That’s not how field sobriety tests work, because they don’t actually work at all, they’re just a way to give cops a justification for their suspicions without conducting an actually functional test.
So if someone is clearly high and they blow a 0 on a breathalyzer should cops just let them go? Run a blood sample on the side of the road? Or should they just arrest them based on nothing more than “I believe they were impaired.” At least a field sobriety test tries to provide an objective standard.
At least polys can’t be used in court. I’d imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult for a lawyer to get things tossed if their only rationale was a poly test.
That’s not how field sobriety tests work, because they don’t actually work at all, they’re just a way to give cops a justification for their suspicions without conducting an actually functional test.
“Come on, officer, I couldn’t do that even if I was sober!”
So if someone is clearly high and they blow a 0 on a breathalyzer should cops just let them go? Run a blood sample on the side of the road? Or should they just arrest them based on nothing more than “I believe they were impaired.” At least a field sobriety test tries to provide an objective standard.
It still blows my mind that they’re apparently commonly used in the US instead of breathalysers like everywhere else.
Of course they’re also using polygraph tests. So at least they’re consistent in using shit testing methods.
At least polys can’t be used in court. I’d imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult for a lawyer to get things tossed if their only rationale was a poly test.