Can a drunk driving suspect refuse a chemical test?
Drunk driving is a major problem in the country, and treated very seriously by the justice system. Police need probable cause to stop someone they suspect is driving under the influence, and they usually rely on swerving, or other signs of bad driving to justify the stop. Police then perform secondary tests to further support their suspicion. Finally, police seek to measure a drivers’s blood alcohol concentration by asking them to complete a chemical test — either blood, breath, or urine. People give advance consent to such tests when they are issued driver’s licenses by the state, and the refusal to complete a chemical test may result in certain penalties. Nevertheless, the tests are still considered searches and are subject to challenges under the Fourth Amendment, which governs unreasonable searches and seizures.
Here’s a couple of things to know about the implied consent laws:
A blood test is the most invasive chemical search, and the police cannot require that a suspect submit to a blood draw or face consequences. They must offer the other less intrusive options as well.
The punishment for refusing to take a blood test is a driver’s license suspension (one year) and a $125 fine. The penalties increase for second and third offenses.
Refusal to take a test will not avoid a drunk driving charge, and in fact the punishment may be even greater.
So trying to avoid a blood alcohol test is a bad strategy. The implied consent laws are written to require cooperation from suspected drunk drivers. Refusing to take the test can result in a drunk driving charge, as well as the suspension of the suspect’s driver’s license.
Officer’s testimony supported the required 15 minute observation before breath tests despite contrary notes on the DS-367 form. Defendant who was arrested for drunk driving, argued his blood alcohol test results were inadmissible because the time entries on the notice indicated the two breath tests were administered before the officer observed him for 15 minutes as required. However, the officer testified that he was aware of the requirement and complied with it, suggesting the notation on the form was just an estimate he provided after he had returned to the station. The dispatch logs supported his claim.id: 26506
The officer’s failure to explain the consequences of refusing a chemical test did not render his consent to a blood test involuntary. Defendant was arrested for suspected drunk driving. He argued that because he was not informed by police that he could object to chemical testing, his consent to a blood test was not voluntary. However, the officer told defendant that he was required to submit to a blood or breath test. While the statement was incomplete by failing to mention the consequences of noncompliance, it was not false and there was no showing of an intent to deceive. Defendant freely consented to the blood test and the trial court properly found the consent was voluntary.id: 25664
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245