Thank you for the critique. My post and thoughts were made under the assumption of what would take place here in Texas under Texas law and the use of the Standard Field Sobriety testing here currently implemented in Texas. However, you are correct in informing me that a reader might not be aware of those assumptions made in my post. So I thank you for alerting me to those needed changes in my post.

No one ever gets charged with suspicion of DWI. This is nothing but cop talk.

“if he was in fact not driving the State can not charge him with DWI.”

Really? I have had a lot of clients who claimed not to have been driving get charged with DWI. They can and will charge him. Whether they can ultimately get a conviction is something entirely different.

“to illustrate that you had lost your normal physical and/or mental abilities to operate a motor vehicle by introduction of alcohol and/or drugs.”

Nowhere does the DWI statute require the State to show that a person “lost” anything. Same thing for “abilities to operate a motor vehicle.” Those words do not appear in the DWI statute.

“Turner was wise to refuse to perform any more SFSTs….”

Mr. Turner was never asked to perform SFSTs — Though SFSTs did exist in a few places when this video was made in 1984, what he was asked to perform were not SFSTs.

“Mr. Turner was wise to refuse to . . . submit to a breath test.”

You cannot possibly know whether he was wise to decline a breath test without knowing the law in Broward County (Florida, not Texas) in 1984. Some States make refusal a crime. If it was a crime, then such advice would have been unlawful and unethical.

You need to take a bit more time to be a bit more accurate, precise and careful if you are going to comment on DWI issues in ways that some people might take as being authoritative.

First of all, I have a link to the article for people to read, so why should I need to mention everything in an article that a person can simply click on and read for themselves, just like you did. I agree with you that the article was brief and I imagine that there are other details not mentioned in article. However, the purpose of bringing up the article is to simply bring to the reader’s attention the issue of pretextual stops in general, not to discuss the details of the specific stop in the article.

Next, pointing out the fact, that law enforcement officials conduct pretextual traffic stops is not “vilifying” the police, it’s informing people of certain law enforcement practices that take place. Now, you might be ok with the police going around stopping individuals for minor traffic stops as a facade to circumvent an individual’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search & seizures. Most courts would agree with you, as I mentioned in my post. However, that certainly does not mean that I have to agree with that prevailing viewpoint. Maybe you just would prefer that individuals not exercise our constitutional rights and “trust” the government to do the right thing when it comes to protecting our rights. Simply informing people that they have the right to refuse to consent to such searches allows people to freely exercise the constitutional rights afforded us all. It’s not just the criminally accused that should care about protecting our constitutional rights, it’s all citizens that should care.

So with all due respect, you might not care about your exercising your constitutional rights, but I damn sure care about mine and I care about informing other people of theirs.

Quick question for the administrator though, about what does it cost to represent someone these days? From the ALR hearing to revoke the driver license to the various court resets to a two or so day trial? I know some fellows charge upwards of $50k for the package deal while others advertise $500 at a starting point (ending up around 9 or 10k if it goes all the way to trial) but those are extremes, yes?

Do pretextual stops occur in the world? Probably, but assuming as much is why so many defense attorneys huff & puff but ultimately lose these challenges in court. Also, given the brevity of the article in the first place, I suspect that there was more to it that could come out in court regarding the totality of circumstances (like someone tipped them off).

So yes, consenting to search when you are carrying large amounts of illegal substances is dumb but not as dumb as carrying them in the first place. SCOTUS recently strengthened our rights in this regard but ultimately most of these mules are not known for keeping up with current events or for reading your blogs so don’t set the bar too high, okay? ;)

i spoke with a cop about this, isn’t it the same as refusing a DUI test? he said the signature on your drivers license means that you consent, so if you refuse, then they can throw you in jail for driving without a license?