DUI girl pees herself.

[leakyhelen]

A bit long - action seems to start 35-40 minutes in.

https:// www. youtube.com/watch?v=iBbkCayoUHA

[ch4rles]

she announces what happened at 30 min

[lebomar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7OE1jtoZwk here it is another. The lady involved seems to have wet her pants since the moment she appears. It is evident by the end of the video.

[AccidentalTourist]

I had to laugh while watching this -- I thought she did pretty well on the balance and heel-to-toe parts of the test. The fact that the cop demonstrating the heel-to-toe lost his balance indicates to me that her "failure" on it was not valid because that test isn't valid in the first place. As a person in my late sixties with a tremor and balance issues, I would not be able to pass that test sober. But a BAC of 0.162 is twice the limit in most US states so I'm not disputing that she was drunk -- between her motor-mouthing of "I'm sorry", and complaining that she ruined her life, and the fact that she wrapped her car around a pole and fled the scene, I'm glad they took her off the street. -- AT

[MrX]

Why do the laws in some states require those stupid walking on line tests? Why not simply allow the cops to use an alcometer?

[TVGuy]

Why do the laws in some states require those stupid walking on line tests? Why not simply allow the cops to use an alcometer?

Probably cause. Before conducting a search, cops have to have probable cause to believe there is a violation of the law or a warrant supported by probable cause. What counts as probable cause can be tricky, from a legal perspective. A cop might see someone leaving a bar at 2:00am, but unless they are driving erratically, the simple fact that they were coming from a bar in itself isn't enough probable cause that they are drunk and so if they go straight to an alcohol breath test, that could be thrown out in court for not having sufficient probable cause.

In many states cops don't need probable cause to simply pull someone over and question them- This is called implied consent, you consent to this questioning when you get your driver's license. So a cop seeing someone leave a bar can pull them over, but to issue a citation or arrest them, they first must develop probable cause. And this is what the so-called field sobriety tests, like walking on a line, or saying the alphabet backwards, is all about. It isn't so much that failing these tests create a probable cause, but that these tests provide ample opportunity for interactions, with the hope that with these interactions the suspect might say something like, "I haven't had that much to drink" (confirming they have been drinking and creating probable cause) or, "I couldn't do this even if I was sober." Once this probable cause is established, they can then conduct an actual "search" which includes a breathalyzer.

[ed2]

Probably cause. Before conducting a search, cops have to have probable cause to believe there is a violation of the law or a warrant supported by probable cause. What counts as probable cause can be tricky, from a legal perspective. A cop might see someone leaving a bar at 2:00am, but unless they are driving erratically, the simple fact that they were coming from a bar in itself isn't enough probable cause that they are drunk and so if they go straight to an alcohol breath test, that could be thrown out in court for not having sufficient probable cause.

In many states cops don't need probable cause to simply pull someone over and question them- This is called implied consent, you consent to this questioning when you get your driver's license. So a cop seeing someone leave a bar can pull them over, but to issue a citation or arrest them, they first must develop probable cause. And this is what the so-called field sobriety tests, like walking on a line, or saying the alphabet backwards, is all about. It isn't so much that failing these tests create a probable cause, but that these tests provide ample opportunity for interactions, with the hope that with these interactions the suspect might say something like, "I haven't had that much to drink" (confirming they have been drinking and creating probable cause) or, "I couldn't do this even if I was sober." Once this probable cause is established, they can then conduct an actual "search" which includes a breathalyzer.

I get the principal and the ideology behind it. The authorities should have probable cause before they can intervene in a private indual's life. But honestly, I very much doubt that it was the intention of this law, because in reality, it has the complete opposite effect. It is more invasive for the private individual to have to go through all these ridiculous tests, than just blow into the breathalyzer.