Australian here.
I been watching a lot of police body cam videos and I noticed that the police always conduct a field sobriety test.
In Australia if the police suspect you are driving under the influence of alcohol then they can conduct a test using a breatherliser machine on the scene. This to me seems like a easier and more accurate test.
Why does American police not use these machines on the scene?
Comments
They do.
They definitely use them, but they’re not admissible in court. They are used to indicate that yes, they need to bring you to the station to give you a real one.
They do, but the field test is considered more reliable to establish probable cause. Can’t argue your legs weren’t calibrated properly or expired or whatever.
I’m not a lawyer, but what I gather from the many other times that this has been asked is that A) they do use breathalyzers, but they legally need greater probable cause to do so than they do with a field sobriety test, and/or B) they are testing for more than just alcohol.
They do.
Breathalyzers also don’t test for all types of intoxication.
They do. The police breathalyze pretty much everyone they suspect of drunk driving. I don’t know why they don’t show it on whatever you’re watching.
They do a field test first then a breathalyzer.
Field sobriety tests are funnier and are shared a lot online.
Doing a breathalyzer test does not make for interesting videos.
You need probable cause to compel somebody to use a breathalyzer. So the field sobriety test is used to establish said probable cause (or show that the driver is not in need of a real test).
We definitely use breathalyzers. But they aren’t a perfect tool and their administration use and validity can be challenged in court. So they also do field sobriety tests to build a better case proving you are drunk. They’ll also often do a blood ethanol test for people who are severely intoxicated or were involved in a major accident.
They do. The FBS is performed to establish probable cause (that you were drunk so they can ask for a breathalyzer with zero doubt) so that the case is airtight. If they refuse, they are requested to do a breathalyzer. If they refuse that, in most states they are automatically arrested and have a mandatory minimum loss of their license. In some states, they have the power to take you to a hospital and have your blood drawn against your will if you refuse a breath test and FBS, with you strapped to a hospital bed if necessary.
So the FBS is just about establishing evidence against you. Though some states/agencies/individual policemen will simply cut to the chase with the breath test.
Breathalyzers aren’t perfect. I used to vape. I got pulled over once leaving a bar (I don’t drink) and had to breathalyze. I think it was a random stop. Anyway, I blew a 0.2. With my low tolerance, a 0.2 would probably kill me. Cop made me do a field sobriety test, which I presumably passed. During the time I was outside of my car, I guess the vape residue or whatever left my mouth. When I retested after the field sobriety test, I came back as 0. The cop said his device must have been malfunctioning. But when I used a breathalyzer from a friend at a party when I actually did have a couple drinks, the same thing happened. Sky high. But it shouldn’t have been that high.
because police can easily say you failed a field test for what ever reason they want and arrest you because they feel like it and don’t want some test to say they can’t
They do all the time
So in my experience, they use protavle breath testing devices to determine the presence of alcohol for probable cause to arrest. A full intoxilizer will be used for a breath alcohol concentration reading. Most agencies near me use law enforcement phlebotomists to get a blood sample which is analyzed via gas chromatography mass spectrometry to give a blood alcohol concentration or confirm the presence of drugs in the blood.
The 4 certified Field sobriety tests are considered the best validated way to measure for impairment on the roadside.
This question gets asked a lot. The answer is always “they do”.
They do. They just need probable cause to do so.
Laws vary by state, police procedures vary by city
They do, but there’s a hidden purpose to field sobriety tests.
Being generous – they can look for signs of impairment for causes other than alcohol (medication, drowsiness, illicit drugs, mental instability, etc…)
Being less generous – a field sobriety test can be used to arrest just about any driver after dark on the basis that they are “impaired”, but the officer doesn’t know how. Once arrested the person can admit to having one beer and driving (which is legal) but under the circumstances could constitute a DUI. Alternatively, these sorts of tests can be used to prompt an illegal search of someone’s car.
[edit also the field sobriety test tends to be much more dramatic than blowing in a tube which is why the body cam footage gets passed around.
Unless you’re watching raw body cam footage (like you work at a law firm or as part of civilian oversight) there’s a very good chance you’re getting a skewed picture of things.]
What makes you think that they don’t?
They do, with variation between states and jurisdictions. Different places have probable cause requirements, and not every state has implied consent.
The breathalyzer was invented in the US. It’s reasonable to assume we’d use them.
You should understand that breathalyzers only test for alcohol.
People do indeed drive while on other drugs.
Why is it that so many of you can’t come to this conclusion yourselves?