You have the right to refuse the breathalizer.

You do, but then you can't argue that you weren't drunk.

You have the right to refuse the breathalizer.

You do, but then you can't argue that you weren't drunk.

Why? I don't understand how refusing the breathalizer negates your right to argue that you weren't drunk.

t edit Obvs., IANAL. But I'm just having trouble with the logic there.

You can argue anything you want I suppose. Legally, however, in California, you can only be charged with refusal if you refuse a blood test at the hospital or chemical test at the station, not the roadside breathalyzer.

Generally, if you have been pulled over and suspected of DUI, when asked to submit to a pre-arrest breathalyzer test, you do have the right to refuse. The PAS (Preliminary Alcohol Screening) breathalyzer is a voluntary test for persons who are over the age of 21 and are not on probation for a prior DUI; and this goes for field sobriety tests, as well. Note that this is different from a chemical blood alcohol test that may be performed at a hospital or police station which, according to California Vehicle Code section 23612 you have already given "implied consent" simply by operating a motor vehicle. Refusing or resisting this chemical test will result in an additional charge on top of your DUI, known as "refusal enhancement."

You do, but then you can't argue that you weren't drunk.

Yeah, that doesn't seem to make sense. I could refuse a brethalyzer right now. I haven't had a drink in a month. I'm clearly not drunk... but if a police officer decided I was his request/demand somehow matters more than any other circumstance in establishing truth? I don't think police get that kind of power.

Where they got the idea that Bullock was so gosh-darned likeable, I... dunno.

Indeed. Of all the characters on Deadwood, even up to and including Al, I found Bullock to be the least likeable. Al Swearengen got me to care about him even when I hated him. But I was pretty cold about Bullock all the way through: he was cold, impulsive and violent without much leavening of humor or humanity.

Legal tidbit from my friend the defense attorney: Never refuse the breathalyzer. You can fight the accuracy of the breathalyzer but refusing it outright makes the distinction of drunkenness purely legal by the police's estimation. You're legally drunk whether you're physically drunk or not.

I think it depends on the state you're in. I believe (but don't quote me) that in Ohio, the penatly for refusing the breathalyzer was a year's suspension on your license but that you could apply for a restricted license right away. If you were convicted of DUI, you would lose your license for that long but it would take longer to get a restricted license.

There was a couple of incidents where judges refused he breathalyzer. Or they demanded a blood test instead--knowing that by the time they got to the hospital and drew blood, their BAC would be low enough to get by. That way, it's not refusing a test--but rather asking for a more accurate reading.

It's horribly tricky. I hate the drop from .10 to .08 because I think it specifically targets casual drinkers and that the greater dangers have been from people WAAAY over the legal limit. It's splitting hairs. I know it's wrong to drive impaired but I've driven so sleepy I've almost fallen asleep at the wheel and I don't think I would have been arrested if I had been stopped.

You can refuse the breathalyzer in California. But you'll be arrested and then there is a blood test that you can't refuse.

It can be played a number of ways, but I have no idea how well any of them work. It is just one of your legal options.

Mostly what I learned from this case was, if you flee the scene, stay fled.

Legal tidbit from my friend the defense attorney: Never refuse the breathalyzer. You can fight the accuracy of the breathalyzer but refusing it outright makes the distinction of drunkenness purely legal by the police's estimation. You're legally drunk whether you're physically drunk or not.

I believe this is true in Illinois.

but if a police officer decided I was his request/demand somehow matters more than any other circumstance in establishing truth? I don't think police get that kind of power.

Legally, they absolutely do. Whether it is argued as a greater good thing or just something they can demand can be debated, but (in CA because I don't even know the laws for the state I live in, much less the whole country) they can request this and there is only so far you can refuse without incurring the penalties of failing a test.