By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Derived from an episode of The People’s Lawyer.

Can a police officer legally force a driver to perform a field‑sobriety test, or is that a myth many motorists fall for? The answer became crystal clear during a tense traffic stop in Frederick County, Maryland, where a routine red‑light citation spiraled into an arrest that raised serious questions about police procedure.

The Stop That Started It All

On March 29, 2025, Deputy Christian Rausch of the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office pulled over Levi Trumbull, alleging he had run a red light on Lowe’s Lane. The interaction began calmly: Trumbull asked, “I ran a red light? Is that why I’m being pulled over?” and the deputy confirmed, “Yes.” Trumbull complied, offering to step out of the vehicle, but he refused to perform a field‑sobriety test, stating, “I’m not going to perform field sobriety, but I will step out of the vehicle.”

Despite Trumbull’s cooperation, Deputy Rausch insisted, “I already have probable cause to take you in,” and suggested the test was required. This claim directly contradicted Maryland statutes, which make roadside sobriety tests voluntary and impose no criminal sanction for refusal.

Maryland Law vs. Officer Assertion

Maryland law outlines three standard field sobriety tests—horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk‑and‑turn, and one‑leg stand—but specifies they are not mandatory. The statute also clarifies that the state’s implied‑consent law applies only to chemical tests of breath or blood, not to the voluntary roadside assessments. In the video, Deputy Rausch repeatedly told Trumbull, “What’s the DUI? What is your probable cause?” while misrepresenting the legal framework.

Legal experts note that an officer may request a field test, but a driver’s refusal cannot be used as probable cause for arrest. Trumbull’s decision to remain silent and decline the test was fully protected, yet the deputy proceeded to handcuff him and transport him to the sheriff’s office.

The Drug Recognition Expert and Miranda Rights

At the station, a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) arrived to evaluate Trumbull for possible drug impairment. Before any questioning, the DRE read Trumbull his Miranda rights. Trumbull responded, “I am going to exercise my Miranda rights and also my Fifth Amendment,” and declined to speak further. This clear invocation of constitutional protections halted any further self‑incriminating dialogue.

The DRE’s qualifications were outlined on the record: eleven years of patrol experience and two state‑approved DRE certifications. While the expert’s credentials were legitimate, the procedural misstep lay in the earlier arrest—without lawful probable cause, the subsequent DRE evaluation risked being tainted.

What the Police Report Missed

Deputy Rausch’s report listed signs of impairment such as “bloodshot eyes, shaking hands, jaw clenching, repeating questions, and turning his head.” Yet the video footage showed none of these indicators. Observers noted Trumbull’s eyes were not visibly bloodshot, his hands were steady, and his speech, while firm, did not exhibit the slurred patterns typical of intoxication.

These discrepancies underscore a broader issue: officers sometimes rely on subjective impressions rather than objective evidence. When an officer’s perception does not align with observable facts, the risk of unlawful arrest rises, potentially exposing departments to civil liability.

Why It Matters for Everyday Drivers

For the average motorist, this case serves as a reminder to know one’s rights. Maryland drivers can refuse field sobriety tests without penalty, and any arrest must be based on clear, articulable evidence of impairment—not merely an officer’s belief. Moreover, invoking the right to remain silent and requesting a copy of the Miranda warning are powerful tools that can prevent self‑incrimination.

Jeff Hampton, host of The People’s Lawyer, emphasizes that “understanding the law is the first line of defense.” He encourages viewers to stay informed and to calmly assert their rights when faced with questionable police conduct.

Ultimately, the Trumbull stop highlights the need for better training on constitutional limits and for departments to ensure that officers accurately convey the law to the public. When law enforcement respects legal boundaries, trust between police and the community strengthens, reducing the likelihood of costly lawsuits and preserving public safety.

The full episode of The People’s Lawyer is available on OBBM Network TV.