In Ohio, (not sure how it is in other states), a LEO can search anthing within reach of the driver...That would mean that the glove box is legal, but the truck bed is not.

Tim C.

 

Hey Josiah.. that's a bummer.. sorry to tell you.. but most of these people are blowing smoke out there azz.. they may be right in some sense, but every state has different laws in regards to DUI.. btw.. drunk driving and DUI aren't exactly the same thing.

In your case, you're from California, so from the looks of it, you're pretty much screwed in your scenario you've laid out. California has something called "implied consent"..
California's implied consent law states that any person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purposes of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for a DUI. Thus, you agree to be subjected to breath or blood testing simply by driving.

I could really get into this, but I think it would be best if you and the others read into it a little bit more.. few things worth mentioning though.. they don't need a warrant to test your BAC, blood or breath.. you refused both FST and Breath test.. they saw open/empty containers inside your vehicle.. regardless, you were arrested for DUI, not necesarilly drunk driving.. also, a lot of you are throwing out the words probable cause, they dont need probable cause to have him take a breath test if he was arrested for DUI.. the only probable cause they need is to make the DUI arrest, In regard to probable cause if someone refuses to submit to a sobriety test or chemical test and also displays drunken behavior the officer may also arrest.

That being said.. technically you can refuse chemical testing.. but the consequences are as you have already stated.. 48 hours jail time, and a 1 year liscense suspension for the first offense

On the other hand, you do have the right to refuse chemical testing prior to your DUI arrest, but all it takes for the "arrest" to be declared is for them to so say you're under arrest, read your miranda rights and etc.. after that point, if you refused to take the test, then you're kinda screwed..

I know it sucks.. but that's just how it is.. all things considered, it could have been a lot worse
here's some online literature to read up on regarding your states laws..

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...alifornia.html
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...t-lawyers.html
http://www.wedodui.com/Practice_Area..._Refusals.aspx
http://www.california-criminal-lawyer.com/FAQ.html

 

Ohio has "implied consent", as well. By signing your driver's license, you are agreeing to consent down the road for a BAC or blood draw. Get a lawyer pronto.

TSC

 

Basically same situation up here. Hence my "admission of guilt" comment.

 

Sorry to hear about your troubles man... My one and only DUI came many moons ago when things were a lot more 'lax' about it both on the public side and the law side.. But, they had the same deal about blowing or not...

Blow, and if you were under, they send you on your way (from the police station, as they didn't have the pocket testers like today)... Over the limit and they arrest you and a 90 day suspended license. Refuse to blow, then an AUTOMATIC 1 year suspension and they take your blood and even if you come in below on the BAC, you still lost your license for a year!!

I was drunk as a skunk when I got pulled over, so I blew and was way over and got my 90 day suspended license and went to court, paid the greatly reduced fine and since it was my first offense, I got to take a 'diversion' class and if I didn't get another DUI for another year, then it was taken off my record... That was 23 some odd years ago...

If it was me today, I would have blown and taken my chances if I knew I was 'close'... 90 days is a lot less then a year, no matter what the outcome would be....

Now, you are screwed for a year regardless of how your BAC comes back, right?

Sucks you got hassled the way you did, but I guess that's what the cops do now a days.... On the consent to search part, I don't know, because I've never been in that situation, but I figure if you don't have anything to hide, then let 'em look... Sucks, but what else can you say at that moment?? If you are hiding something, they are going to find it anyway, so no difference really...

IMO, you can go the whole legal route with lawyers and all and claim all your right this, and right that, but that's gonna cost $$ and take longer to resolve in the long run...

If your BAC comes back as under, then you won't have to deal with a DUI, but I'll bet you still have a suspended license for the year... If it comes back as over, then you deal with that and still have no license for a year....

It's all moot anyway, as you did what you did so no going back now!

Good luck with it all and hope it all works out for you.

Mitch

 

You should have said "Because this is America, and I have done nothing wrong, and if you don't even smell alcohol on my breath, why would you want me to?"

 

I'm fairly confident the "this is America" argument would have only exacerbated the problem.

 

A 20yr old in your vehicle who was intoxicated? Her parents are going to have you put under the jail when they find out.

 

Maybe, but it is correct, and the actual problem is that there are cops wanting him to submit to testing when he hasn't failed a FST and they don't even smell alcohol on his breath. Since they were already on their high horse and advising that they would forcibly take blood if he refused, you are probably correct, but I personally would refuse what I am able to, not fight what absolutely has to be done, and sue the crap right out of them if they overstepped their boundaries at any point.

 

I received my DUI a long time ago and it was quite a bit different then. I do wish you the best. If you were "impaired" getting caught is much better than other possible scenarios. When I got my DUI I blew a .21. I was really dumb as a young guy. I learned a pretty valuable lesson from the ordeal.

 

From what I hear, whatever happens, the best thing is to not have a DUI/DWI on your record.

If it takes not having a drivers license for a year it's worth it.

In MO they still give you a student or workers license so you can get to work or school.

Good Luck man....

 

Maybe so, but when you do what you do, you can't complain about the consequences.

We've asked to not be on the road with drunk drivers, those of us that do not drive drunk haven't had an objective response.

I'll make no apologies, there is no excuse for driving drunk, and if he wasn't, I hope he has no penalty, but if he was then he should take what ever he gets. Again, there is no excuse, maybe every drunk driver should feel blessed they were arrested and doesn't have to live the rest of his or her life knowing they killed someone. You can't ask for no condemnation when what you've done is condemnable. Perhaps you would feel differently if he had run over someone you love. Again, there is no excuse, suck it up, pay the penalty, if you're smart, you won't do it again.

 

Get off your high horse. The .08 law is ridiculous. People drive worse when they talk on the cell phone than a person with a .08 BAC. It's been proven.

Having said that, your sensitivity on this subject makes me think your life has been impacted by a drunk driver, I hope my hunch is incorrect.

I would like for someone to do a study and determine what the BAC is for all people involved in alcohol related traffic accidents. I have a feeling it will be much higher than .08

 

Why? He's just barely 21...

- NCSU

 

hmm.. maybe you're missing the context of the whole situation.. they saw open/empty containers inside the vehicle.. at this point they could search further into the vehicle.. they found open containers.. he refused to take FST tesing.. he was arrested for DUI.. he refused to take the breath test.. case closed

We can all assume what did or might have happened, but honestly, we weren't there. I seriously doubt they say they would attempt to forcibly draw his blood, legally, they can't.. so he obviously consented somewhere down the road. Even so, he could have just as easily refused them drawing his blood, the consequences would have still been the same. In his case, he did have the right to refuse BAC testing, and he did refuse.. but with that right, comes responsibility.. 48 hours in jail, and a 1 year liscense suspension.. the law is the law.. unless your name is Paris Hilton, I doubt your gonna get outta this one..