Not sure about Florida's custom on suspected DUI....but... I mean, the dude even admitted to having 6 in 2 hours. Why not just get him to take a breathalyzer test and be done with it? What a waste of "policing" time.

In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

No...he admitted to drinking at the dinner he was coming from, a legal reason to field test by itself. There's no question they can field test you for any suspicion, even no reason at all, and fail you for any tiny missteps they determine indicate impairment, then verify with a breathalyzer. Failure to submit to that impartial test is considered admission of guilt in most places.
He was let off most likely because he denied 'refusing' the test and they couldn't prove otherwise without recordings is my guess.

Why not intentionally waste their time and annoy them? Because defending yourself against charges that could be easily avoided is a pain, as he describes. The officers involved won't care if the charges stick, their point is made, they'll show you who can waste who's time and money more effectively, with little fear of consequences.
Edit: there's also the possibility that the police didn't show at the final trial appearance, which could also end up causing a dismissal of the case.

When you're illegally parked/stopped on a freeway shoulder you should expect to be looked at with suspicion, imo.

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.

Jesus fucking Christ....What bullshit.
He failed the field test after illegally parking on the freeway with dealer plates and admitting to drinking and driving, argued and stalled rather than complied, and then played games with the field test, failing it, and didn't submit to the breathalyzer as required by law (you can't delay the test by arguing about your rights as he did, by law, they clearly warned him so). That's automatic conviction in most places....white or black.

Totally cuffed for cause, then eventually had the charges dropped because they "lost" the footage, but by his own words he's guilty of the charge of refusing the test.
Every bad experience had by a person of color is not institutional racism, especially when they're actually breaking the law and being belligerent....which he was by parking on the shoulder and arguing instead of complying with lawful commands. Had they not "lost" the video, he should have been convicted and had his licence revoked....white or black.

Thanks @C-note, you've single handedly turned me from someone who exposed racism to someone who now actively debunks it. Congratulations.

"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.

Amazing that they don't just use a breathalyzer.

Even if she was drunk/high out of her mind, why would they need to search her?

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.

Only reason Obama appears effective and rational is because the press backs him at every turn. If they treated him like they treated Bush it would be a whole 'nother story.

Regarding that video of Bush from 'ten years ago', I think Bush was attacked so effectively by the press that every time he opened his mouth, all he had in mind was 'how will the press twist what I am about to say'.

Perhaps you could compare how to spoke to how Obama tried to explain how it cost less to treat a person with an 'inhalator or a breathalyzer'. Obama made absolutely no sense because he didn't understand what the fuck he was talking about, and neither did anyone else. Obama also said doctors makes $30,000-50,000 for a leg amputation when in fat they make less than $1500 for a leg amputation. Obama went to Yale, didn't he? He's really not that bright.

Maybe she needs an inhalator, or a...a breathalyzer.

Why isn't refusing a breathalyzer the same as exercising your right to remain silent? How is this medical procedure different from any other, and how can any medical procedure be forced upon someone like this? Oh, wait... Georgia...

NM

Leave it to a FOX affiliate to spin it in the way they did. And interviews with cops... just piss me off. So predictable, so many cliché and standard PR responses. "Our safefty", "safety of the suspect", "it's ok because a JUDGE approves it". Cops either need to start refusing to do shit like this en masse and lose their jobs, or risk the inevitable Purge.

Medical professionals routinely take blood samples, sometimes done with the help of law enforcement or prison guards.

Yes, the easiest way to get out of being suspected of drunk driving is to take the breathalyzer.


Focusing your life on a long-term career will bring you more happiness than trying to overthrow governments.

Earn enough to make a down-payment on a house. Gain enough value that you appreciate law enforcement protecting it.

I don't have any kind of problem with this. In fact, I'm surprised it's even legal to refuse a breathalyzer.

It's really simple. Driving is part of a social contract. Everyone pays taxes and gets to use the roads. Part of the terms and conditions of using the roads are that you are a competent driver. This means a) you have a licence to show that you passed a test proving your proficiency and b) your ability is not impaired. As part of the deal, you accept that the cops get to check that your blood alcohol level. Don't like it? Don't drive.

Or hell, go all libertarian and get a private company to build a private road network. Let me know how that works out.