Since a breath test is a specific measure done in a specific manner, the only way to get one is if the person is compliant. You cant physically force one. So, if someone decides they dont want to do it, it wont happen.
underage drinking question
- Thread starter mustangkid05
- Start date
Since a breath test is a specific measure done in a specific manner, the only way to get one is if the person is compliant. You cant physically force one. So, if someone decides they dont want to do it, it wont happen.
I go to school in PA, and a friend of mine got caught by the police for underage drinking, and transporting alcohol? (Also since he is underage). Since he is from NY, he was unable to drive in PA for 90 days, and I don't think NY gave him a suspended license or anything
Fair enough.
OP, You knew you had been drinking, why'd you blow?
I assumed that the LEO's in question used some sort of compulsion. i.e. "blow here or it'll be worse" rather then physiclly forcing it. My question was about the legal means used to get the test.
However on pondering it, it seems fairly easy to get the guy to give his age, then if he's obviously impaired, have probable cause. I was just curious why somebody that knew they were doing something illeagal would submit to a test to prove it.
*removed by moderator - post constructively or not at all*
tried that, then he said hed taze sp? if i kept running lol..........is that true that if i didn't blow into the breathalyzer he could not of forced me to? but then i probably would of ended up getting beat or sprayed
oh and another thing is, i don;t understand how theese 2 kids passed, they were on the beer pong table the whole night running it, and they passed the breathalyzer with 0.00
you're an idiot if you even think about running. If you refused to blow, hes obvioulsy gonna know you have been drinking anyway, so IMO you still would have been screwed. All he would have to do is smell the alcohol on you anyway. Being coopertive is your best decision. Your best bet would have been to keep your party inside and a little more quiet. I have been on a call like this on a ride-along where the kids were 18 or 19 having a party because the parents were out of town and they decided to go outside and shoot fireworks off at 1 am. pretty damn stupid...
*removed by moderator* See your PM
He can't force you to blow, but he can get a warrant for a blood draw if he really wants to.
Last edited:
Yep 90 days minimum in PA. And for the guy who knew someone that recieved an underage at PSU I can assure you he was not just 'walking' along. I lived there for 4 years and to get an underage there you HAVE to be standing out or doing something to get someone's attention. THe police in state college are very lax unless you are being a total idiot.
If you had refused to blow, as Adam said earlier they couldn't have forced you to. They almost certinly wouldn't have sprayed or beat you for not blowing.
Weather they could have shown cause for a warrant for your blood is dependent on details that you haven't given, but I'd suspect by the time the breathalyzer came out they had enough to compel you if it went that far.
There are many laws regarding searches by LEO's, and you may (or may not) have inadvertenly surrendered some rights by not knowing them. but it's hard to tell without knowing exactly what happened.
I would suspect, based on what I've seen LEO's do, that they got there, saw drunk people and asked for ID's. with the combination of an ID showing you're underage, and a visabley impaired state, they have probable cause for the breath/blood test.
In the future your second best bet (after not drinking underage) would be to not show them ID (you have to tell them your name if they ask) and refuse to blow. If they can show probable cause they can get a warrant for your blood, but you're not out anything by making them do the work. IANAL, but it's possible you could have left before they started testing, I'm not sure what legal mechenisim they used to search you.
Read up on Fourth Ammendment law and searches so you know your rights next time.
One caveat to all of the above is it's hard to claim an unreasonable search when you were, in fact, breaking the law.
There would be no cause to use spray or to go hands on. Refusals are part of the job, plus officers are trained to document the event in other ways. Most of the public think that to win this type of case, there would need to be some type of device used. That is not the case.
dogmush said:
For an MIP, I would doubt a judge would issue a warrant for blood as there are other objective facts that can be used to prove the case.
dogmush said:
That is quite true. There tend to be more exceptions than there are rules.
dogmush said:
I would suspect you are correct, but P.C. is the basis for asking for a warrant, but I would doubt a judge would issue a warrant for a blood draw of a minor in possession charge. This is simply because the case can be made by the visual observations. When the person interacts with the officer, the officer can use his training, education, and experience to identify alcohol on their breath, signs of physical and neurologic impairment. That is all that is needed.
dogmush said:
In Florida if you possess a driver's license, even if not driving, if a L.E.O. requests you present it, you must do so.
dogmush said:
It is good advice to read up on the 4th Amendment, but that being said, there are more exceptions to the search and seizure protection of the 4th than there are protections afforded.
Plus, unless a person keeps up on the current case law in their jurisdiction they could possibly believe they have a right when they dont.
Overall, this is very good information.
True, I often forget that it's not needed to have a BAC, just helpful. Anybody that's ever closed a bar knows it's not that difficult to tell when someone's been drinking.
Really? I thought that the Supreme Court had held that you just had to identify yourself (Hiibel v. some part of the gov), not produce ID. ie "Officer, My name is Joe Smith, I don't want to dig out my wallet"
Am I remembering the case wrong, or does FL go farther in it's laws?
Crud, and here I've Hijacked another thread. Sorry. OP, don't drive for three months, and dont drink till your 21, and then don't drink and drive. And don't do drugs. Sorry again.
hence my extra questions.
I found the FL Statute useally referenced as the "Stop and Identify" Law:
FL STA 856.021 (2) said:
Combined with Hiibel I would think that simply telling them your name would fufill the statute. However, I reserve the right to be wrong.
Before we get too far off topic, I thought of this because My first thought on the OP's situation was tell them your name, then shut up. The thought being since you're obviously drunk, don't prove that you're also a minor, and maybe you'll get away with it.
I reliaize that that's hoping for luck at best, as there are undoubtedly a couple ways for the LEO's to figure out how old you are, just hope they don't bother. Slim hope but that's where my thought process was going. If there's any underage folks in florida that want to be a test case, let me know, I'd be real interested in the outcome.
Crap, I'm also turning into that jerk that makes every little thing a civil rights issue.
Easy fix for the whole situation, don't drink underage.
That is true.
dogmush said:
That is true that you must identify yourself. But the Supreme Court rulings that support that finding dont supersede the fact that a driver's license is a privilege and the state can mandate when and where such has to be displayed. The rulings basically indicate you cant be arrested for not having a drivers license in your possession if you arent driving and therefore do not present the license.
dogmush said:
I'm not sure of the type of town you live in but i bet they will offer you some type of deal if its a first offense.
For example: 20 hours community service plus 6 months probation.
For example: 20 hours community service plus 6 months probation.
You would lose that bet in a LOT of jurisdictions. He is a MINOR (i.e. under 21) and a lot of states have a zero tolerance for minors mixed with alcohol so the suspension is MANDATORY and not left to the discretion of the judge.
PA is tough on minors. There is no discression allowed by the judges; it is a mandatory suspension - no alternative types of punishments. I maybe incorrect, but I think a minor's license can be suspended for being in and around open containers where others are legally drinking.
In 1996, my son visited a neighbor, against my advice, across the street on his 21st birthday party. Needless to say, they were drinking and playing loud music. The cops rolled up because of complaints for the music. My son, while not drinking, had the smarts to take off in the corn field behind their home when he saw the cops roll up. They checked ID's and everyone was legal, except my dumb son who went around the block to sneak home. It is my impression that even he knew his license would be suspended had he been there and been ID'd because everyone else was drinking. PA does not play around.
In 1996, my son visited a neighbor, against my advice, across the street on his 21st birthday party. Needless to say, they were drinking and playing loud music. The cops rolled up because of complaints for the music. My son, while not drinking, had the smarts to take off in the corn field behind their home when he saw the cops roll up. They checked ID's and everyone was legal, except my dumb son who went around the block to sneak home. It is my impression that even he knew his license would be suspended had he been there and been ID'd because everyone else was drinking. PA does not play around.
+1...On Friday and Sat. nights the local police just sit in their cars outside the bars and just oversee whats going on...Ive walked around shitfaced hundreds of times and never been stopped...only person ive ever seen get arrested was my friend, he was stumbling and falling all over the place, right next to the cop car:shrug:
Users who are viewing this thread
