Supreme Courts And Prosecutors Disagree About What Happens If You Refuse A Breathalyzer Or Blood Alcohol Test

You may wonder if the police can force you to take a blood test for which you don't consent. If they suspect you're drunk and you refuse to consent to a breathalyzer on the scene, the next step is to transport you to a hospital for a blood draw. 

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless, forced blood draws to collect evidence are considered prohibited searches and seizures under the Constitution of the United States. If they have your consent—or a warrant—you're out of luck. Otherwise, you have the right to refuse to have your blood drawn.

Now several states are testing their DUI laws to determine just how far they can go to get you to consent to a blood alcohol test, and just how much they can punish you if you don't submit.

State supreme courts are sorting out the issue

The Idaho Supreme Court recently put the brakes on police who don't obtain warrants but forcibly collect blood and use it as evidence against suspected drunk drivers. The relevant case involved a man who, as far as the police could tell, was heavily inebriated. However, he refused to submit to a breathalyzer at the scene, and he was then taken to a hospital where his blood was forcibly drawn. The sample measured 3 times the legal limit for alcohol.

The man's attorneys argued that his blood alcohol results should not have been allowed as evidence since the blood was collected illegally. His lawyers referred to the 2013 Supreme Court ruling that expressly prohibits using illegally-gathered materials as evidence at trial.

The prosecutors maintained that the collection was actually legal under Idaho's "implied consent" law. The basic argument is that every driver in Idaho who is issued a license agrees to provide breath and/or blood samples when requested by law enforcement, Basically, they said that there is no such thing as "forced consent" if you have a license.

Idaho Supreme Court says you have the right to say no

The Idaho Supreme Court disagreed. If you can voluntarily consent, you can also revoke that consent, and implied consent laws are not enough to override a suspect's refusal to submit to testing.

The prosecutors also argued that they had enough other evidence to convict the man and that they needed to hurry up and prove he was truly drunk. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that only in especially horrific circumstances can the results of a warrantless, forced blood draw be allowed in court, and a suspect merely being drunk is not an emergency. Alcohol remains in the system for a while, said the U.S. Supreme Court, so there's plenty of time to obtain a warrant if necessary.

North Dakota and Minnesota will soon find out about their implied consent laws

It's important to remind you that the Supreme Court did not say that implied consent laws were unconstitutional. They serve an important role in helping law enforcement collect evidence since drivers will lose their licenses and other privileges if they fail to consent to an alcohol screen. Drivers tend to submit to roadside sobriety tests because of those severe consequences. 

However, North Dakota and Minnesota have made it a crime to refuse to be tested, and that criminal designation is just as bad as being found guilty of drunk driving. Can the states do that to drivers? So far, the states aren't winning over the High Court.

Stay tuned to find out what happens, and consult with an experienced DUI attorney (such as one from Hart Law Offices, PC) if you have any questions about the implied consent laws in your state.

Share