3 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, etc. In many jurisdictions you have a legal obligation to provide a sample for testing of intoxication when driving. (You consent to this by

by retrac 3y ago

I'm not a lawyer, etc. In many jurisdictions you have a legal obligation to provide a sample for testing of intoxication when driving. (You consent to this by agreeing to drive.) In those jurisdictions, refusal to provide a sample is the same as intoxicated driving. I believe the UK is such a jurisdiction. That is to say, the offence is worded in a way where refusing to provide a sample has the same punishment as driving while intoxicated. So you may end up convicted of the drunk driving offence anyway. But you will also appear remorseless, like you were trying to game the system to get away with drunk driving. Which will likely result in a harsher sentence than if you showed contrition.

Chris2048 3y ago
> You consent to this by agreeing to drive. I'm also NAL, but the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. > refusal to provide a sample is the same as intoxicated driving. I believe the UK is such a jurisdiction. for refusing a sample you are likely to be arrested (under suspicion of DUI) if you "do not have a 'reasonable excuse'" not to be tested. You can give a reasonable excuse, such as a medical one, which would probably play into the courts later. I don't know further details because there seems to be confusing terminology around what is directly illegal, versus indirectly illegal - e.g. seems things can be "an offence" but also have stated "defences" to them, such as a reasonable excuse, which seems to imply "a defence in court".
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  >the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. This is the case everywhere in the US. The term 'implied consent' refers to the idea that a driver consents to chemical tests by virtue of operating an automobile on public roads.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    Hmm, I wonder if it's an unusual use of the word? reading online, many of the description say "an implicit agreement". I think the determinate would be: could you test the blood of an unconscious person?
    - i_am_jl 3y ago
      >could you test the blood of an unconscious person? If that person is unconscious and suspected of drunk driving, yes. The US Supreme Court ruled that the 4th doesn't prevent that search in Mitchell vs. Wisconsin. However, if that person is conscious, implied consent does not allow officers to force a blood test without a warrant (Birchfield v. North Dakota).
bdcravens 3y ago
I don't think there's implicit consent, but the police can easily obtain a warrant to draw blood should you refuse.

by retrac 3y ago

Chris2048 3y ago

> You consent to this by agreeing to drive. I'm also NAL, but the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. > refusal to provide a sample is the same as intoxicated driving. I believe the UK is such a jurisdiction. for refusing a sample you are likely to be arrested (under suspicion of DUI) if you "do not have a 'reasonable excuse'" not to be tested. You can give a reasonable excuse, such as a medical one, which would probably play into the courts later. I don't know further details because there seems to be confusing terminology around what is directly illegal, versus indirectly illegal - e.g. seems things can be "an offence" but also have stated "defences" to them, such as a reasonable excuse, which seems to imply "a defence in court".

i_am_jl 3y ago
>the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. This is the case everywhere in the US. The term 'implied consent' refers to the idea that a driver consents to chemical tests by virtue of operating an automobile on public roads.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  Hmm, I wonder if it's an unusual use of the word? reading online, many of the description say "an implicit agreement". I think the determinate would be: could you test the blood of an unconscious person?
  - i_am_jl 3y ago
    >could you test the blood of an unconscious person? If that person is unconscious and suspected of drunk driving, yes. The US Supreme Court ruled that the 4th doesn't prevent that search in Mitchell vs. Wisconsin. However, if that person is conscious, implied consent does not allow officers to force a blood test without a warrant (Birchfield v. North Dakota).

bdcravens 3y ago

I don't think there's implicit consent, but the police can easily obtain a warrant to draw blood should you refuse.