I can see if its a condition of driving, as in some states, that refusing X test is penalized in Y way.

It's part of the driving privilege in California. If you are stopped, you submit in one of a few ways. If you refuse, you are arrested and your license goes bye-bye for a while. But it's part of the CA DL, so it's a condition of using those roads.

eta: ChiKat says it clearer and with actual terminology. What she said.

It's not someone proving you are drunk, it's you proving that you are a safe driver and sobriety is part of it.

eta: Certainly driving sleepy can be as dangerous as driving drunk, but you can't test for sleepy.

Sadly. Though I've done it way too many times for comfort. It took ages for it to sink in just how stupid I was being.

I'm clearly not drunk... the opinion of a police officer somehow matters more than any other circumstance in establishing "fact"?

In that they are trained to look for "objective signs" of drunkeness, yes. For future reference: most field sobriety tests give a jury no legally actionable information. However, the eye test they do (usually first) is a biological test, if you meet all three criteria you have a BAC of .1 or above. So, if you "fail" that, it really wouldn't matter in most states if you do a breathalyzer right after or not.

Illinois has an implied consent law that states if you drive in the state, you have given consent for a breathalyzer, urine and/or blood test. If you refuse, it's the cop's word.

I certainly see implied consent and penalties because of it. But do you lose the ability to argue that you were sober or not driving or whatever? That's the part where it seems tricky to me.

Certainly driving sleepy can be as dangerous as driving drunk, but you can't test for sleepy.

I drive 10 hours a few times/year. I've gotten to where I will pull off at a rest area, lock the doors, and nap for about 20-30 minutes. Does me a world of good.

I certainly see implied consent and penalties because of it. But do you lose the ability to argue that you were sober or not driving or whatever? That's the part where it seems tricky to me.

I edited to make you look crazy. If you refuse in Illinois, it's automatic suspension of your license. Doesn't matter if you were actually drunk or not.

Hee. You can't make me look crazy, lady. That choo choo chugged out of here LONG AGO.

I believe I have a seat on that train.

Others have clarified the point better. You can argue that you weren't drunk but it doesn't matter from a legal point of view in CA once you've refused the breathalyzer.

A girl in the town where I grew up, a few years older than me, died in an accident when she fell asleep at the wheel. When my sister and I were teenagers, one of my mother's many rules for letting us borrow the car was that, if we were going somewhere late at night, the person in the passenger seat had to stay awake and make sure the driver stayed awake.

Also, it was stated multiple times in our trial that the question is not whether someone is driving drunk, but whether they are under the influence, and those are totally different standards. That is partly why the BAC > .08 charge was totally separate.