Implied Consent DUI Laws: Do They Make the Roads Safer?

Photo of author

(Newswire.net — July 26, 2019) — When a driver is pulled over because he or she is suspected of driving under the influence, this sets off a chain of events. In particular, a number of states have “implied consent” DUI laws that state that an individual essentially gives consent to testing by opting to drive on public roads.

Those who decline an intoxication test in situations where the law enforcement officer has probable cause can opt to have their license suspended on the spot. Many have questioned whether these laws make our roads safer, however; or, more important, whether they are even constitutional.

A Life or Death Issue

At the most basic level, implied consent DUI laws aren’t really about the use of public roads. Instead, prevention of injuries and fatalities by lowering the incidence of DUIs is the fundamental public safety issue of public safety at their heart, since 30% of motor-vehicle deaths are related to drunk driving, as reported by Newswire.

Drunk drivers are the greatest threat to others on the road, and that means the state has a compelling interest in preventing them from operating at the wheel. Put in that light, suspending the licenses of drivers who are behaving irresponsibly may represent a reasonable remedy.

Denial and Self-Incrimination

As for drivers who decline field sobriety testing, legal professionals have raised several points for consideration. For example, in an article for the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Kehinde A. Ogundipe and Kenneth J. Weiss explain that many drunk drivers believe that by denying testing, they will avoid detection and be let off without any punishment.

On the other hand, some believe that by refusing to allow testing, drivers may be incriminating themselves by implying that they have been drinking, similar to the way other suspicious evasions may create probable cause for the search of a vehicle. Experts on sobriety tests, however, suggest that neither of these issues is the core problem with implied consent DUI laws.

Under field-testing circumstances, police officers will typically request either a breath or blood test. However, the breath test can be unreliable, which is why DUI lawyers recommend requesting the blood test if you are concerned about your result.

This reduces the likelihood that you will be held on criminal charges for an incorrect result and can strengthen your case if you end up in court.

Extreme Circumstances

Because drivers do have the right, albeit conditional, to refuse a field sobriety test, these laws have received only a limited degree of scrutiny. But other DUI-related testing laws have come before the court for consideration.

In a 5-4 decision this June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police do not need a warrant to draw blood from an unconscious individual suspected of drunk driving and to use the results of that sample in court.

A Question of Efficacy

Ultimately, the most significant question with regard to implied consent laws is whether they are actually effective when it comes to making the roads safer. One major objection among legal scholars is that, at least in some states, refusal and failure have equivalent penalties.

As such, drunk drivers may actually benefit from refusing to take the test, because no documented test results go on the record. Indeed, the driver merely faces a lower overall risk of conviction, which may make the roads even less safe over the long term.

Implied consent laws give law enforcement officials a way to apply penalties without seeking a warrant or other complex legal remedies when faced with a suspected drunk driver. But they could also drive up the incentives to refuse a test.

States should consider this possibility carefully when the review their DUI laws, and determine whether an alternative legal remedy might better serve their interests.