In most cases, never.There is a SCOTUS decision that addresses this directly: Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 420 (1984).Richard McCarty was seen driving a car, weaving across the road. He was stopped by Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper C.J. Williams, who conducted a field sobriety test. McCarty failed the test, and agreed to take a breath test. At the county jail (Harold Berkemer was the sheriff of Franklin County, OH, and the keeper of that jail), McCarty’s breath test showed no alcohol consumed. Trooper Williams questioned McCarty further and learned that McCarty had smoked a considerable amount of marijuana just prior to driving. Williams used the information from this questioning to charge McCarty with DUI-Drugs.After McCarty was convicted, his attorney appealed on the basis that no Miranda warning was given to McCarty. Ultimately, the SCOTUS ruled that there was no need to give a Miranda warning during “routine roadside questioning” during a traffic stop, but that any questioning after the person has been placed under arrest is a custodial interrogation, and must be prefaced with a Miranda warning.Law enforcement officers seldom conduct any questioning after placing someone under arrest for DUI, beyond booking questions that are not covered by Miranda. Unless the officer does question you in a way that is likely to elicit incriminating information, you probably won’t ever be given a Miranda warning when being charged with DUI.
I’m not a law enforcement officer or lawyer, but I am sure had those officers let him go or escorted him home rather than arrest him, and the next day it is discovered that he hit someone before the police rolled up on him which resulted in injury or death, they would have a lot of questions to answer.His car had significant damage, including two flat tires, damaged rims and body damage. Although the officers did not find anything in the immediate area, he obviously hit something (most likely a curb) to cause that much damage to his car. It very well could have been a pedestrian or another vehicle a mile or two away, and since he didn’t seem to know where he was coming from or where he was going, he might not have even realized it.I understand that occasionally high-profile individuals get special treatment to prevent damaging their reputation or due to their status in the community, and who knows, perhaps if Tiger had been “slightly buzzed” and just down the road from his home maybe he would have been given a break (I’m not saying this is right or wrong, but the reality is it does happen), but in this situation those officers would have been jeopardizing their careers had they not arrested him. Can you imagine the fallout if the dashcam video was leaked and it was revealed they let him go?
Here’s the problem with all of these various hypotheticals which involve a private citizen acting in some way that would retaliate against a police officer who is acting outside their authority…they want to ignore the reality of the situation.In reality, if a police officer is arresting someone without probable cause, there are only two possibilities, and in neither of those situations is the citizen going to be able to resist in any meaningful way at the time of the encounter:The police officer personally believes that they do have probable cause but is mistaken about that fact in some meaningful way. The courts have repeatedly held that a reasonable mistake is not subject to scrutiny for unlawful arrest — only an unreasonable mistake invalidates the arrest entirely. But that is only tangential, because the officer does believe they have the right to arrest the citizen and is going to effect the arrest as though they did have probable cause. Resisting such an arrest will escalate the situation and result in the use of physical compliance techniques that are likely to injure the citizen.The police officer knows that they do not have probable cause and is committed to effecting the arrest anyway. At this point, the police officer doesn’t care about your rights and is likely looking for any additional pretext they can apply to the situation to pin an actual and substantive charge onto the citizen. In this case, resisting is similarly likely to escalate the situation, an the officer is likely to use overwhelming compliance techniques designed to cause substantial harm — after all, if they don’t care that they’re arresting you improperly, they probably don’t care if you don’t make it to the precinct at all.As I’ve said in other answers, the remedy for an illegal arrest occurs after the fact as neither the citizen nor the officer can legally determine whether the arrest complied with the law or not — that is a subsequent determination made by a judge or jury. If you attempt to “defend” yourself against what you view as an illegal arrest, it’s almost a certainty that it will go poorly for you in the short term.
This is no laughing matter. What you are proposing could end life as we know it. #1 Police Officers are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. #2 When a police officer makes an arrest, the government requires him to complete a sworn affidavit, admissible in court, alleging the crime committed and the person who committed it. #3 The 5th amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from compelling a person to be a witness against himself, and the 14th amendment causes that prohibition to be applied to state and local governments. For a police officer to arrest himself, he would be compelled by his state government to complete a sworn statement as a witness against himself, but at the same time he would be prevented from complying with such a requirement by the 5th amendment and his oath to uphold the Constitution. Attempting to carry through such an ill-advised plan would, at best, spark an instant Constitutional crisis, possibly contributing to the downfall of the USA, a collapse of the world economy, and the end of modern civilization on Earth. At worst, his attempt to arrest himself would create a paradox, destroying the logical space-time continuum and forcing an embarrassed Universe to retreat back into the point of singularity from which it originally sprung in an effort to hide its shame.
Your exact rights depend greatly on the state in which you were arrested, and how their implied consent laws are worded. Generally speaking, you have the exact same rights that you have any time you are arrested:The right to remain silent;The right to have an attorney present during any questioning; andThe right to be arraigned on any criminal charge within 48-72 hours.In some states, you may have the right to refuse field sobriety tests, without any further consequence; doing so is almost always going to result in your immediate arrest on suspicion of DUI.In most states, you can refuse to provide a breath or blood test (unless you have been involved in an accident in which someone was seriously harmed, in which case it can be forced by warrant), but doing so usually results in an immediate suspension of your driver's license for anywhere between 90 days and a year. Whether or not you should do so should be the first question you ask your lawyer after you call him when you are detained for the breath test.It's a common misconception that refusing a breath or blood test will easily get you off from such a charge - first of all, breath and blood tests are not covered by the 5th Amendment, so in most states your refusal can and will be used against you in court as evidence of your likely guilt of the crime. Further, every DUI statute applies sanctions both for people above the legal limit and people whose driving ability is "affected" by intoxication of any form. In many states, not having the breath or blood test actually limits the options that your defense counsel has to challenge the arrest and the facts of the matter.Again, whether or not you exercise any of these rights is something that you should confer with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction about, as there are massive differences in state law as well as the application of the law in every jurisdiction.
That depends on your BMI versus the alcohol content of the beer. There are some beers that weight in at 14% per volume.Here are some chart examples to look for. Each state and city is different, get familiar with the laws before tying one on.