The final word on car searches

[Mahan Atma]

nor does the 5th amendment qualify. it has been through the supreme court that your right to not incriminate yourself does not cover sobriety tests.

I did some research on this. This statement is basically correct, but it's a little more complicated. The Supreme Court case most directly on point is South Dakota v. Neville:

http://www.law.asu.edu/homepages/kaye/pubs/se/sine/05/US-neville-83.htm

In this case, the state gave you an option. Either you 1) take the alcohol test; or 2) refuse to take the test, in which case you forfeit your license, and your refusal can be used against you as evidence in court in a criminal prosecution for drunk driving. The Supreme Court said this was constitutional.

However, it's important to note -- because the court used this as a premise in its decision -- that the state must give you some choice to take the test. In other words, you can't be arrested merely for refusing to take the test; you can only be forced to forfeit your license, and your refusal can be used against you in court if you are still charged with drunk driving.

So, if you were definitely drunk, and you knew that a test would lead to a conviction and jail time, you could still refuse to take the test, and you might be better off. You'd lose your license, and they still might bring charges against you -- BUT, if the only evidence they had was your refusal to take the test, that might make it difficult for them to convict you. If they had a lot of other evidence in addition (e.g. you were weaving, slurring your words, stumbling around, and stank like alcohol), that would probably be plenty sufficient, but I doubt that a mere refusal to take the test would be enough for a conviction.

 

[Mariposa]

^^^I concur.

Here's the law in the State of Florida, which is in agreement with the Supreme Court's decision in South Dakota v. Neville:

322.2615 Suspension of license; right to review.--

(1)(a) A law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall, on behalf of the department, suspend the driving privilege of a person who has been arrested by a law enforcement officer for a violation of s. 316.193, relating to unlawful blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level, or of a person who has refused to submit to a breath, urine, or blood test authorized by s. 316.1932. The officer shall take the person's driver's license and issue the person a 10-day temporary permit if the person is otherwise eligible for the driving privilege and shall issue the person a notice of suspension. If a blood test has been administered, the results of which are not available to the officer at the time of the arrest, the agency employing the officer shall transmit such results to the department within 5 days after receipt of the results. If the department then determines that the person was arrested for a violation of s. 316.193 and that the person had a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher, the department shall suspend the person's driver's license pursuant to subsection (3).

(b) The suspension under paragraph (a) shall be pursuant to, and the notice of suspension shall inform the driver of, the following:

1.a. The driver refused to submit to a lawful breath, blood, or urine test and his or her driving privilege is suspended for a period of 1 year for a first refusal or for a period of 18 months if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test; or

b. The driver violated s. 316.193 by driving with an unlawful blood-alcohol level as provided in that section and his or her driving privilege is suspended for a period of 6 months for a first offense or for a period of 1 year if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a violation of s. 316.193.

Florida Statutes Ch. 322.2615

Hence, the disclaimer I referred to in my post further up the page.