The rest of your post is pure b.s. My two boys are cops, and when they've pulled someone over for DUI, that person has blown positive (or refused to blow) EVERY SINGLE TIME!!
That's what I want to continue, along with a mandatory five year jail sentence for a first time DUI.
actually most DUI lawyers will tell you that you should refuse EVERYTHING when stopped for a DUI. An administrative suspension for a refusal is far easier to fight than a DUI with no evidence.
The horozontal gaze nystagmus test is routinely excluded in FL because of old case law which found it to be far too manipulated and far too unreliable. (prosecutor friends advised on that bit of data during a night out listening to their complaining on how tough DUI cases have been to prove.)
Once officer had a defendant pulled over, had the defendant perform the roadsides and then advised the defendant they were drunk and under arrest. The defendant blew sober and the officer was exposed as falsifying a police report. (it did not help that he had pulled over a small city police chief whose city escapes me right now)
The intoxilyzer machines have also been fraught with deficiencies. In miami, a freshly painted testing room cause the machine to give false positives, the machines were exposed as having a air-blank test routine which was hard wired to read "0.0" (which is to calibrate the machine as empty and ready to test the next person) thus air samples were never really cleared out.
The REAL evidence which convicts a person is the video tape. If the person is pulled over and is falling down drunk, they may perform the roadsides, they may even blow a 0.07 (which is 0.01 short of legal presumption impaired) but the tape is the best convictor. It is also the best exonorator in the face of all other evidence.
HOWEVER, DUI arrests are not the same as the dog sniff test. The dog is a piece of special equiptment brought to test the air around a vehicle. It would not take much for an officer to train his dog to give a "positive on command".
Why not just extend implied consent on the back of a license to search all motor vehicles and just do away with the fourth amendment formally.
first cop ran up to my rear bumper so fast that he damn near hit my car, blinded me with his bright as he tailgated me at 75-80 mpg which forced me to make a dangerous evasive manuvere. then he blue lighted me, at this point i was adrenaline pumping, so when he and the other TWO cop cars finally got around to approaching the car [nearly 5 minutes]I was already so mad that my hands were shaking.
this one a$$bag cop was such a total pr!ck that my elementary school teacher nearly went to jail that night for challenging his authority, but more to the point, a 0.00 BAC AND 45 minutes later we were back on our way.
Your boys may be fine cops/men. But they are men, so I really doubt that they are correct 100% of the time in real life, 'probable cause' or not...