4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoHmm, 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).