Most people who come to me say they were not actually drunk and they were doing fine. The way the
statute is written, you do not need to be falling down drunk to be deemed under the influence of alcohol.
People generally think they did the roadside tests, field sobriety tests (FSTs) fine. But often they don’t know
how they actually performed. Alcohol affects people’s judgment. Their recollection may not be the way it
really happened. People often say the police had no reason to pull them over because they were driving
fine. Sometimes they are right, often they are not.
Many people have the mindset that it is “only” a DUI, not a criminal case. People need to understand that
a DUI is actually a criminal case, although if we were able to resolve it as a non-DUI disposition, like reckless
driving that is much less serious than a DUI, then it would be considered a traffic offense instead of a
People also have the misconception that their case would be dismissed if they were pulled over and made
to do all these tests but no one had read them their Miranda rights. Miranda protects people from making
incriminating statements when they are already in custody, whereas the law in Nevada and in most states
says that DOING THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS IS NOT TESTIMONIAL.
If they did not read the person their Miranda rights, they would not be able to use the person’s actual
statements, if they made any incriminating statements while in custody. But, they would still be able to
use other evidence such as witness statements, blood analysis and the officers’ observations.
Let us suppose someone was pulled over, arrested for a DUI and were on their way to jail. In this situation
they would be considered as being in custody. If the officer had not read the Miranda rights, even if the
person made incriminating statements i.e. that they were driving, they had a lot to drink and rammed into
a parking meter. These statements are incriminating, we would be able to get those statements