?: if you pass field sobriety tests but fail the breathalyzer just how strong is the evidence in court?
that you were a potential danger?
only losers drink and drive you need to get your behind to a MADD seminare and cry for 2 hours ,,,you have no business drinking and driving when Im on the road in a car full of my children god forbid you run into a mom like me you will wish you had never driven
Shouldn't have blown into the breathalyzer. Your best bet was to tell them to take you to jail.
To answer your question. It's good enough to charge and convict you of it.
I simply love reading all the answers to these type of questions. Why does everybody feel they are an expert on every subject. Some of the answers are laughable.
I am going to answer your question with the facts you gave in your question. Like most others I am not going to make assumptions ( like you really did not pass the fst).
If you passed the field sobriety tests and then were taken to jail then you have nothing to worry about. It does not matter if you blew a .40. Once again I am going with you passed the tests.
Once you passed the tests the officer had no probable cause to arrest you for dwi. So once the officer arrests you this is a violation of your rights. So if you blew or did not blow does not matter even one little bit. Everything after your arrest will be supressed ( in law it is called fruit of the posionious tree ).
Your best advice is to get a good atty to go over your case. Even if you did not pass the tests then it is not iron clad or a slam dunk since you blew over the limit. People on freelawanswer.com just like to play expert on everything.
The best advice is to simply decline ( in a very polite way ) to take any FST's. It is your 5th admendment right. The test at the station is a whole different thing.
For example if you are pulled over for going 8 mph over the limit the officer has probable cause to arrest you ( by citation for speeding ). It is then he starts to investigate a possible DWI. So FST's are the officers why of obtaining probable cause to also arrest you for DWI. For that you are under no obligation to assist in this process ( in the field ). So if you refuse and they arrest you and you don't blow at the station then the officer has to show he had probable cause for arresting you for DWI and most likely he will have the good old he smelled like alachol. Most of the time that is no good and then here comes the supression of the refusal at the station or if you blew a .40.
I do not codone drinking and driving but most cops take the position of arrest anybody that smells like alachol and let the courts figure it out. This is another reason this is not iron clad or a freaking slam dunk type of case.
Very very strong. Cop a plea bargain if you get the chance.
Pretty much 'Iron Clad' you are toast. If you weren't breaking any laws and were not driving erratically AND your B.A.L. was under the state limit AND you passed the personality test, you could fight it. Flunking the blow-test is a definite frowney face.
Usually if you pass the field sobriety tests, a breathalyzer is not given. There is a implied consent law which states that you must provide either a blood, urine, or breath test when ordered by an officer if they stop you while driving. If the officer does order you to provide a breath test, then the results are admissible. Unless you happen to be F. Lee Bailey, you will probably be convicted.
I don't think Yahoo! will give me enough space to type an adequate response to this question.
In a nut shell the field sobriety helps the officer form an opinion if you are driving under the influence or not. If the officer does not believe you are driving drunk then theoretically they should not arrest you. If you don't get arrested then you will not wind up blowing into an Intoxilyzer. Follow me so far.
So, if you passed the field sobriety then you wouldn't be blowing into the Intoxilyzer.
You are toast...
I assume that there is some court case that involves the question of danger and is not dependent upon a breathalizer. In that case, the field tests would be strong evidence. However, you should know that as a standard technique, cops will tell people that they are doing fine on the tests, even when they are failing miserably, in order to get their continued cooperation. So, it could be that the cop will get to court and describe poor field tests. You can try to testify that you did well, but then the brethalizer test will be used to show that you were not sober enough to evaluate your own performance.
the person who told you you shouldnt have blown in the breatalizer is a fool. when you get your license you agree to take chemical test and that refusing one is the same as failing one.
It doesnt matter if you pass the field test you failed the big one. by the way who told you you passed the field test many people i tested thought they passed too only becuase they were impared enough not to notice the subtle mistakes they made that tip us off on being impared.
You need to get a good lawyer that can lessen the impact of your punishment.
by law you dont even have to exceed the legal limit to be convited if contributing factors can be proved.
taxis are so much cheaper mate, use your head next time.
Iron clad, people pass the field sobriety test all the time because of increased adrenaline. The breathalyzer is considered the word of god. Get a good attorney that specializes in DWI cases. Good luck.
I can't speak for all states, but here's how it works in Wisconsin...
When you are 'charged' with DUI, you're actually charged with two crimes.
1 is: 'Driving with a % BAC greater than 0.08%'
2 is: 'Operating while intoxicated'
the breathilizer proves #1, a sobriety test is used to prove #2.
If you are convicted of EITHER of the two, you are found guilty.
So, if you fail either the breathalyzer or the sobriety test, you're out of luck, unless you go to trial, put up a great case, and get a reallllllllllllllllllly sympathetic jury.
Most sobriety tests are taken lightly because they don't usually prove anything. The Breathalyzer is much stronger evidence in the first place.