That article is completely terrifying.

* I am much too much of a control freak to ever ever try drugs; no moral issue, just not for me.

* I have a drink of something on social occasion maybe once or twice a year, maybe not. Never got behind the wheel with even a sip of alcohol that day, let alone a glass, let alone anything approaching legal limit.

But I'm a klutz and I'm an introvert and I get nervous easily and I have NO idea what kind of "signs" my body would display in stressful situation with a police officer at night (my body an my brain have an uneasy working relationship - we mostly put up with each other:).

It is very literally my nightmare scenario to be accused by a police officer of intoxication where none exists. As much as I 100% support them, I'm probably more afraid of roadside checks than an actually inebriated person.

I was charged with a DWI a year ago. The case is still going through the court system.

I was pulled over for speeding, going 36 in 35. Yes I am serious, one mile over. But this wasn't surprising to me, I am a young Hispanic man so this is a normal occurrence for me.

First thing the officer said was "boy you look nervous". As most adults pulled over by police feel. I handed my license and insurance over. The license had my old address the insurance had my most recent. He asked? "Is this your address", "yes", "why is the address different?", "because I moved a couple of months ago and have not had time to drop by the DMV", "Step out of the car sir"

I refused the field sobriety test but offered a breathalyzer. I blew a .034, that's less than half the legal limit.

He asked more questions, I answered but was short and untalkative.

He ended up arresting me. I asked him, why if I blew half the legal. He gave me three reasons. One; I was speeding and that I must be intoxicated to not notice the speed signs, two; I was uncooperative and nervous and that's a sign of drug or alcohol use, and lastly I forgot my address so I was obviously impaired.

The latest offer from the prosecutor was moving my charge down to reckless driving with 1 year of probation. My lawyer says I can probably get it dismissed.

It has been the worst experience of my life. Thank god I have enough money to hire one of the best lawyers in town, for $7k btw.

I must be missing something here. What are you actually charged with? DUI? How can that stand in court at all if the breathalyzer obviously proves you were under the limit?

In most US states, the 'legal limit' as detected with a breathalyzer is just a threshold that results in automatically being charged with a DUI/DWI if you exceed it. Blowing under the threshold doesn't provide you any kind of legal protection against being charged with a DUI/DWI.

So, in short, you should never blow, as that's never going to help you in any way?

In most states, refusing a breathalyzer test can cause suspension of your license, even if you are completely sober:

https://dui.findlaw.com/dui-arrests/can-i-refuse-a-breathaly...

Sadly, as with many things in our criminal justice system, the answer ends up being "hope that you're not prosecuted by mistake, and that you have enough money for a lawyer if you are".

Thanks. I thought it might be something like that.

The main thing you're missing is that the official story of the "justice system" is a fairytale. Once you're in its sights, their literal day job is to make your life hell. They get paid to do this and go home at 5, while you pay for and live it.

Presently its damages are externalities paid for by a fucked-up reverse lottery that we're all playing, most blissfully unaware. A significant fix would be to make the state responsible for the entire cost of all defense, days spent in a cage or court, any bail fees, and emotional distress. Having to pay compensation for their "mistakes" would obviously further increase the scumbags' perverse incentive to obtain convictions/pleas. But you'd hope after they had paid out enough for persecuting frivolous cases, budgetary constraints would necessitate a bit of downsizing.

A breathalyzer is just additional evidence. All the cops have to say is the defendant appeared to be on something.

Wow. That is awful. I'm sorry this happened to you, but thanks for sharing.

Where did this happen?

> But I'm a klutz and I'm an introvert and I get nervous easily and I have NO idea what kind of "signs" my body would display in stressful situation with a police officer at night (my body an my brain have an uneasy working relationship - we mostly put up with each other:).

It was a little too hot to go for a run the other night, so I decided to go for whatever is between a jog and a power walk.

I was stopped by a cop, whose first words were, "What are you on? Pills? Uppers?" which continued on for about ten minutes along with accusations of trying to break into cars(?).

When you go out looking for a problem, and view those you're supposed to protect as dangerous, this is what happens.

The end result is that I'm wary to go for a run at night lest I get accused of crimes I didn't commit. So yes, if you're walking awkwardly or are a klutz, that means you're on drugs to some cops.

I am much more than a “klutz”, I have a mild neurological condition that you wouldn’t notice on first glance that affects my balance slightly. I’m always afraid of what would happen if I got stopped by the police. It doesn’t help that my disability also causes an excessive startle reaction (https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/hyperekplexia/).

One time I did get stopped by the police, they made me get out of the car and they saw my hand was balled up like I was about to hit him. I didn’t even think that I was showing signs of aggression - my hand is always balled up. Once I noticed the tension increasing, I immediately told him about my condition and my hand.

I am also Black, so I’m extra cautious. Of course, police are suppose to ask if you have a disability,but I’ve never put too much credence in the justice system.

https://www.jabatelaw.com/are-physical-disabilities-a-factor...

You can opt for the breathalyzer in most states, or they'll take you back to the office for a blood test.

If they take you to the office though they'll probably tow your car as a little extra bit of "fuck you" for exerting your rights

> You can opt for the breathalyzer in most states, or they'll take you back to the office for a blood test.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that if you opt out of a breathalyzer, they'll still charge you with a DUI and the courts will consider the breathalyzer refusal as an equivalent to being intoxicated.

Almost. Yes, you may still be charged. Yes, they may use the evidence of your refusal. As far as equivalence, no: the test itself is just one piece of evidence. Because refusal should ordinarily make it more difficult to prosecute DUI (for what is, comparable to the stop, a very small inconvenience), I think most states have an automatic license revocation penalty attached to it - usually around six months. Field sobriety tests (e.g. walk in a straight line), I think, are much less conclusive and do not have such requirement.

IANAL. Search for James Duane.

Most (all?) states have the law written that if you refuse a breathalyzer it is an automatic license suspension. Depending on other evidence the state may press DUI charges.

Exactly. The article even says as much. It simply detects if someone smoked something with THC in the last two hours. So there is no consideration for actual impairment?

My bullshit detector went off when the creator of the device said "this device has a lot of science in it."

My bullshit detector went off when the article said "the number of drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana is up significantly" (a reference to Colorado). Duh, the overall percentage of the population smoking dope went up when legalized.

Cannabis detection devices in Australia (NSW anyway, maybe VIC and other states) seem to have a detection window of a couple of days or more. So it's almost entirely moral policing operational over here. This would be an improvement on that.