Constitutional right to refuse a breath test? High Court says “Sorry Folks.”
Posted Thursday, December 22, 2016 by Andrew Charles Huff
A person does have certain privacy rights when asked to provide breath or blood from their bodies for testing. This normally occurs when a person is stopped for a DUI and asked to provide a breath or blood test. Some recent case law discussed these issues and just what privacy rights a person holds. Based on this theory, the argument becomes can a prosecutor use this “refusal” evidence at a DUI trial?
In a recent decision, the State Supreme Court held that a driver does not have a constitutional right to refuse a breath test because such a search falls under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Further, the Court found that although the implied consent law gives a driver a statutory right to refuse the test, by exercising the privilege to drive, a driver consents to admitting they refused to take the breath test into evidence in a trial. Therefore, the Court ruled that a driver’s refusal is admissible as evidence of guilt under Washington’s implied consent law.
State v. Baird