US Police - Stupidity of Field Sobriety Tests

[SYZ]

...Right, I took his acronym RBT to mean "roadside breath test", which is why I ignored it. A roadside breathing test after, say, an officer observing erratic driving is legal in all fifty states. A random breath test with no reasonable suspicion would be laughed out of the municipal court on 4A grounds.

Again, the legal standard is "reasonable suspicion", which is a lower standard than "probable cause".

Interestingly in Australia, a traffic cop does not legally
need any "reasonable belief" that a driver is under the
influence of alcohol or illicit drugs in order to demand a
breath test.  A "random" breath test is just that, and under
the Australian Constitution is not considered to infringe upon
one's personal rights.

In many locations, a so-called "booze bus" is set up by the cops
on the roadside, and every motorist has to stop and undergo
the breath test.    



This can additionally include a tongue drug swab with a tester
like this, usually set up to detect up to three drugs; cannabis,
cocaine, and methamphetamine.



All police cruisers also carry multiples of these testing devices.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...Right, I took his acronym RBT to mean "roadside breath test", which is why I ignored it. A roadside breathing test after, say, an officer observing erratic driving is legal in all fifty states. A random breath test with no reasonable suspicion would be laughed out of the municipal court on 4A grounds.

Again, the legal standard is "reasonable suspicion", which is a lower standard than "probable cause".

Interestingly in Australia, a traffic cop does not legally
need any "reasonable belief" that a driver is under the
influence of alcohol or illicit drugs in order to demand a
breath test.  A "random" breath test is just that, and under
the Australian Constitution is not considered to infringe upon
one's personal rights.

In many locations, a so-called "booze bus" is set up by the cops
on the roadside, and every motorist has to stop and undergo
the breath test.    



This can additionally include a tongue drug swab with a tester
like this, usually set up to detect up to three drugs; cannabis,
cocaine, and methamphetamine.



All police cruisers also carry multiples of these testing devices.

Australian practices would not meet 4th Amendment standards here.

[SYZ]

From the United States Courts site:

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people
from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
 
The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all
searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable
under the law.

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the
eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests.  
On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth
Amendment rights.  On the other side of the scale are legitimate
government interests, such as public safety.

A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating
drunk driving. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

So... for the purpose of defining the 4th Amendment, what do "reasonable"
and "unreasonable" mean legally?  And does an individual LEO justly represent
and/or act as "the eyes of the law"?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating
drunk driving. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

Right. They cannot, however, test every driver. They stop the traffic, and assess each driver. Those who appear intoxicated may then be tested.

So... for the purpose of defining the 4th Amendment, what do "reasonable"
and "unreasonable" mean legally?  And does an individual LEO justly represent
and/or act as "the eyes of the law"?

Second question first -- yes, an individual LEO does represent the government.

What do "reasonable" and "unreasonable" mean? From the Wiki:

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that in United States law is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",[2] and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3] If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk (by feeling something that could be a weapon or contraband, for example), they may then conduct a full search. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[4] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

[...]

U.S. courts have held that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses unusual items (like a wire hanger, which would be useful in a crime, and is looking into car windows at 2 am), when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another officer, or a person is seen fleeing from a home or business with a sounding alarm. However, reasonable suspicion does not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a particular race or ethnicity.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

[Rhythmcs]

Field sobriety tests are, themselves, all voluntary in the us - though an officer does not have to tell you this. You're supposed to fail them even if you're stone cold sober. That's the reason cops use them instead of a breathalizer, just to answer that q from way back.

[pattylt]

I’d have to refuse and demand a breathalyzer and/or a blood alcohol. I don’t drink…but I have a limp and a replaced knee. Between the two, I can’t walk a straight line or balance. I guess I could pass touching my nose but, not on one foot! I have asygmatism as well so, not sure about the eye test. I sure can’t hang a picture straight if my life depended on it….hubby hangs the pictures.

[Minimalist]

Like "beauty" the word "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder.

Somehow, the pigs seem to think that harassing minorities is always "reasonable."

[Thumpalumpacus]

I’d have to refuse and demand a breathalyzer and/or a blood alcohol.  I don’t drink…but I have a limp and a replaced knee.  Between the two, I can’t walk a straight line or balance.  I guess I could pass touching my nose but, not on one foot!  I have asygmatism as well so, not sure about the eye test.  I sure can’t hang a picture straight if my life depended on it….hubby hangs the pictures.

I've got a similar built-in defense; my bone disease has resulted in my right leg being shorter than my left and imparts not only a noticeable limp but balance issues as well. I'd demand a tube right away.

[SYZ]

Have to view on YouTube link.