View this video here.
[GRAPHIC: Paul D. Cramm To Test or Not to Test?]
PAUL CRAMM: Perhaps the single most common question that people ask regarding DUI defense is whether or not they should submit to the Intoxilyzer breath test at the police station. Unfortunately there is no black and white right or wrong answer to that question.
As a general rule, refusal of the Intoxilyzer breath test will preserve more available defenses to the criminal charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. But refusal of the Intoxilyzer breath test is in no way a guarantee of a favorable outcome at trial.
Evidence of impairment in a DUI case can come in many forms: weaving on the roadway, striking a curb or another object, slurred speech, unsteadiness, lack of balance or coordination. Even in the absence of a verified breath test, these factors alone can create a strong inference of alcohol impairment that may be very difficult to overcome at trial.
Moreover, it is important to understand that refusal of the Intoxilyzer breath test will subject the driver to the risk of substantially greater administrative penalties associated with the suspension of driving privileges.
Perhaps the most difficult situation in DUI defense is where the driver has refused the Intoxilyzer breath test at the police station only after visibly struggling through the standardized field sobriety tests at the scene of the traffic stop. That driver now faces the risk of substantially longer administrative drivers license suspension and may very well have provided all the ancillary evidence necessary for a strong conviction in spite of their ultimate refusal of the breath test.
Although it is practically impossible to advise someone whether or not they should submit to the Intoxilyzer test, a driver should carefully consider the following. If a driver is ultimately going to assume the risk of a potentially longer period of drivers license suspension for a refusal of the Intoxilyzer test, that driver will be much better off to have refused all standardized field testing in the case. It simply won't do any good to refuse the Intoxilyzer test after visibly struggling through all of the other field testing, essentially providing compelling evidence of impairment in the case.
[GRAPHIC: Paul D. Cramm Attorney at Law 100 East Park Suite 210 Olathe, KS 66061 Cell (913) 645-5925 Office (913) 322-3265 Fax (913) 322-4371 kansascity-criminal-attorney.com]
