Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
Skip...
As always thanks for the clarification! I am pretty sure I get it!
I assume the "articuable suspicion" could have been either lights or erratic drving? Wouldn't the lights not displayed properly been enough for a stop? I am curious because erratic can/could be open to interpretation...
Thanks Again!
Woodsy
|
You are correct, either observation could be enough for a stop.
However, whenever you make an arrest for DWI or BUI after you have observed operation, you want to clearly articulate any operation that was occuring prior to the stop. On many occasions you will not get an admissable blood, breath or urine sample to enter into evidence. Operation becomes a key component of your assertion that the operator was unfit to drive. Absent a chemical test and given just sobriety tests, if you testify that the operation was normal prior to the stop there is a good chance that the defendant will be found not guilty.
Good attorneys know how to nullify or minimize field sobriety tests. In order to obtain a conviction you must be able to clearly articulate all aspects of the stop, including those observed operational behaviors that drew your suspicion in the first place.