Legal Obligations and Implications of Refusing a Breathalyzer: Understanding Self-Incrimination and Beyond

When a driver is caught violating traffic regulations and is suspected of being under the influence (DUI/DWI), one of the most common actions taken by law enforcement is to compel the driver to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test. This article will explore whether a driver's right against self-incrimination is violated when compelled to take a breathalyzer test, especially in cases involving drunk driving.

Right Against Self-Incrimination: A Constitutional Perspective

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination. This means that a person cannot be obliged to provide testimonial evidence that would incriminate them. However, as discussed below, the application of this right can be complex, especially in the context of chemical testing.

The Fifth Amendment and Self-Incrimination

While the Fifth Amendment protects against the compulsion of testimonial evidence, it does not cover non-testimonial evidence. A breathalyzer test is a form of non-testimonial evidence, which means it does not fall under the protection of the Fifth Amendment. As a result, a driver cannot use the Fifth Amendment as a legal basis to refuse a breathalyzer test.

Fourth Amendment and Search Warrants

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. The use of breathalyzers is considered a minimally invasive search and is therefore generally permissible without a warrant. Blood tests, however, are invasive and typically require a warrant based on probable cause.

There are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement for a warrant in DUI cases, particularly in cases involving serious injuries or fatalities. In such critical situations, law enforcement can often obtain a search warrant to compel a blood draw, overriding the driver's Fourth Amendment rights.

Administrative Per Se Laws

Most states have enacted Administrative Per Se laws. These laws mandate that drivers must submit to chemical testing upon request by law enforcement when suspected of driving under the influence. Failure to comply with such a request can result in administrative penalties, such as the suspension of the driver's license.

Case Law and Legal Precedents

Case law has consistently held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination does not extend to the non-testimonial evidence gathered by breathalyzers. For example, in Schmerber v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement can compel a breathalyzer test without violating the Fifth Amendment.

Moreover, the court has found that the penalties for refusing a breathalyzer test are administrative and do not rise to the level of criminal penalties, thereby not triggering the more stringent protections of the Fifth Amendment.

Implications for Drivers

For drivers, understanding the implications of refusing a breathalyzer test is crucial. Refusing to take a breathalyzer test in most states, including Michigan, will result in the immediate revocation of the driver's license for up to a year. This is an administrative penalty and not a criminal one, although refusing may still result in the driver being brought to jail to secure a warrant for a blood draw.

Conclusion

In summary, drivers in the United States cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid a breathalyzer test due to the nature of the test as non-testimonial evidence. However, the implications of refusing a breathalyzer test are serious, including administrative penalties and potential criminal consequences. Drivers should be aware of their legal obligations and the potential ramifications of refusing this form of testing when suspected of drunk driving.