Quote:
Originally Posted by john rogers
Here is a pretty good reference website as I suspect that this is happening in CA?
California Implied Consent Warning
If it were me, I would get a lawyer, sue like crazy as it sounds like the cops were sort of a mess and in the end get some money out of it. Every city in CA has a law firm that would happily take this on. |
This was here in Washington. Here is the text of the Washington "implied consent" law:
RCW 46.20.308
Implied consent — Test refusal — Procedures.
(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.506, to a test or tests of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration, THC concentration, or presence of any drug in his or her breath if arrested for any offense where, at the time of the arrest,
the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or was in violation of RCW 46.61.503. Neither consent nor this section precludes a police officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person's breath or blood.
(2) The test or tests of breath shall be administered at the direction of a
law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or the person to have been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while having alcohol or THC in a concentration in violation of RCW 46.61.503 in his or her system and being under the age of twenty-one. The officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506. The officer shall warn the driver, in substantially the following language, that:...
This "reasonable grounds to believe..." provision is what keeps Washington LEO from pulling over just anyone and randomly conducting sobriety tests. Our New Year's Eve checkpoints and other such un-Constitutional misbehavior from our police have consistently been quashed by this provision. In this case, having been stopped for tabs rather than driving behavior, and having passed the field sobriety tests would indicate the cop had no "reasonable grounds to believe...". The case should have been tossed before it ever got to court.