Most people these days are savvy enough to know that the police cannot search a home or person or simply take evidence without a warrant, signed off my a judge or magistrate. Unfortunately, these same rules do not apply when a peace officer requests a sample of blood, breath or urine after a person is arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. In fact, refusing to submit to a chemical test can produce draconian results, such as loss of driving privileges for a year, even if you do not have any alcohol in your system.
The laws in California of "implied consent" mean that when you decide to operate a motor vehicle, you are by that very fact consenting to a chemical test (either blood, breath or urine) and the police do not need to obtain a warrant or even your permission to take such evidence from you. All the police need is a reasonable suspicion that you were driving under the influence of alcohol or a drug. Thus, even if your blood alcohol content is below .08%, or there was no alcohol or other intoxicating agent in your system at all, but you refuse to submit to a test, you can be charged with a DUI refusal.
In some instances the police will forcibly draw blood from a suspect who refuses to voluntarily submit to a test. In those cases it is up to the local District Attorney to decide whether to charge a person with a "refusal" or to just charge a simple DUI. In cases where the blood alcohol level is low, and below a .08%, the District Attorney has discretion to charge the refusal, or simply dismiss the case.
However, the California Department of Motor Vehicles does not act with such discretion. If there is any suspicion that the motorist "refused," the DMV will move to suspend that person's license for one year, irrespective of what the District Attorney does. Even with proof that the motorist was not driving under the influence, any indication that the he or she was not cooperative when asked to give a blood, breath or urine sample, the DMV will move to suspend.
Specifically, Vehicle Code § 13353 calls for an immediate and automatic suspension of driving privileges for one year, if a motorist refuses to submit to chemical test and the arresting officer has good cause to believe that the motorist committed a violation of Vehicle Code § 23140, 23152 or 23153. In other words, if a motorist is arrested for a suspicion of driving under the influence and refuses to consent to a chemical test, the law requires a one year suspension of the motorist's driving privileges.
There is a caveat to this law, which the police do not always adhere to. The motorist under arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence must be told that his or her failure to submit to the required chemical testing will result in the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year, that the suspension is automatic and immediate and that he or she does not have a right to an attorney to be present at the time of the chemical test. See People v. Municipal Court (Gonzales) (1982) 137 Cal. App. 3d 114 for more on this.
The laws of implied consent are currently before the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that such laws violate the Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court seems inclined to strike down implied consent. See this blog January 25, 2013 for more on this Supreme Court case.
You do have a right to an administrative hearing after an arrest for driving under the influence, even if you are alleged to have refused a chemical test. If you are arrested for a DUI or with a refusal, you must immediately request such a hearing with the DMV in order to protect your driving privileges. There are many issues that may be challenged at these hearings such as whether the police had probable cause to make a vehicle stop, calibration of PAS devices, errors in police procedure, such as failure to maintain the chain of custody of evidence or failures to properly admonish the arrestee are but a few examples.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧