Charged w/drunk in public police never took any tests.?

I was charged with drunk in public but was never asked to take a breath test nor was I given any sobriety tests. will this charge be able to stand up in court.

Answers:
Unless your states public drunkeness law (or whatever it is called there) sets a specific level of intoxication, which I doubt any do, then a breath test or sobriety test are not required. The officer can make several other observations to show that you were drunk in public without doing specific test. Your appearence, speech, balance, smell of alcohol, and most importantly your actions that caused the officer to feel the need to arrest you in the first place. The public drunkeness laws are not used by police to just arrest anyone who has been drinking and happens to be walking down the street, they are for people who are drunk and causing a problem (or who are actually physically drinking in public).

In my state we do not have a specific public intoxication law instead it is covered under the disorderly conduct law meaning that you are arrested for being a disturbance regardless of how intoxicated you are. Although our law is a bit more broad it is basically meant to serve the same purpose as other states laws.

I have never given a breath test or field sobriety to anyone I have arrested for disorderly conduct. (unless they were also on bail or probation) There is actually a big reason for police not to give them and that is that you are not required to submit to one (again based on laws in my state). If you are suspected of DUI the law requires that you submit to the test there is no such thing compeling you to submit to a breath test or conduct field sobriety because you were drunk in public. So why would the officer try to conduct them when there is nothing that says you have to do them and no recourse if you do not do them.
Nope...get a lawyer though..

either way they will make you pay.it's all part of the game.
it doesnt sound like it would. get a lawyer or public defender. you could blame it on meds or act like an idiot when you go to court so it will look like the cops made a mistake.
Depends on the available evidence. Breath (or urine or blood) test the best way to prove intoxication, but not the only way. Prosecution can use circumstantial evidence to prove its case. For example, officer may testify that the suspect smelled of an alcoholic beverage, had glassy eyes, staggered, slurred speech, had difficulty maintaining balance.

The defense should obtain all police reports. Determine why a chemical test was not obtained. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If chemical testing was reasonably available and police didn't pursue it, the court/jury is going to have some questions as to why.
You might have been too drunk to remember.
IT WILL NOT
BUT IS A PUBLIC INTOXICATION
SO IF YOU FIGHT IT
THERE IS NO TEST AND NO RESULTS
BUT THEY CAN CALL WITNESS THAT WHERE PART OF THE PUBLIC AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT

UNLESS THERE IS NO WITNESS
THEN YEA YOU WIN
BUT IF THERE WAS THEN
IT WILL TAKE A LOT FOR YOU TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENTS
A sobriety test is only utilized in drunk driving cases. ^The charge will stand. Public drunkenness charges usually stem from an intoxicated individual acting inappropriately in public. There is no minimum limit for BAL if you are charged with public intoxication.
Let me ask you some questions: Ever been to a party and seen someone who was drunk? Did you give him or her field sobriety tests - horizontal gaze nystagmus? Walk and turn? One legged stand? (The 3 'standardized' tests from NHTSA) No? You could still tell the person was intoxicated? And you haven't even gone through any training.

I've prosecuted hundreds of DUI cases and others involving alcohol - - and rarely had a problem establishing intoxication even in the absence of FST or a chemical (blood, urine, breath) test. . .

You have a trained observer, who has a great deal of experience dealing with drunks - - - and who can probably relate to the court slurred speech, poor balance, disheveled clothing, red, glassy and bloodshot eyes and whatever other indicators he or she found in determining you were impaired by alcohol or drugs or both. . .

Were you taken to jail? If you were impaired, there are likely notes there too, and other witnesses - the jailors sometimes will testify as to your state of non-sobriety upon admission.

Not trying to give you legal advice here - that's for your lawyer. But, if you can pick out a drunk at a party, don't you think a cop can pick you out as impaired too? This is something within a judge's or juror's realm of experience and readily understandable.

So, yes, depending on the observations of the arresting officer, the charge may stand up in court.
Depending upon the state, it shouldn't. If you were at Mardi Gras, forget it, you're doomed. I don't know where you are at, but I will tell you that if you were acting inappropriately in a public venue of sorts then they can arrest you on probable cause without doing any testing. They don't have to prove it. They just have to document your actions on the police report, and that will nail you in court. Been there, done it. No tests are required based upon actions exhibited. As far as I know, that is nationwide.

Good luck, and I hope you have plenty of money to fight it. Cuz it cost me over $3K in my state and still plead guilty rather than go to trial, not to mention the probation costs and buying out community service. Overall, ended up being 7K.
Under Section 18 of Miscellaneous Act (Cap 184). Any person who is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself, in any public road or in any public place or place of public amusement or resort, or in the immediate vicinity of any court or of any public office or police station or place of worship, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

In normal situation, you will be sent to the hospital for blood test, and the test will be used in Court as an evident. But take note, it's used as an evident, which meant the law did not stated a blood test is a must inorder for the offence to be justified.


The Answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:


More Questions and Answers: