The answer is ‘Yes’. Even without a reasonable suspicion, law enforcement can approach people for questioning and even ask to search objects in your possession. However, a line is drawn if the officer suggests you MUST talk to them or allow them to search your person or possessions. This is impermissible under the Supreme Court’s ruling in US v. Dayton. The rule of thumb is that a person is not generally required to answer inquiries from law enforcement or submit to a search.

There are exceptions where law enforcement will ask for identification. Most states have “stop and identify” which allows law enforcement to detain individuals and request identification provided there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal acitivity. Under Texas penal code, Section 38.02 , a person commits an offense if he refuses to give identifying information to a police officer who has lawfully arrested him. The general rule of thumb if you are unsure is to provide only your name, date of birth, and residence when asked. However, beyond this information, you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. You cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions beyond identifying questions. Recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that you must verbally assert your right to remain silent with a simple “I invoke my right to remain silent.”

Some people ask whether they have the right to walk away from a law enforcement officer who questions them. If law enforcement does not have ‘probable cause’ ( defined as the ability to articulate an objective factual basis to suspect a person has committed a crime) to justify an arrest or a ‘reasonable suspicion’ to do a ‘stop and frisk’ (detaining and questioning someone with a limited pat-down search for weapons), then yes, a person can walk away from a police officer . Yet it is impossible to know exactly why the police officer is questioning you. Sometimes, law enforcement can have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do a stop and frisk even if the individual has not done anything wrong. An officer can forcibly detain a person who begins to walk away from police questioning. A practical way to avoid unnecessary confrontation is to simply ask the officer if you are allowed to leave. If the officer refuses to allow you to leave, then obey his commands. However, do not feel compelled to answer any questions. Ultimately, your attorney will challenge whether the officer had legal justification for the detention.

Even if you do engage in an interview with police, you can stop your conversation with the police at any time. Some police officers will threaten an individual with loitering if the person refuses to answer questions. Loitering is defined as aimless wandering such that a person would threaten public safety. A police officer could request id and engage the person in questioning if he has sufficient reason to believe a person is loitering. In some jurisdictions, there are complaints that loitering laws are being used to discriminate against indigent people and ethnic minorities. It is best not to get into confrontations with police over loitering laws.

If you are accused of a crime that involves a confrontation with the police, contact a San Antonio Criminal Defense Attorney without delay.

It is important to note that when a jury walks into the courtroom, their level of respect for the judge, law enforcement, and the district attorney outweigh their respect for the defense counsel. Yet it is important to note that the role of the judge is to decide the law, and he does not know the facts of the case before the trial. The district attorney simply presents the facts received from law enforcement to the jury. The next burden of proof to be explained during voir dire (a unique Texas name for jury selection) is preponderance of evidence, This is the common burden of proof in civil courts and it means that a jury must find that one side has presented evidence of greater weight than the other side. The unique analogy is that of the scales of justice – enough evidence is presented to tip the scale or there was more than 50% evidence favorable for one side. The next level of proof is clear and convincing evidence. A San Antonio criminal defense lawyer will question how many jurors have children. A key question to ask jurors during voir dire how much evidence would be necessary would be necessary for the government to remove children from the home. Most jurors would reply that government would have to prove beyond doubt before taking children. Yet the standard of clear and convincing evidence needed to terminate parental rights and take a child away from the home is a lesser standard than the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. A common question to ask when trying to describe beyond a reasonable doubt is whether someone is willing to bet their own children that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is quite simply the highest burden of proof in the courts today and it is dictated on the government by the Constitution. Each juror should voice their agreement that the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt should be placed on the state and the jury plans to hold the government to that burden as required by the US Constitution. Each crime contains specific elements on which the government bears the burden of proof. If the state cannot prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then each juror must be willing to return a verdict of Not Guilty. It is important in a Texas criminal defense case that the jury believes it is permissible to find someone not guilty when the law requires it, and that their jury service is no less valuable if they returned a Not Guilty verdict. A ‘Not Guilty’ verdict does not mean that the jury disagreed with a law enforcement officer’s decision to arrest. The jury can vote Not Guilty and the police officer would still have done a commendable job.

The next key issue is a scientific principle known as retrograde extrapolation. According to Texas DUI law , the DA has to prove the driver was intoxicated at the time of driving. Yet the test on the breath machine reflects a breath alcohol concentration at the time of the breath test, not at the time of driving. Adding up all the time for the actual stop, conducting the field sobriety tests , the arrest, hauling away the driver’s vehicle, transport time to the precinct, reading of Miranda warnings, and the fifteen (15) minute observation period, more often than not at least an hour has passed from the time of driving until administration of the breath test. The passage of time then begs the question as to what was the breath alcohol concentration at the time of driving. The DA often uses the technical advisor to give testimony as to the breath alcohol concentration at the time of the stop, using principles of retrograde extrapolation. There are multiple factors that go into retrograde extrapolation including the amount of alcohol consumed, type of alcohol consumed, rate of consumption, when it was consumed, how much food if any was ingested, the type of food ingested, when it was ingested, the last time the driver slept, and the length of sleep. Other factors include height, weight, and other physical conditions that could impact retrograde extrapolation. There are several Texas DUI cases which discuss retrograde extrapolation. In Mata v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that unless specific factors are analyzed properly, any calculations as to the breath alcohol concentration at the time of driving are not reliable. In Stewart v. State, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Antonio ruled that a breath test taken more than eighty (80) minutes after a stop would make retrograde extrapolation calculation inadmissible. The Court of Appeals reasoned that it would be impossible after 80 minutes to determine if the defendant was absorbing alcohol (meaning the breath alcohol concentration would be on the rise) or eliminating alcohol (meaning the breath alcohol concentration would be falling). A San Antonio DWI lawyer will ask the court prior to trial to prevent the DA from using or suggesting retrograde extrapolation. Generally, the police ask the driver a series of questions designed to get information to do a retrograde extrapolation calculation. If the driver answers questions regarding retrograde extrapolation, then a San Antonio criminal defense attorney will need to employ an expert to challenge the calculation.

Another important factor is the tube where the driver blows into the chamber. Many jurors do not know that the tube itself is heated and temperature has to be calibrated. A heated tube can impact the breath sample temperature and consequently the BrAC. The reality is that the technical supervisor for the Intoxilyzer cannot say if the tube temperature was in proper order when the driver blew into the tube. The tube could theoretically be at a higher or lower temperature than recommended. In addition, there are temperature issues a Comal County DWI defense lawyer can also point out with the chamber. Sometimes, a technical supervisor will argue that the test sample temperature is not significant due to the chamber temperature. This is faulty reasoning because it is a requirement that the test sample temperature be monitored prior to starting the breath test. There would be no requirement to monitor the temperature of the test sample if the heat of the chamber cancelled out the driver’s core body temperature. As noted above, temperature can be a major factor in the ability to challenge the Intoxilyzer results and obtain a favorable DWI defense.

A strong San Antonio DWI lawyer defense tactic is to query the breath test operator as to whether he keeps a log sheet reflecting the beginning of the observation period and whether that time matches with the time listed on the records. Yet more often than not in Bexar county and surrounding counties, there is no real procedure to reflect when the observation period commences. Many New Braunfels DWI attorneys will ask the breath test operator if they have video of the breath test and whether they have videotape of the required 15 minute observation period. More often than not, the video is missing. Jurors often question why there is no video of the breath test and the observation period if the prosecutor is relying so heavily on video of the traffic stop . There is a question then as to whether the breath test operator complied with the mandatory 15 minute observation period. Besides a 15 minute observation period, the breath test operator must verify the temperature of a test sample of fluid. The purpose behind a test of the temperature is to simulate a person’s lung. When alcohol evaporates from the blood, it collects in the lungs and leaves the lungs when a person exhales. The breath test supervisor mixes water and alcohol in a container and pumps evaporated water from the jar into the Intoxilyzer 5000. If the water and alcohol is properly mixed, the test sample will read .08 .The test sample fluid and the evaporated water should be at a certain temperature because a person’s temperature can affect breath test results. A temperature higher than 98.5 degrees will create a higher result. The temperature of the test sample must be at 98.5. A technician uses an old-fashioned mercury thermometer to test the temperature of the test sample. In an age of digital thermometers, many jurors will question whether a mercury thermometer is enough of a precise instrument. More often than not, neither the breath test operator nor the technical supervisor employ a log sheet to record the temperature of the test sample at the time the person is blowing into the Intoxylizer. Again, this omission can be exploited by a skilled Atascosa criminal defense lawyer .

A jury would be hard pressed to convict beyond a reasonable doubt where the breath sample is below or equal to 0.089. In addition, the test operator must observe the arrested driver for at least fifteen (15) minutes to make sure the driver does not inadvertently belch causing stomach gas to build in the mouth . Moreover, the test operator has to make sure the temperature is proper on the test sample jar before commencing the test. You should immediately contact an Austin DWI lawyer especially if your breath test was less than or equal to 0.089.

What does this mean ultimately ? It means the Intoxilyzer has to detect an incredibly minute amount of alcohol in a breath sample reliably. To work properly, the driver must exhale 81 milliliter of air into the machine. An infrared light analyzes the molecules in the breath in conjunction with photoelectric cells and a light filter. The photoelectric cell examines the alcohol molecules and measures the amount of alcohol as if the full 210 liters of air were in the chamber. The machine spews out a Test Record. The printout Test record lists the alcohol concentration with an empty air chamber which should be 0.000 under the heading of Alcohol Concentration. The driver then gives the first of two samples of air by blowing into the Intoxilyzer chamber. After testing the sample, the chamber is flushed with air from the room – there is no filter on the chamber when the air is flushed in. Before the 2nd sample is measured, a test sample is pushed through the chamber for measurement. The test sample is supposed to have 0.080 grams of alcohol in the water. The technical supervisor formulates the test sample. Another sample of air from the room is pushed through the chamber. The 2nd sample is taken and the chamber is flushed out with room air again. With 2 samples, the jury is instructed to only account for the lower sample. In our next blog entry, we will discuss how a San Marcos DWI attorney can exploit accuracy issues with the Intoxylizer 5000.

In order to convert the blood alcohol content (BAC) to an equivalent breath alcohol content (BrAC), the TX Legislature determined that 210 liters of air converted into 100 milliliters of blood. So , here are the equivalent formulas: BAC – 0.080g/100ml of blood BrAC – 0.080g/210L of air When trying to prove the BAC through the equivalent breath sample, the prosecution calls upon the breath test operator and the technical supervisor. The breath test operator will discuss proper administration of the test to the driver and the Test Record, which is a piece of paper reflecting the quantities of alcohol per 210L of air. The supervisor will discuss the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000. In our next section, we will discuss in further detail how a San Marcos DWI lawyer can attack the reliability of the breath test.

Interim signs of impairment during the test include swaying, using the arms to balance, hopping, and putting the foot down. A New Braunfels TX DWI lawyer can argue against a video that shows the client hopping or putting his foot on the ground. Perhaps the ground was uneven and a client who catches himself rather than falls is not really impaired. Wind is also a factor that can cause a person to lose balance and the video will often reflect the weather conditions. A San Marcos DWI lawyer may also obtain medical records reflecting the driver suffered from back or knee problems or a neurological deficit – medical issues play an important role in performance on field sobriety tests. Many times, a criminal defense attorney may ask the officer to perform the field sobriety test, but this technique can backfire if the arresting officer performs the tests correctly. In cases where the officer performed the test correctly, a strong argument is that the officer may have performed the tests numerous times before, and the driver had to perform these tests for the first time.

According to the NHSTA manual, there are a total of eight (8) clues as to proper performance on the WAT. In reality, however, the WAT in essence consists of eighteen (18) steps – 9 one way, the turn around, and 9 steps back. That is well over 25 tasks the driver must perform correctly to pass – it not simply 8 clues. If a driver performs a mistake in stepping only 2x, he has still performed over 90% of the tasks correctly, which is excellent on a test people normally do for the first time in their life when they are asked to perform them on a Jourdanton DWI stop. The NHSTA Manual makes the bold prediction that failures on field sobriety tests equate to a Blood Alcohol Level of greater than .10. There is absolutely no scientific foundation for such a claim. Many prosecutors will try to sneak it in by asking the officer to comment based on his experience what the Blood Alcohol Level of a person failing the tests would approximate. Regardless of experience, an officer is simply not qualified to comment, and the lack of scientific basis underscores that inability to estimate. Never submit to a Field Sobriety Test. If you have been charged with a Texas DWI, contact a San Marcos TX DWI attorney immediately to learn the best defense.

According to the NHTSA, the accuracy of the Walk and Turn approaches 70%, which is not exactly a strong indicator of reliability. The theory goes that a failure of all three tests (HGN, WAT, and One-Leg Stand) demonstrates enough reliability to show intoxication over the legal limit. A San Antonio DWI attorney must carefully review the videotape of the Walk and Turn to aggressively defend against this test. The first point of attack is the starting position. In the WAT, the driver is supposed to place his right foot forward, placing the heel of his right foot against the toe of the other foot. He may not use his arms to balance and the arms must be at his sides. Simultaneously, the arresting officer will position himself to the side of the driver and begin instructing him on conducting the WAT. The driver will inevitably turn his head or body to listen to the officer while he stands in this position. Sober drivers would have a hard time maintaining this position without using their arms to keep from stumbling. Thus, from the outset, the WAT is designed to make a person look foolish. During trial, the prosecution may ask the officer to come down from the stand to demonstrate a field sobriety test. Rarely does an officer assume the starting position demanded during the WAT. A strong DWI defense tactic is to question the officer on a normal standing position – feet shoulder width apart and arms dangling. More often than not, that is exactly how the officer will initially stand when he explains the tests. In our next blog entry, we will focus on additional ways a Comal County DWI lawyer can attack the Walk and Turn Field Sobriety Test.

Another key weakness of the HGN test brought out by the DWI video is that very rarely does the driver give his permission for the officer to do the test. Nor does the officer ever ask the driver. The officer will ask innocently if he can check the driver’s eyes without telling the driver that he is in fact administering a field sobriety test. Ultimately, a driver has the right to refuse any and all field sobriety tests, and jurors will interpret the officer’s actions as being underhanded and unfair. The NHSTS had indicated that nystagmus is not necessarily a product of intoxication and can in fact be attributed inner ear infections, brain tumors and brain damage. More likely than not, the officer will not take the time to see if the driver may have had any of these conditions. Nystagmus is attributable to many different factors, and it does not follow that intoxication must have been what caused the eye to bounce. A Wilson County DWI attorney can effectively cross-examine an officer on the HGN test and negate any inferences of intoxication.

We know that under the HGN test, there can be up to 6 clues of intoxication – three (3) clues in each eye. According to the NHSTA manual, when four (4) or more clues are present whether it’s through lack of smooth pursuit, a distinct nystagmus, and onset of nystagmus before a 45 degree angle, the HGN is accurate a little over 75% of the time. This 75% rate means that inherently the HGN test has a 25% rate of error when it comes to predicting intoxication. A 25% rate of error is certainly not a low enough rate of error in any juror’s mind to demonstrate legal intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. A strong San Antonio DWI lawyer will also attack the statement of the NHSTA that a driver’s Blood Alcohol Concentration is above .10, when there are at least 4 clues present during the HGN test. There is absolutely no scientific basis for such an assumption and such a statement is likely to be suppressed at a hearing. When the HGN test is not performed per NHSTA specifications, then it is an invalid test and it can be argued that it is not valid evidence. A strong Texas DWI attorney will argue to a jury that incorrect performance of the HGN test renders any assumptions about intoxication clues worthless. Another weakness in HGN administration stems from the presence of the patrol vehicle’s overhead lights. The flashing of the overhead lights can alter the gaze and the arresting officer must admit that the flashing overhead lights will render the test invalid. In fact, facing traffic at night from passing traffic can also hurt the effectiveness of the HGN test. There are also issues with estimation of a forty-five (45) degree angle on the driver’s eyes. Exactly how does the officer estimate that the driver’s eyes have reached a forty-five degree angle? The officer will counter by stating he can determine the angle based on the shoulder of the person. However, inherently, that is a bad way to estimate the 45 degrees because the distance between the head and the shoulders varies from person to person. There is also the difficult question of exactly how the officer detects the nystagmus or the eye bounce – it is incredibly subtle. How good is the officer’s own eyes – does he wear glasses or contact lenses? In the next blog entry, we will continue to discuss additional ways for a San Antonio DWI attorney to attack the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Standard Field Sobriety Test.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Manual, there are three clues of intoxication related to the HGN test for each eye for a total of six (6) possible clues. The three basic HGN clues are a lack of smooth pursuit by the eye, a distinct jerking or nystagmus, and a jerking of the eye before it reaches a forty-five (45) degree angle. With respect to a lack of smooth pursuit, the officer must determine the answers to the following basic questions as he moves the flashlight back and forth across the driver’s eyes. First, can the driver actually follow the light in a smooth manner without the eye bouncing? If there is a jerk of the eyes, then that is considered a clue of intoxication. A common thread in every DWI report is the police officer’s observation that he observed a lack of smooth pursuit in the eyes while conducting the HGN test. The 2nd clue is whether the police officer detected a distinct jerking of the eye. The officer will position the light as far to the right or left as possible and hold the light there for several moments to determine if there is a distinct jerking of the eye. The magic words for the 2nd clue that police officers often annotate on their reports is a “distinct and sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation”. The 3rd clue is whether the jerking of the eye commences before the eye moves 45 degrees. If there is a jerking of the eye before the 45 degree angle, then that can be noted as another clue of intoxication. In many San Antonio DWI cases, there may be a mention of vertical nystagmus (VGN), which would entail an up and down jerking of the eyes as they look up as opposed to HGN , the left or right jerking. No reliable scientific data exists on vertical nystagmus, even though the NHSTA manual states onset of VGN is a reliable demonstration of high amounts of alcohol or drug intoxication. A Bexar County or Atascosa County DWI lawyer can move to suppress this type of junk science on VGN since it does not have scientific reliability.

In our last blog entry, we discussed how San Antonio law enforcement will use distracting questions that are not DWI standard tests in order to see if the driver can perform different tasks at once. This “unusual” questions technique continues while the officer gets ready to administer the SFSTs. The officer will ask the driver to move to a different position before each SFST to demonstrate on video if the driver sways and stumbles while moving to a different area of the roadway. Texas law enforcement will not make notations on the report that an allegedly intoxicated driver moved steadily without stumbling to different sections of the roadway to perform SFSTs – it is up to a Texas DWI defense lawyer to point out to the jury and on officer questioning that the driver was exhibiting signs of non-intoxication in his movements. Whether the driver is intoxicated or not, the SFSTs have characteristics that make failure inevitable. The Bexar County District Attorney and SAPD will point out all the negative points concerning the driver’s participation on the SFSTs – a strong Bexar County DWI lawyer must educate a jury about all the clues of non-intoxication.

The next aspect of Phase 2 is the driver’s exit from the vehicle. How the driver exits will give the officer certain cues as to intoxication that are usually captured on video and become part of the police report. If a driver literally has to crawl out of his vehicle or leans noticeably against his car once he exits, then such behavior become intoxication clues. However, if the vehicle itself is a mini sports coup, then climbing out of a vehicle is not necessarily a sign of intoxication. Propping up one’s back against a vehicle may also be considered a normal thing to do. There have been instances where the DWI video will actually show an assistant police officer using his arms against the vehicle to support himself while the driver is being questioned. In our next blog entry, we will cover Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) in which officers test a driver’s balance and coordination as well as their ability to comprehend and execute verbal and physical instructions. If you have been charged with a DWI, contact a San Antonio DWI Defense attorney without delay to protect your rights and preserve key evidence.

The video often demonstrates the officer asking the driver to exit the vehicle, but not before the “pre-exit” interview. During this phase of the officer’s investigation, the officer engages the driver in a concept known as “divided attention”. That is, the officer will request the driver to do multiple things at once, such as showing both the license and registration. The objective of the “divided attention” test is to determine if the person has issues concentrating on two or more things simultaneously, which may be a sign of impairment. Another common “divided attention” tactic is to ask the alleged suspect distracting questions such as where they were driving as the person searches for the license and registration. A San Antonio DWI attorney will effectively be able to argue to a jury that any person, whether or not they are intoxicated, will stop searching for a license / registration when a police officer interrupts them or the person may stop searching when the officer asks another question. These are natural tendencies and do not signify a person is intoxicated.

What does this mean for San Antonio and greater Bexar County Criminal Defense cases ? Essentially, you must clearly state to arresting officers of your wish to remain silent by saying something to the effect of “I am exercising my right to remain silent”. It must be clearly stated from the BEGINNING – otherwise, a criminal defendant runs the risk of waiving his right to remain silent by making additional statements. This blog entry supplements our earlier blog entries, where we indicated suspects should SHUT UP under questioning. See the following entries: The WRONG Way to Handle a Police Stop in San Antonio Texas and Bexar County What to Do on a Police Stop in San Antonio Texas and Bexar County 10 Rules for Dealing with Police in San Antonio Texas and Bexar County Now, criminal defendants are encouraged to clearly state that they are exercising their right to remain silent and then SHUT UP. If you have any questions about the exercise of your constitutional Miranda rights, you should contact a San Antonio Criminal Defense Lawyer without delay !

Comments:

I cannot begin to tell you the number of things that these individuals did wrong on the video. Sadly, this is the norm for many of my clients, not the rule. Imagine being a student and having your federal college loans revoked because of a misdemeanor possession of marijuana charge ? Do you think the police magically obtain the evidence against you ? No, people empower the police by essentially waiving their constitutional rights.

People do not understand that if they can be charged with possession if an illegal item is found in their vehicle that does not belong to them .

Remember a basic common rule:

ILLEGAL ITEM + CONSENT = ARREST
In the video above, the teenagers committed several cardinal sins.

First, they acted nervously and the police seized on their fears.

Second, they would not shut up! They just kept talking and answering questions. Remember that being silent is a simple and direct way to assert your right to remain silent. This is a cardinal rule that is especially prevalent on San Antonio DWI Defense cases – the driver just keeps talking and talking , digging himself a deeper and deeper hole !

Third, the individuals consented to the search of their vehicle! Why would anyone in their right mind ever do such a thing ?

Fourth, the teenagers got tricked. They cowered under the police threat and gave in. Rather they should have recognized the police tactics for what they were – a hollow, empty means to intimidate them to forsake their constitutional rights !

If you have been charged with a Bexar County misdemeanor / felony, and you need a San Antonio criminal defense lawyer , then do not hesitate! In the meantime, make life easier for yourself and your criminal defense attorney by holding on to your right to remain silent and refuse consent on any searches.

UPDATE: Please read about this new Supreme Court Case on the right to remain SILENT and what you must do to protect it.

You can prevent a traffic stop from turning into a Bexar County misdemeanor or a misdemeanor from turning into a full blown San Antonio felony charge.

People have this naive idea that the police are willing to work with them, and if they simply explain the situation, the police will empathize and release them Wrong! The police are not your friends – think of them as the agents of the District Attorney’s office. The job of the police is to build a case against you. Even the purely innocent must be wary of any statements made to the police. What if the police claim you stated something you didn’t or they misinterpret your statements? Can you imagine a jury having to determine between a criminal defendant and a police officer as to who is telling the truth ? Who are they more likely to favor ? It is a no win situation and a lesson you should learn now as opposed to later.

Remember that the police may legally lie to you so never let them trick you into waiving your rights.

So in this blog entry, I will cover some basic rules on routine traffic stops that can become your worst nightmare if you do not follow some simple rules. With the aid of the following video, I will add some commentary to guide you through.

Review this first clip to see the RIGHT way to act with the police:

Comments:

Notice how one person takes control of the situation – ie. One person does all the talking.

By rolling up all the windows, the officers’ access to the car is limited.

When first dealing with an approaching officer, allways put your hands on the wheel in plain view
By asking why he was pulled over, the driver asserts his innocence.

In response to the question , “Do you know the speed limit ?” , the driver asserts his 5th amendment right against self incrimination and does not answer.

“Officer, how can I help ? ” . This is a relatively easy way for the driver to be cool and courteous , a key rule to remember.

“Why officer?” Again, this question forces the officer in a corner. He must have probable cause to search the vehicle. It is interesting if he cannot articulate his reasons right then and there.

When asked to step out of the car, driver locks his doors. This makes it clear the officer does not have permission to search the vehicle.

“Are you detaining us officer or are we free to go ?” This is an excellent question.

Always ask if you can leave. The police must have some probable cause to detain you.

Make it verbally clear that you do NOT consent to any searches.

In these situations, the officer is NOT looking to help you.

What is the probable cause for detaining the occupants of a car ? There is none. It’s an idle threat.

Ask again if you can leave. Speeding does not constitute probable cause for a vehicle search.

What is the “next level” ? It is just police rhetoric designed to intimidate you into doing what they want.

The Supreme Court states that once you are cited, you are free to leave. If you stick around, it is on your own free will. Take the ticket and leave.

Did you notice the common thread in this situation ? The driver talked very little! Plus, he did not directly answer any questions. He simply asserted his right to remain silent and did not consent to any vehicular searches.

Knowing some of these basic rules can greatly assist you especially if you need a San Antonio DWI lawyer. Contact one today immediately if you have been arrested in Bexar County or surrounding counties such as Wilson County or Atascosa County.

UPDATE: Please read about this new Supreme Court Case on the right to remain SILENT and what you must do to protect it.