Every state has an implied consent law, meaning that every driver arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI must submit to a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content (BAC). A motorist who refuses to submit to a chemical test after a drunk driving arrest can face serious consequences from both the courts and the state’s motor vehicle department.

There are actually two kinds of refusals: Express refusals occur when the driver explicitly says no to a chemical test. Implied refusals occur when police say a refusal took place but the person did not verbally refuse. Both types of refusals can be challenged by a skilled DUI / DWI defense lawyer from www.NotDrunk.com.

Implied refusals sometimes occur under circumstances that are beyond the driver’s control.  For example, if the driver is unable to provide a sufficient sample for a breath test, police often record a refusal, because they assume that the driver is purposefully refusing to comply.  However, the driver may be ill or injured and unable to provide a sufficient sample, or the breath machine may not be working properly. If this occurs, and police don’t allow the driver to take a blood test instead, the refusal may be excused. 

An implied chemical test refusal might also occur if a driver refused to take a breath test, only to have his or her blood tested instead.  If the driver didn’t object to the blood draw (even though technically there is no permission either), the driver should not be accused of refusing a chemical test.  If police had honored the initial refusal and had blood drawn, there would have been a refusal. 

Sometimes a motorist arrested for driving under the influence is physically unable to refuse or consent, or is semiconscious.  Some state courts have ruled that a driver who is semiconscious should not be accused of refusing a chemical test if he or she was unable to consent because of a medical condition that is unrelated to alcohol use.

A driver who isn’t told about the repercussions of a refusal or about the implied consent law may be able to use that lack of notification to challenge any repercussions of a refusal.