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.
Watch my friend, David Shapiro, explain:
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.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850