Replies

It brings to question whether or not a defendant’s refusal of a breath test can be submitted as evidence in their trial. As it stands, prosecutors can submit a defendants’ refusal of the test. This new ruling changes that.

This part is important, and why I applaud this decision.

The reason is that if they REALLY think you are drunk they can take you to the station and do a blood test. Breathalizer tests are well known to be less than accurate, and one reason I suspect that I heard around a decade ago that attorneys and elected officials normally will never subject themselves to such a test.

Blood tests tell the story. Breathalizer tests should not be admissible in a court of law and should be used for the sole purpose of determining whether they should bother with a blood test.

BTW, I say this as a non-drinking driver.

I also consider texting while driving to be more dangerous than driving “buzzed”. Much more.

Idaho has breathalyzer devices, but refusal will get you a rapid transport to one of the local clinics where a phlebotomist will get a blood sample. No worries about getting a warrant. My wife is dispatcher/notary public. The local judges are accustomed to getting a warrant delivered with minimal delay.