breath, vomit/urine, lost, medical conditions etc. Decision to arrest: SFST battery. Taking all factors into consideration, the person is either placed in custody or released (in regards to DWI). It is only after arrest that a breathalyzer or blood test is administered, which means the officer already had probable cause to make the arrest by the time the cuffs go on. Anything after that is just evidence collection. I have heard of some agencies that do pre-arrest PBTs, but we do not as they are not admissible in court, and it calls into question of why we bother with SFSTs at all.

Never do a SFST, never blow.

Quoted for truth.

Until we have open carry, shall-sign NFA, and get rid of the "affirmative defense" NFA crap I don't give a fuck about pot.

Great news!

House Bill 2165 passed 5-2.

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-House-committee-approves-full-legalization-6247225.php

http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2015/05/06/texas-house-committee-approves-bill-to-make-marijuana-legal-for-.html

Seriously blows my mind the idea of locking someone in the dungeon for a plant.