Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Perhaps the single-most common question that people ask regarding DUI defense is
whether or not they should submit to the Intoxilyzer breath test at the police
station.
Unfortunately, there is no black and white right or wrong answer to that
question.
As a general rule, refusal of the Intoxilyzer breath test will preserve more
available defenses
to the criminal charge of driving under the influence of alcohol.
But refusal of the Intoxilyzer breath test is in no way a guarantee of
a favorable outcome at trial.
Evidence of impairment in a DUI case can come in many forms:
weaving on the roadway; striking a curb or other object; slurred speech and
steadiness; lack of balance or coordination.
Even in the absence of a verified breath test, these factors alone can create a
strong inference of alcohol impairment that may be very difficult to overcome at
trial.
Moreover it is important to understand that refusal of the Intoxilyzer
breath test will subject the driver to the risk of substantially greater
administrative penalties associated with the suspension of driving privileges.
Perhaps the most difficult situation in DUI defense is where the driver has
refused the Intoxilyzer Breath test at the police station
only after visibly struggling through the standardized field sobriety tests at
the scene of the traffic stop.
That driver now faces the risk of substantially longer administrative
driver's license suspension
and may very well have provided all the ancillary evidence necessary for a
strong conviction in spite of their ultimate refusal of the breath test.
Although it is practically impossible to advise someone whether or not they
should submit to the Intoxilyzer Test, a driver should carefully consider the
following:
if a driver is ultimately going to assume the risk of a potentially longer
period of driver's license suspension for refusal of the Intoxilyzer Test,
that driver will be much better off to have refused all standardized field
testing in the case.
It simply won't do any good to refuse the Intoxilyzer Test after visibly
struggling through all of other field testing,
essentially providing compelling evidence of impairment in the case.