Trust the 'expert' cop fails again.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/loca...?storyid=68874

No Drugs, No Booze, busted for DUI
By: Mike Deeson

Port Richey, Florida -- Joseph Errichiello is trying to walk a straight
line but he is having trouble, just like he did when he was arrested for
DUI on September 1st.

Errichiello says they asked him if he'd been drinking again and he said
no. He says they told him he was under arrest for suspicion of DUI.

Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI
checkpoint failed all the field sobriety tests on his lack of
coordination and the mental agility test.

<...>

Despite the fact that Errichiello blew 0.00 on the breathalyzer test and
the Florida Highway Patrol confirms he had a 0.00 on the urinalysis the
State Attorney's Office is still prosecuting him for DUI and he can't
understand why.

Errichiello says that the system in Pasco is wrong because he did nothing
wrong. Then he got arrested again. 12 days later the Pasco Sheriff's
office pulled him over for the exact same thing

Once again the breathalyzer and urine analysis came back as 0.00. In the
second case the state attorney is dropping the charges and says once it
receives the paper on the urinalysis in the first case it will do the same.

But the incident is a sobering thought for the man whose mental and
physical disabilities make it impossible for him to pass a field sobriety
test even when he hasn't had a drink or ingested a drug.

Also see:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp
http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/02/ev...incriminating/

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> http://www.tampabays10.com/news/loca...?storyid=68874
>
> No Drugs, No Booze, busted for DUI
> By: Mike Deeson
>
> Port Richey, Florida -- Joseph Errichiello is trying to walk a straight
> line but he is having trouble, just like he did when he was arrested for
> DUI on September 1st.
>
> Errichiello says they asked him if he'd been drinking again and he said
> no. He says they told him he was under arrest for suspicion of DUI.
>
> Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI
> checkpoint failed all the field sobriety tests on his lack of
> coordination and the mental agility test.
>
> <...>
>
> Despite the fact that Errichiello blew 0.00 on the breathalyzer test and
> the Florida Highway Patrol confirms he had a 0.00 on the urinalysis the
> State Attorney's Office is still prosecuting him for DUI and he can't
> understand why.
>
> Errichiello says that the system in Pasco is wrong because he did nothing
> wrong. Then he got arrested again. 12 days later the Pasco Sheriff's
> office pulled him over for the exact same thing
>
> Once again the breathalyzer and urine analysis came back as 0.00. In the
> second case the state attorney is dropping the charges and says once it
> receives the paper on the urinalysis in the first case it will do the
same.
>
> But the incident is a sobering thought for the man whose mental and
> physical disabilities make it impossible for him to pass a field sobriety
> test even when he hasn't had a drink or ingested a drug.
>
> Also see:
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp
>
http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/02/ev...incriminating/
>
>
So this guy isn't actually drunk based on that article, but my own guess it
that he is probably being pulled over due to not being able to drive
straight, and the article obviously states he has trouble walking straight.

It's clearly mentioned in the portion of the news article quoted above, but
I'll requote it for emphasis: failed all the field sobriety tests on his
lack of coordination and the mental agility test. To the officers, it would
be a no-brainer that this guy was indeed *impaired*, even if not by alcohol
or drugs. Field sobriety tests determine impairment, and the followup
tests--blood, breath, or urine--determine what, if any, chemicals are
causing the impairment.

Interestingly enough, though, the article fails to mention if a blood test
was administered, and if so, what the reading of the blood test came back
as. They only mention field sobriety tests and urine tests.

Therefore, the 'expert' cop would have made no error in determining the
driver was *impaired*, but the impairment just wasn't due to alcohol. If
this guy had a disabled plate or placard (and it is not mentioned in the
article that the driver had one) perhaps DUI wouldn't be the first suspect
cause of impairment. The 'expert' cop only failed to prove DUI, but easily
determined impairment.

Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have
a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a
straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line.
Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license
if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely.

On Dec 3, 12:39 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.tampabays10.com/news/loca...?storyid=68874
>
> > No Drugs, No Booze, busted for DUI
> > By: Mike Deeson
>
> > Port Richey, Florida -- Joseph Errichiello is trying to walk a straight
> > line but he is having trouble, just like he did when he was arrested for
> > DUI on September 1st.
>
> > Errichiello says they asked him if he'd been drinking again and he said
> > no. He says they told him he was under arrest for suspicion of DUI.
>
> > Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI
> > checkpoint failed all the field sobriety tests on his lack of
> > coordination and the mental agility test.
>
> > <...>
>
> > Despite the fact that Errichiello blew 0.00 on the breathalyzer test and
> > the Florida Highway Patrol confirms he had a 0.00 on the urinalysis the
> > State Attorney's Office is still prosecuting him for DUI and he can't
> > understand why.
>
> > Errichiello says that the system in Pasco is wrong because he did nothing
> > wrong. Then he got arrested again. 12 days later the Pasco Sheriff's
> > office pulled him over for the exact same thing
>
> > Once again the breathalyzer and urine analysis came back as 0.00. In the
> > second case the state attorney is dropping the charges and says once it
> > receives the paper on the urinalysis in the first case it will do the
> same.
>
> > But the incident is a sobering thought for the man whose mental and
> > physical disabilities make it impossible for him to pass a field sobriety
> > test even when he hasn't had a drink or ingested a drug.
>
> > Also see:
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp
>
> http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/02/ev...if-its-incrimi...
>
> So this guy isn't actually drunk based on that article, but my own guess it
> that he is probably being pulled over due to not being able to drive
> straight, and the article obviously states he has trouble walking straight.
>
> It's clearly mentioned in the portion of the news article quoted above, but
> I'll requote it for emphasis: failed all the field sobriety tests on his
> lack of coordination and the mental agility test. To the officers, it would
> be a no-brainer that this guy was indeed *impaired*, even if not by alcohol
> or drugs. Field sobriety tests determine impairment, and the followup
> tests--blood, breath, or urine--determine what, if any, chemicals are
> causing the impairment.
>
> Interestingly enough, though, the article fails to mention if a blood test
> was administered, and if so, what the reading of the blood test came back
> as. They only mention field sobriety tests and urine tests.
>
> Therefore, the 'expert' cop would have made no error in determining the
> driver was *impaired*, but the impairment just wasn't due to alcohol. If
> this guy had a disabled plate or placard (and it is not mentioned in the
> article that the driver had one) perhaps DUI wouldn't be the first suspect
> cause of impairment. The 'expert' cop only failed to prove DUI, but easily
> determined impairment.
>
> Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have
> a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a
> straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line.
> Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license
> if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely.

I agree with this post, given the caveat that I assume that he was
pulled over for erratic driving not at a checkpoint.

nate

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote:

>> Also see:
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2101.asp
>>
>> http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/02/ev...incriminating/

> Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have
> a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a
> straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line.

From my reading, it appears that he was caught in a checkpoint both times.

"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." wrote:
>
[snip]

> Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have
> a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a
> straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line.
> Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license
> if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely.

I don't disagree with this, but if this happens, that town will be
inviting an ADA suit and the wrath of the AARP.

I've heard our cops on scanners pursuing 'impaired' drivers reported
over the radio. Its not unusual to hear them break off pursuit and
report. "Its just an old guy".

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.

>> http://www.tampabays10.com/news/loca...?storyid=68874

>> Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI
>> checkpoint

> So this guy isn't actually drunk based on that article, but my own guess it
> that he is probably being pulled over due to not being able to drive
> straight, and the article obviously states he has trouble walking straight.

Instead of guessing maybe try reading the portion about being stopped at
a checkpoint.

> It's clearly mentioned in the portion of the news article quoted above, but
> I'll requote it for emphasis: failed all the field sobriety tests on his
> lack of coordination and the mental agility test. To the officers, it would
> be a no-brainer that this guy was indeed *impaired*, even if not by alcohol
> or drugs. Field sobriety tests determine impairment, and the followup
> tests--blood, breath, or urine--determine what, if any, chemicals are
> causing the impairment.

Maybe the tests and the state employees who interpet the results are
flawed? Nahh.... just keep trying to keep it as if the government and
it's employees are always correct.

As far as impairment behind the wheel goes, I conservatively estimate
that at least 50% of the drivers out there are impaired in some way. How
ever those impairments are only not illegal, they are considered
acceptable in this society.

> Therefore, the 'expert' cop would have made no error in determining the
> driver was *impaired*, but the impairment just wasn't due to alcohol.

So, when he pulls over a 90 year old guy who is still licensed and passed
the test and everything else and the 90 year old guy doesn't have the
strength to stand on one leg or some other nonsense test, he's to be
arrested?

Question the very basis of how the government acts. Don't accept it.

> If
> this guy had a disabled plate or placard (and it is not mentioned in the
> article that the driver had one) perhaps DUI wouldn't be the first suspect
> cause of impairment. The 'expert' cop only failed to prove DUI, but easily
> determined impairment.

There was no illegal impairment. Plus handicap placards are for people
who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills
issues.

We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws and
equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops
and the other government employees to just know what the difference is.
This is a problem.

> Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even have
> a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a
> straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight line.
> Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the license
> if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely.

If we are going to start questioning that, then most cops I see on the
road should have their DL's yanked. They don't drive any better than the
population at large.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> >> http://www.tampabays10.com/news/loca...?storyid=68874
>
> >> Errichiello who was pulled over by the Florida Highway patrol in a DUI
> >> checkpoint
>
> > So this guy isn't actually drunk based on that article, but my own guess
it
> > that he is probably being pulled over due to not being able to drive
> > straight, and the article obviously states he has trouble walking
straight.
>
> Instead of guessing maybe try reading the portion about being stopped at
> a checkpoint.
>
The first time according to the article, it was a checkpoint. The second
time, it doesn't specifically say checkpoint.

> > It's clearly mentioned in the portion of the news article quoted above,
but
> > I'll requote it for emphasis: failed all the field sobriety tests on his
> > lack of coordination and the mental agility test. To the officers, it
would
> > be a no-brainer that this guy was indeed *impaired*, even if not by
alcohol
> > or drugs. Field sobriety tests determine impairment, and the followup
> > tests--blood, breath, or urine--determine what, if any, chemicals are
> > causing the impairment.
>
> Maybe the tests and the state employees who interpet the results are
> flawed? Nahh.... just keep trying to keep it as if the government and
> it's employees are always correct.
>
There are numerous DUI attorney websites that criticize field sobriety
tests. Nowhere did I suggest they were 100% accurate, but they are used in
the field to determine impairment. A defense attorney will also willingly
get a DUI suspect's charges reduced or dismissed, even if they were truly
guilty of DUI.

Also, one can refuse to take any sobriety test, but as I understand it, they
must submit to a blood, breath, or urine test (at least in the state of
California). The latter two, though, would have to be done at the police
station, so might as well at least do the breath test at the side of the
road.

> As far as impairment behind the wheel goes, I conservatively estimate
> that at least 50% of the drivers out there are impaired in some way. How
> ever those impairments are only not illegal, they are considered
> acceptable in this society.
>
Yes, that may be true. But if that impairment prevents them from remaining
within lane markers, then that is a very serious problem.

> > Therefore, the 'expert' cop would have made no error in determining the
> > driver was *impaired*, but the impairment just wasn't due to alcohol.
>
> So, when he pulls over a 90 year old guy who is still licensed and passed
> the test and everything else and the 90 year old guy doesn't have the
> strength to stand on one leg or some other nonsense test, he's to be
> arrested?
>
> Question the very basis of how the government acts. Don't accept it.
>
I question how the government acts, but I don't have an irrational fear.
Can't do a horizontal gaze nystagmus test without small head motions (the
test requires moving the eyes only)... they can choose the walk in a
straight line test, or the one leg stand test. Police have also used the
touch-the-nose-with-eyes-closed test, or the say alphabet backwards test.

None of those may have any full legal standing alone, but those are what law
enforcement can and do use to help determine impairment. Absent of any
chemical results in the blood test, the driver was still impaired, just not
DUI.

> > If
> > this guy had a disabled plate or placard (and it is not mentioned in the
> > article that the driver had one) perhaps DUI wouldn't be the first
suspect
> > cause of impairment. The 'expert' cop only failed to prove DUI, but
easily
> > determined impairment.
>
> There was no illegal impairment. Plus handicap placards are for people
> who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills
> issues.
>
No, but there are impairments that would prevent one from driving safely.
Only lying to the DMV about such an impairment can still get one a license,
and then they are a hazard on the road. (But the article fails to state the
exact nature of the impairment and only uses general terms.)

> We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws and
> equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops
> and the other government employees to just know what the difference is.
> This is a problem.
>
If you are simply against field sobriety tests and laboratory tests to
determine DUI, then I can't help you there. DUI is a serious enough issue
that the checkpoints have to exist. Many drivers just have a beer or two and
drive after only a 30 minutes or so. They are clearly under the influence,
and those drivers cannot adequately determine their own level of impairment.

Now, I don't agree with some aspects of police work--such as Tasers being
used for non-life threatening situations and as frequently as batons or
flashlights were used to beat suspects in the past. But, when it comes to
field sobriety tests and DUI checkpoints, I do support them since it
requires failing more than one sobriety test before being suspected of being
impaired due to DUI.

> > Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should even
have
> > a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from walking in a
> > straight line and probably also prevent him from driving in a straight
line.
> > Florida DMV should demand an immediate license retest and revoke the
license
> > if they determine sufficient impairment to drive safely.
>
> If we are going to start questioning that, then most cops I see on the
> road should have their DL's yanked. They don't drive any better than the
> population at large.
>
I wasn't discussing police officer driving, which often involves high speed
driving (sometimes without lights and sirens) or sudden multiple-lane
changes. Since I can't prove whether the officer is just joyriding in
traffic, or actually responding to a situation without having a mobile
police scanner and knowing what frequency or trunked talk group the officer
is using--the benefit of the doubt has to go with the police officer
responding to a situation.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." > wrote in
:

> "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>> Then there's still the additional issue of whether this guy should
>> even have a driver's license, if his disabilities prevent him from
>> walking in a straight line and probably also prevent him from driving
>> in a straight line. Florida DMV should demand an immediate license
>> retest and revoke the license if they determine sufficient impairment
>> to drive safely.
>
> I don't disagree with this, but if this happens, that town will be
> inviting an ADA suit and the wrath of the AARP.

Well,that's where a competent Judge should toss the suit as having no
merit.
After all,it's only "reasonable regulation"...

>
> I've heard our cops on scanners pursuing 'impaired' drivers reported
> over the radio. Its not unusual to hear them break off pursuit and
> report. "Its just an old guy".
>

GREAT....an old guy who's physical abilities have deteriorated to the point
he's a hazard;yeah,give him a pass.(NOT)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

>> Maybe the tests and the state employees who interpet the results are
>> flawed? Nahh.... just keep trying to keep it as if the government and
>> it's employees are always correct.

> There are numerous DUI attorney websites that criticize field sobriety
> tests. Nowhere did I suggest they were 100% accurate, but they are used in
> the field to determine impairment. A defense attorney will also willingly
> get a DUI suspect's charges reduced or dismissed, even if they were truly
> guilty of DUI.

At great cost and expense to the citizen charged by the 'expert' cop
wielding the tool laws.

> Also, one can refuse to take any sobriety test, but as I understand it, they
> must submit to a blood, breath, or urine test (at least in the state of
> California). The latter two, though, would have to be done at the police
> station, so might as well at least do the breath test at the side of the
> road.

I understand the ways the government compels a person to submit to it.

>> As far as impairment behind the wheel goes, I conservatively estimate
>> that at least 50% of the drivers out there are impaired in some way. How
>> ever those impairments are only not illegal, they are considered
>> acceptable in this society.

> Yes, that may be true. But if that impairment prevents them from remaining
> within lane markers, then that is a very serious problem.

That would be a significant percentage of sober drivers whom I see
drifting over a lane line or just MFFY style taking up two lanes. The
level of competence is extremely low.

>> Question the very basis of how the government acts. Don't accept it.

> I question how the government acts, but I don't have an irrational fear.

Ahh... yes, the old paranoid card.... trouble is the paranoids keep being
correct when it comes to drunk driving. 20 years ago someone warning
about DUI checkpoints would have been labeled as having an "irrational
fear". Now the irrational fear is that innocent people get charged at
those very checkpoints.

> Can't do a horizontal gaze nystagmus test without small head motions (the
> test requires moving the eyes only)... they can choose the walk in a
> straight line test, or the one leg stand test. Police have also used the
> touch-the-nose-with-eyes-closed test, or the say alphabet backwards test.

The cops make the choices not their victim.

> None of those may have any full legal standing alone, but those are what law
> enforcement can and do use to help determine impairment. Absent of any
> chemical results in the blood test, the driver was still impaired, just not
> DUI.

He apparently passed his drivers' test with those 'impairments'. You are
missing the point. The point is that the tests are able in one way or
another capture a large percentage of the public as being 'impaired' or
'DUI' or whatever you want to call it. The results are subjective and the
cop 'makes the call'. We are told to 'trust the cop'. That the cop will
be super human, be perfect. That there won't be errors in databases, flaws
in the tests, etc and so forth. We can trust the cops and trust the
government they work for. No need for due-process for traffic issues...
the cop is always right. That's the point I'm making. The cop is often
wrong, even when he's not willfully lying to make his numbers good for
his next review.

>> There was no illegal impairment. Plus handicap placards are for people
>> who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills
>> issues.

> No, but there are impairments that would prevent one from driving safely.
> Only lying to the DMV about such an impairment can still get one a license,
> and then they are a hazard on the road. (But the article fails to state the
> exact nature of the impairment and only uses general terms.)

He has his license. Why should not being able to do bizarre motor skills
tests on the side of the road be something to notify the DMV about? They
don't ask how well you did in first grade gym class on the little balance
beam thing.

>> We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws and
>> equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops
>> and the other government employees to just know what the difference is.
>> This is a problem.

> If you are simply against field sobriety tests and laboratory tests to
> determine DUI, then I can't help you there. DUI is a serious enough issue
> that the checkpoints have to exist. Many drivers just have a beer or two and
> drive after only a 30 minutes or so. They are clearly under the influence,
> and those drivers cannot adequately determine their own level of impairment.

I am against the 'tool laws' and check points and other ways the police
cast a wide net and then decide who gets tossed back and who's a keeper.
Remember, no violations occured, a net was cast and they decided this guy
was to be charged. I object to the net and it's casting.

> Now, I don't agree with some aspects of police work--such as Tasers being
> used for non-life threatening situations and as frequently as batons or
> flashlights were used to beat suspects in the past. But, when it comes to
> field sobriety tests and DUI checkpoints, I do support them since it
> requires failing more than one sobriety test before being suspected of being
> impaired due to DUI.

That is simply absurd. The degree and reasonings for the beatings?
Checkpoints? That's not a free society, that's an authoritarian one. The
random drunk is of little threat compared to a government that does
checkpoints just to see whom they end up stopping and what they can
charge them with.

>> If we are going to start questioning that, then most cops I see on the
>> road should have their DL's yanked. They don't drive any better than the
>> population at large.

> I wasn't discussing police officer driving, which often involves high speed
> driving (sometimes without lights and sirens) or sudden multiple-lane
> changes.

Sudden multiple lane changes? Damn, you just described standard ISP
officer driving as they tailgate one driver, then when they can't get a
suitible violation(?) make a sudden and violent lane change to tailgate
another.... rinse and repeat. I assume they are running plates or trying
to get someone to make a mistake... I could be wrong, they could just
suck at driving.

> is using--the benefit of the doubt has to go with the police officer
> responding to a situation.

And that wide net you give him. Maybe you'll be the dolphin in the tuna
net some day.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Daniel W. Rouse
Jr. wrote:
>

[snip...]

> > Can't do a horizontal gaze nystagmus test without small head motions
(the
> > test requires moving the eyes only)... they can choose the walk in a
> > straight line test, or the one leg stand test. Police have also used the
> > touch-the-nose-with-eyes-closed test, or the say alphabet backwards
test.
>
> The cops make the choices not their victim.
>
Yes, they do. But failiing only one sobriety test does not result in a DUI
arrest. Read up on this--they use multiple tests, they score the person, and
a certain number of points means they are sufficiently impaired to be
suspected of DUI.

One can also not be DUI and still be impaired. Read up on this too--an
officer can cite or arrest a driver who is impaired even if they are not
actually DUI. (They just can't legally be charged with DUI.)

> > None of those may have any full legal standing alone, but those are what
law
> > enforcement can and do use to help determine impairment. Absent of any
> > chemical results in the blood test, the driver was still impaired, just
not
> > DUI.
>
> He apparently passed his drivers' test with those 'impairments'. You are
> missing the point. The point is that the tests are able in one way or
> another capture a large percentage of the public as being 'impaired' or
> 'DUI' or whatever you want to call it. The results are subjective and the
> cop 'makes the call'. We are told to 'trust the cop'. That the cop will
> be super human, be perfect. That there won't be errors in databases, flaws
> in the tests, etc and so forth. We can trust the cops and trust the
> government they work for. No need for due-process for traffic issues...
> the cop is always right. That's the point I'm making. The cop is often
> wrong, even when he's not willfully lying to make his numbers good for
> his next review.
>
Again, a driver can be impaired without being DUI. Nearly falling asleep at
the wheel is impairment. Having a slower response due to taking
over-the-counter antihistamines is impairment. Having a disability that
prevents proper balance is impairment. Having too much alcohol in the system
is impairment.

To reiterate, the field sobriety tests can only determine a level of
impairment. The blood, breath, or urine tests determine any chemical content
that may be contributing to the impairment.

> >> There was no illegal impairment. Plus handicap placards are for people
> >> who can't walk long distances, not for people who have motor-skills
> >> issues.
>
> > No, but there are impairments that would prevent one from driving
safely.
> > Only lying to the DMV about such an impairment can still get one a
license,
> > and then they are a hazard on the road. (But the article fails to state
the
> > exact nature of the impairment and only uses general terms.)
>
> He has his license. Why should not being able to do bizarre motor skills
> tests on the side of the road be something to notify the DMV about? They
> don't ask how well you did in first grade gym class on the little balance
> beam thing.
>
Horizontal gaze nystagmus tests are a bit more difficult as they require no
head motion, only eye motion. Standing on one leg might be a problem for
those with weak feet and ankles.

But walking in a straight line isn't asking a lot, unless someone has a
physical handicap that prevents them from walking straight, or if they are
ill... or if they are under the influence. Absent of one of those three
conditions, walking in a straight line is hardly what I would consider a
"bizarre motor skill". Touching ones nose with their eyes closed isn't a
bizarre motor skill. Reciting the alphabet backwards requires mental
concentration, but no physical exertion.

Finally, your reference to a balance beam? It's psychologically harder to
balance knowing one will fall if they misstep vs. walking along a painted
line firmly placed on the ground. (It's also a lot easier to do a balance
beam without shoes, but the potential of lawsuits prohibits most locations
from allowing no shoes on a balance beam.)

> >> We are always told that the government can have stupid wide-net laws
and
> >> equally inclusive tests for this and that and we have to trust the cops
> >> and the other government employees to just know what the difference is.
> >> This is a problem.
>
> > If you are simply against field sobriety tests and laboratory tests to
> > determine DUI, then I can't help you there. DUI is a serious enough
issue
> > that the checkpoints have to exist. Many drivers just have a beer or two
and
> > drive after only a 30 minutes or so. They are clearly under the
influence,
> > and those drivers cannot adequately determine their own level of
impairment.
>
> I am against the 'tool laws' and check points and other ways the police
> cast a wide net and then decide who gets tossed back and who's a keeper.
> Remember, no violations occured, a net was cast and they decided this guy
> was to be charged. I object to the net and it's casting.
>
A difference of opinion, then.

> > Now, I don't agree with some aspects of police work--such as Tasers
being
> > used for non-life threatening situations and as frequently as batons or
> > flashlights were used to beat suspects in the past. But, when it comes
to
> > field sobriety tests and DUI checkpoints, I do support them since it
> > requires failing more than one sobriety test before being suspected of
being
> > impaired due to DUI.
>
> That is simply absurd. The degree and reasonings for the beatings?
> Checkpoints? That's not a free society, that's an authoritarian one. The
> random drunk is of little threat compared to a government that does
> checkpoints just to see whom they end up stopping and what they can
> charge them with.
>
Surely you would agree that a suspect charging a police officer with a
weapon would deserve a baton hit, or a Taser shock... the police might even
be justified to use their guns if the weapon was something like a knife or a
gun. (If not, then you apparently want to disable the police from using any
force at any time.) However, simply not moving fast enough to a police
officer's order does NOT justify a baton hit or Taser usage. That's just two
examples of degrees and reasonings for beatings or Taser usage. It really is
not that hard to understand.

Again, though, I also agree with the checkpoints. When the people show they
can manage their own drinking of alcohol without getting behind the wheel
too soon, then the need for checkpoints will be reduced significantly.

[snip...]