by eynon81 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:56 am
SCOTUS said they were back in 1990, their convoluted logic boiled down to a person not having all that high of an expectation of privacy when they drove on a public highway, blah, blah, blah. Same logic for immigration check-points. What our friend in Florida did was to not give the Officers any reasonable suspicion that anything illegal was going on; they did not observe bad driving, he provided he's papers, etc. By not rolling down his window he did not give the cops the opportunity to "smell alcohol" thereby creating reasonable suspicion to go down the DUI rabbit hole.
ALL THAT SAID...it's been my experience that cops use a lot of discretion in re DUIs. The vast majority of the hundreds of DUI cases I've handled either involved accidents, refusals, or way high BACs. I think I've had maybe one .08 that didn't involve an accident. Shows me they are showing mercy on the buzzed drivers.