Actually,I don’t believe a licence should be suspended until a court of law has proven guilt. Suspending a drivers licence on the whim of a police officer can create extreme hardship on a person who must drive to work.
No person should have to submit to a blood test without his consent. If that is “deemed” legal,(the dems like that word),then why not just beat a confession out of him? JMO..
Apples and oranges. A license to drive is considered a privilege. In accepting the license, the driver agrees to take a BAC test when requested by a police officer who suspects the driver may be intoxicated. If the driver then refuses to take the test, he is not complying with his previous agreement to comply when he accepted the license. So the license issuaing agency, the notor vehicles department, can suspend the driving privilege for a period of time previously determined by the department. That issue is between the driver and the motor vehicles department because it arises from the licensing agreement.
That is a separate issue from the driver’s guilt as to a drunk driving charge. That is a criminal issue between the driver, the police and the D.A.’s office.
There is no whim of a police officer involved as it relates to a license suspension. The driver has already agreed to take a test when requested by a police officer who has a reasonable suspicion that the driver is drunk. If the driver refuses, the license is suspended for that reason by the licensing department, not the police, not the court. If the driver is prosecuted, his license can and most likely will be suspended by the court if he is convicted based on other evidence the officer and/or others present. Depending on a state’s laws, it might be up to the judge if that suspension will run concurrent to the motor vehicle suspension for the BAC refusal or consecutive to it.