That is totally different. The police, in your example, are looking for a specific person, usually in an emergency circumstance. The police cannot set up roadblocks just to look for any old felon they happen to find, they have to be looking for someone specific, and there has to be some sort of emergency to excuse it. I would be opposed to the police just setting up roadblocks to check for "any old thing we can find." That is the whole reason whe have a right against unreasonable search and seizures.
That are setting up road blocks to search for individuals breaking a specific law. Do you think they are going to let you drive on through a roadblock set up looking for a specific felon if they see you're drunk?
Cop1: "Nope that's not Joe mass murderer, he's just drunk."
Cop2: "Well, better let him go, we're looking for Joe mass murderer"
Cop1: "Have a nice day Mr. Boozer, we have to let you go since you're drunk and we're looking for a murderer"
Yes they can force you. If you don't take the test, you will have your license suspended for a year (in GA). That is why DUI attorneys tell people to take the Intox on a first DUI in five--the punishment for not taking it is worse than the DUI itself (because you can't get a work permit).
They aren't forcing you. When you applied for the
privilege of driving you knew the stipulations for getting a license and abusing the
privilege . Losing your license for refusing a breathalyzer is not punishment, it's the terms you agreed to when you signed for your license. Like I said before if you don't like the terms you're not required to drive, there is no constitutional right to drive.
Yes, but when the police do that it is unconstitutional. The police are supposed to stop interrogating you after you are going to be arrested--unless they read you your rights.
Where you come from they don't read you your rights?
You can refuse to answer, it doesn't mean they can't ask. Remember anything you say can and will be used against you? Don't say anything, it's not hard unless you're impaired then it seems to be very hard.
Understanding the consequences is the technical part. For example, the average driver doesn't know that field sobriety testing is totally optional in Georgia. The police usually use trick questions that don't sound like questions to get consent. A lot of time the police prey on the confusion surrounding what will get your license suspended and what will not. Sadly, I suspect the police could never make a winable DUI case against me, even if I was intoxicated. OTOH, I have seen them make solid cases against people who weren't drinking at all.
Many people don't know that machine guns and suppressors are legal in many states, it doesn't make the law any less valid. Lawyers give legal advice, not cops; especially cops who are arresting you. Ever heard ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I call bs on trick questions. "Can I search your vehicle" doesn't sound too tricky, unless maybe you're impaired.
It doesn't take much to make a winnable case. Dash cam and body mic usually says all they need it to say. So, I'd say it's a pretty bold statement to say they couldn't get a winnable case against you if you were in fact impaired.
