Are alcohol/drug tests mandatory after car crash?

Wrkn4livn

Member
So, we have a friend that is like 17 and hit some ice last night. Lost traction, over corrected and slammed into a tree. Had seat belt on. Airbags deployed (I think speed was an issue). Just banged and bruised but thankfully, no injuries...
So when the sheriff arrived, they immediately administered a breath test. The driver was sober. No indication of alcohol was evident (no smell, no beer cans, etc.) as there was no drinking going on.
Is this the norm now? I thought the only reason a breath test was given was to validate the suspicion of drugs or alcohol, not to determine if was there. Have the rules changed? Are we to expect this type of 'search' as a result of an accident? I thought we are innocent until proven guilty. This sounds like they had to prove innocence... Any lawyers/sheriff's that would care to comment on this? I'd sure appreciate it.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
So, we have a friend that is like 17 and hit some ice last night. Lost traction, over corrected and slammed into a tree. Had seat belt on. Airbags deployed (I think speed was an issue). Just banged and bruised but thankfully, no injuries...
So when the sheriff arrived, they immediately administered a breath test. The driver was sober. No indication of alcohol was evident (no smell, no beer cans, etc.) as there was no drinking going on.
Is this the norm now? I thought the only reason a breath test was given was to validate the suspicion of drugs or alcohol, not to determine if was there. Have the rules changed? Are we to expect this type of 'search' as a result of an accident? I thought we are innocent until proven guilty. This sounds like they had to prove innocence... Any lawyers/sheriff's that would care to comment on this? I'd sure appreciate it.

A person has to consent to a breathalyzer. Was the person out of the car or in the car when the deputy arrived?
 
Last edited:

boughfarm

New Member
are you for real?

Are you that innocent, you think they need cause? Why is every car stopped, smelling of marijuana? Who's word is the court going to take. And after a search, it doesn't matter. God bless America.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
And if they don't, they lose their license. Guilt has nothing to do with it.

I may have mis-understood the op, but I was under the impression it was a road side breathalyzer. If that's the case, you don't lose your license is not suspended. If not a road side then the officer would need probable cause which would be articulated in his charging document.
 
So, we have a friend that is like 17 and hit some ice last night. Lost traction, over corrected and slammed into a tree. Had seat belt on. Airbags deployed (I think speed was an issue). Just banged and bruised but thankfully, no injuries...
So when the sheriff arrived, they immediately administered a breath test. The driver was sober. No indication of alcohol was evident (no smell, no beer cans, etc.) as there was no drinking going on.
Is this the norm now? I thought the only reason a breath test was given was to validate the suspicion of drugs or alcohol, not to determine if was there. Have the rules changed? Are we to expect this type of 'search' as a result of an accident? I thought we are innocent until proven guilty. This sounds like they had to prove innocence... Any lawyers/sheriff's that would care to comment on this? I'd sure appreciate it.

Hmm, I would like to think they would have to have a reason as in the smell on the breath or some common sense. Guess not.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
No indication of alcohol was evident (no smell, no beer cans, etc.) as there was no drinking going on.

Are you sure there was no sign? Were you there to observe the driver's behavior? Were his eyes bloodshot? Was his speech a bit slurred? Was he steady on his feet? Was he coherent? Was he beligerent? Did he get pissy with the cops? Was he "feeling no pain" despite visible injury? Did his eyes focus? Did his eyes react appropriately to the light?

The roadside breath test can be used only when there is a reason to use it. The result is not admissable in court other than to show why they decided to arrest the person and take them in for an admissable breath test. The cops are fully aware of this, and it is not likely that they would risk their career to do random breath tests.

I suspect that the officer saw something that raised suspicion and decided to do the test in order to determine if there was something else going on. You can't wait to do a breath test for a few hours while you check things out. If there's reason to suspect something, they need to take the next incremental step before the body has a chance to destroy the evidence. The process has has been decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals many times, and the cops know what they must do.
 

tom88

Well-Known Member
To refuse is an automatic admission of guilt. Course a lawyer can fight it, and charge you.

I re-read the original post and duet to the line “immediately administered a breath test” I would conclude it was a roadside preliminary breath test. This is a tool that is used to establish probable cause. There is no penalty for refusing this. If the officer has some other probable cause, they may arrest you. If not, there is no penalty.
 

cattitude

My Sweetest Boy
yup. The ex refused one..lost her license automatically.

Yep...but it is the one that they administer after they take you to the jail that results in the automatic suspension. But if you refuse the one on the roadside, you're going for a ride...doesn't matter if you're over the limit or not.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Yep...but it is the one that they administer after they take you to the jail that results in the automatic suspension. But if you refuse the one on the roadside, you're going for a ride...doesn't matter if you're over the limit or not.

All I know is this..the trooper jumped out of his car upon arrival in Leonardtown with her in the back seat and declared "I'm done with this crazy beeyaotch..you all take it from here!"

:killingme
 

Fairmount

New Member
Are you sure there was no sign? Were you there to observe the driver's behavior? Were his eyes bloodshot? Was his speech a bit slurred? Was he steady on his feet? Was he coherent? Was he beligerent? Did he get pissy with the cops? Was he "feeling no pain" despite visible injury? Did his eyes focus? Did his eyes react appropriately to the light?

The roadside breath test can be used only when there is a reason to use it. The result is not admissable in court other than to show why they decided to arrest the person and take them in for an admissable breath test. The cops are fully aware of this, and it is not likely that they would risk their career to do random breath tests.

I suspect that the officer saw something that raised suspicion and decided to do the test in order to determine if there was something else going on. You can't wait to do a breath test for a few hours while you check things out. If there's reason to suspect something, they need to take the next incremental step before the body has a chance to destroy the evidence. The process has has been decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals many times, and the cops know what they must do.

Friday!
 

Fairmount

New Member
No Tommy, it's Sunday. You've been in a blackout since Friday. It's like time travel - you crack that first beer, and it's suddenly next week.

You can only dream how easy it would be to argue with somoene who drinks like you wish...well it makes it easiar on your .....
 
Last edited:
Top