Your video, Pot Sobriety Test, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think she could be stone drunk and still pass a sobriety test.

Janteloven is fictional, from a satire piece. Successful Scandinavians are celebrated, not put down.
Side note: The law was not written by Aksel Sandemose - it was found and twisted. The original laws were taken verbatim from the sobriety movement, where the list of laws was hung up on the wall. Although Sandemose did one change - each law ended with "...when you drink". And then the laws suddenly make quite a bit of sense.
Sandemose's contribution was to remove this crucial point of the laws, that it fit mentality he had seen elsewhere. Like all good satire, it has a grain of truth, but it is by no means a defining description of Scandinavians - it works just as well in a lot of hickwille towns all over the world.

Sorry @newtboy, but at no point in any interaction with law enforcement should you ever be penalised for asking what your rights are in a given situation. It should automatically “pause” any other question until that is answered.

Now, I have no problem with a police officer stopping anyone and administering a sobriety test at any time, but this is clearly harassment and nothing more.

Well, looking it up on Google the "Sobriety Test" strictly speaking involves three tests that don't involve the breathalyzer, which usually comes after those first tests. But he does say breathalyzer at 5:33, but if it is really an open and shut case because he refused it then why did he get off?
From the sounds of it the cop had no reason to suspect he was drunk in the first place, which renders the tests moot because he probably wasn't drunk and they knew it. As for why waste time and annoy? From his perspective they were wasting his time and annoying him, so why the hell not.

4:26....at the station, what he's calling a "sobriety test" is, in most states, a breathalyzer test that you must agree to, or blood, and not saying yes and taking it is considered refusal because people do waste time arguing in an attempt to score lower, and ain't nobody got time for that. They told him clearly you must answer yes or no, or it's considered refusal, which is absolutely normal procedure from what I've seen. He answered "Listen, I was a US Marine, ....bla bla bla...let's take a minute....bla bla bla...explain my rights...bla bla." and never took it, which is refusal under the law.
5:33 confirms this, breathalyzer.

They must have claimed he failed the field test or why cuff him and require more tests at the station, something he omits, which makes sense since he said he joked around while taking it, marching left right instead of heel toeing. At first he insisted on making numerous phone calls first, like that's a right....he knows his rights....Then he wants to stop to set up his camera to record the stop...Then argues more about the test itself. The cops were clearly annoyed with him arguing and not complying before he got out of the car, but he persisted right into jail.

I wouldn't trust his biased recollection to include all the facts, especially since he is "conducting a study on racial profiling". Sounded to me like a case of arguing himself into a charge he was lucky to get out of because the cops stupidly didn't record the stop. From his own descriptions, in California at least, he's totally guilty....you have no right to discussions, and only an idiot would believe the cops will tell you your rights honestly anyway, so why keep asking except to waste time and annoy?

At no point during his recollection of events did he say that he refused a breathalyzer test, nor was one offered. And it sounds like he more or less did the standard field sobriety test. And if he had failed the SFST or refused the breathalyzer I'm pretty sure that would have come up in court. Sorry, but this sounds like a cut and dry case of DWB to me.

Congratulations! Your video, What does a pot sobriety test look like? | 22 Minutes, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 2 Badge!

Your video, What does a pot sobriety test look like? | 22 Minutes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I pushed through to the 5 minute mark now to check for you. He doesn't stay on a global view for more than 60 seconds. In less than a minute he goes from making your valid point about global tyrants like Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin using 'law' enforcement, into declaring an equivalence to American law enforcement. He includes 'sobriety checkpoints' in his list of evil state intervention by American law enforcement that makes them 'no better'.

Observing that many law enforcement schemes, or even most law enforcement schemes globally and historically have been bad DOES NOT prove that ALL of them are. That's the very first day of any intro logic class and he blows that in the first 120 seconds.

That is the part that I find worrisome though, is that his 'argument' is far from compelling. His very starting point is based on a completely false moral equivalency between the rule of Stalin, Mao and modern day America. As if dictatorships where the law enforcement would execute you for criticising the leader or being born to the wrong class or parents are no different or worse than America having 'sobriety checkpoints'. That's not compelling, it's idiocy.

Furthermore, as @drradon pointed out the alternative to a state is anarchy. Anarchy isn't a utopia even though the speaker almost seems to pretend that it is. The only 'justice' or 'law' in anarchy is might makes right, and throughout human history thugs, thieves and warlords dominate. A democratic state like America is vast improvement and beacon of light by comparison. Vehemently claiming otherwise is a blatant lie, not an 'alternative' view point. Unless we want to start accepting alternative facts...

"Any other person would be getting an RO charge"?
Any other person would be tazed, beaten, thrown to the ground, and charged with resisting and assaulting an officer.
Officers should not be allowed to refuse field sobriety tests, breathalyzers, or blood tests whenever there's the hint they may be impaired. It's a real public safety issue.
Even though they did arrest him (they had zero choice), this was just 20 minutes of handling a fellow officer with serious kid gloves. He needs to go to jail.

actually, there is no law requiring that a female officer be present or conduct a search of this type. If the search required the female suspect to remove anything beyond a coat, headwear, gloves, or footwear, than a female officer should conduct it as this is considered a strip search. However, a basic pat-down (which was being conducted in this video) can be carried out by a male officer to a female suspect.

Should he have used the back of his hand? Possibly. It's a good practice but once again not a specific regulation that officers have to follow. The back of the hand would not have been effective for the area of the body he was attempting to search. Perhaps he could have used the edge of his hand along the pinkie side. Regardless, there was nothing improper in his search methods, it just wasn't following best practices.

The real travesty here is the use of field sobriety tests being used/manipulated to wrongfully arrest a woman who called for help.

WTF?!? They still do field sobriety tests without a breathalyzer to back them up? That's moronic. They could supply the entire force with two breathalyzers each for what this one bad arrest is going to cost us.
....and WTF 2.0....
Aren't they supposed to have female officers search women. That was not a normal search either, you don't open palm the breast and rotate, that's copping a feel, not searching. Proper search method is to use the back of the hand across the under side of the breast, and maybe a pat to the middle/top if it's possible there's something hidden, not a grab and rotate.

She's going to get paid, no matter what the cops say. All her attorney has to do is ask the jury 'what if that was your wife, mother, daughter being molested over someone else's mistake?' They won't have to leave the court room to deliberate. Sadly, the cops don't seem like they'll learn a thing.