Anyone Ever Refuse a DUI test?

[slink]

They cannot force you to submit a sample. Refusal to consent to a BAC test results in a mandatory 1 year suspension -it is recorded and fined as a refusal to submit (probably add in a suspicion of under the influence of "X" substance.) The outcome is less drastic than a DUI, but you're still taking it in the arse in the end.
Hope you didn't pay a lawyer for that advise Yes LEO's can force blood and yes they will. It's called evidence. I've seen many held down while nurse Susy Q pricks them with a needle. Nice way to pick up another misdemeanor for obstructing/delaying and usually add a third, cuz it's inevitable youre going to kick/hit one of the LEO's when you resist

[topless]

FST is to prove impairment...... Blowing is to prove drunk..... You can be under the LEGAL limit but still get a driving under the influence........ You could pass all the FST's but blow over .08 and get a drunk driving... There are 2 different charges....I was joking. I passed the breathalizer too so he only gave me a speeding ticket. It wasted about 30 minutes and I was pissed because when he told me I was free to go I asked him if I passed all his little tricks and he said yes so I asked him why he gave me the breathalizer. He said they make everyone do it so I told him we could have saved alot of time if he hadn't made me do all the monkey tricks. I think I pissed him off at that point.

[Rod-64]

No...........but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :crossx:

[SurfOnH20]

As a LEO I dont mind if people refuse to perform the FSTs (less writing for me). I do mind if they refuse any BAC tests at the station. My dept allows forced blood draws. You are handcuffed behind your back and sat in a chair with several officers standing over you in case you don't go with the program. When people see we are serious they dont resist. Some depts as a matter of policy don't perform forced BAC tests.

[laveydayz]

How does a DUI in say Arizona or Nevada effect your Calif. license?

[CBadDad]

If you refuse the field sobriety test, they have no argument that you were legally "drunk" at the time they pulled you over. If you do submit to a FST, you may still get a DUI even if you are less than the limit. They can say that your BAC went down since the time you were pulled over. They can get you based on the field sobriety test evidence. If there is no field sobriety test done, they cant say that you were drunk (unless you were falling over drunk). Just because you "smelled" of alcohol doesn't mean that you were drunk.
Chances are if you do refuse a field sobriety test, you are going to get a pair of bracelets and go to jail, but they will test you at the facility. If you are below .08 at that time, they would have a hard time to proove that you were DUI material at the time you were pulled over.
Overall good advice, but I doubt that refusing the FST is gonna change much in the long run. Friggen piglets will lie and steal to get a conviction. It's called creative writing 101... "the perps eyes were bloodshot and he was staggering around the scene (even if you never got out of your car) and his speech was slurred". That little bit of "evidence" is just as good as any ol' subjective FST.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[Legal Chemistry]

As a LEO I dont mind if people refuse to perform the FSTs (less writing for me). I do mind if they refuse any BAC tests at the station. My dept allows forced blood draws. You are handcuffed behind your back and sat in a chair with several officers standing over you in case you don't go with the program. When people see we are serious they dont resist. Some depts as a matter of policy don't perform forced BAC tests.
Interesting, because in there is an implied consent in California that if you are given a license to drive, you consent to blood, breath, etc. However, courts in CA tend to side with the person who refuses to allow the blood withdrawn. The law protects blood withdrawal much heavier than breath because inserting a needle into one's body (1) invades the person (who may also have health or religious reasons for not wanting needles inserted) and (2) may force a person to forcefully waive their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Love those civil rights.
Truth in all this: Don't drive drunk. I very much respect the officers removing those deemed too drunk to drive off the road for the safety of my family, friends, and myself....

[YeLLowBoaT]

Interesting, because in there is an implied consent in California that if you are given a license to drive, you consent to blood, breath, etc. However, courts in CA tend to side with the person who refuses to allow the blood withdrawn. The law protects blood withdrawal much heavier than breath because inserting a needle into one's body (1) invades the person (who may also have health or religious reasons for not wanting needles inserted) and (2) may force a person to forcefully waive their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Love those civil rights.
Truth in all this: Don't drive drunk. I very much respect the officers removing those deamed too drunk to drive off the road for the safety of my family, friends, and myself....
If you say you are a jahova wittness they can not draw your blood... its ether piss or breath.

[wsuwrhr]

...yeah, puke, all over the officers uniform if you have to, and in the back seat of the patrol car, and at the police station... :rollside:
When someone is in THAT situation, getting ready to get a DUI, do what you gotta do.

[Boatcop]

How does a DUI in say Arizona or Nevada effect your Calif. license?
The same as if it was in CA. Interstate compacts report the offense in your home state. Same with Boating OUIs (BUIs)
If you refuse the field sobriety test, they have no argument that you were legally "drunk" at the time they pulled you over. If you do submit to a FST, you may still get a DUI even if you are less than the limit. They can say that your BAC went down since the time you were pulled over. They can get you based on the field sobriety test evidence.
In Arizona the laws says above .08% within 2 hours of operating a motor vehicle/watercraft
This takes away the defense that they had just slammed 6 shots 2 minutes before getting pulled over, and weren't above the limit while driving, and their BAC has since gone above the limit.
If due to delays, such as a refusal and we need to get a warrant, the test shows, say a .06% BAC 3 hours later we can still extrapolate the reading back to above a .08% through expert testimony. The average person will metabolize .015% per hour. So 3 (hours) x .015 = .045 + .06 = .105% BAC
Even though we can't force a person to do FSTs, we can use the refusal in court. In all my years of doing this, I have never had a violator refuse FSTs. Remember that the first thing to be impaired is JUDGMENT! The alcohol makes them think that they can pass the tests, and they go ahead and do it.
We love it when they make statements such as "I couldn't do these tests sober", or 1/2 way through they just say "Screw it, I'm drunk. Take me away."
Most of our stops on the highway use dash cams. When one of these is used, and we have the entire thing on tape, there is very little defense that they weren't impaired, when it shows them falling out of the car and walking back leaning on the car, stumbling etc. All those high priced lawyers can do in those cases is to try and get it plead down (unlikely) or argue PC for the stop. (even more unlikely).
13384. (a) The department shall not issue or renew a driver's license to any person unless the person consents in writing to submit to a chemical test or tests of that person's blood, breath, or urine pursuant to Section 23612, or a preliminary alcohol screening test pursuant to Section 23136, when requested to do so by a peace officer.
From the looks of California law here, it looks like you don't have the right to refuse a preliminary (roadside) breath test.