# Why a sobriety test? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 3, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143 "2009-08-03T06:42:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/21 "2009-08-04T15:09:08Z")
Can you refuse a breathalyzer if you are not driving? If you are underage? The child of a friend of mine was at a party on the 4th of July, and is 17. They were outside, and the child in question had had a beer. The cops showed up and administered breathalyzers to one and all, and, under the zero tolerance rule, busted all those under twentyone for underage consumption. But nobody was driving. I wondered if everyone could or should just have refused to consent to the breathalyzer. I know we have “implied consent” in this state, but doesn’t that only apply to driving? I am in Minnesota, which probably matters. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/22 "2009-08-04T15:14:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Can you refuse a breathalyzer if you are not driving? If you are underage? Implied consent indeed applies only to drivers, as far as I have seen. It’s based on the somewhat old-fashioned privilege/right distinction–driving is a privilege, and since you have requested the privilege the state deems your request to be consent to some testing; IIRC a few states make the consent explicit on the license application. Certainly “implied consent” requires some action from which consent may be implied, and standing outside doesn’t cut it. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/23 "2009-08-04T15:17:09Z")
> [@](#): > > You CAN refuse to take a breathalyzer test if requested to take one from the local police. They cannot charge you with any additional crimes for refusing the breathalyzer. Pedestrians and passengers in vehicles are not required to take the breathalyzer. Exception: You MUST take a breathalyzer test if you are stopped while operating a motor vehicle. Refusal to take a breathalyzer when stopped while driving a vehicle may result in the loss of your license. [http://www.bucknell.edu/x42699.xml](http://www.bucknell.edu/x42699.xml) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/24 "2009-08-04T15:25:44Z")
Thank you! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/25 "2009-08-04T15:46:47Z")
> [@GreedySmurf](#): > > In Queensland in the last 12 months or so, the police have introduced a test for drivers under the influence of illicit drugs. > > I understand it requires a small plastic tab to be run over your tongue, and will detect if you’ve been using illicit drugs. The list it detects is > [ul] > [li]THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol)—the active ingredient in cannabis/marijuana [/li][li]Methylamphetamine—also known as speed and ice [/li][li]MDMA (3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine)—the active ingredient in ecstasy.[/li][/ul] > > It’s zero tolerance for the drug driving, so any trace and you’re gone. Is this test detecting metabolites or volatile compounds/residue from recent ingestion? It seems to me that with aTHC half-life of ~28 days, every Aussie I’ve ever partied with would be forbidden for driving due to the presence of THC. ---
**Author:** ![davekhps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@davekhps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davekhps)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/26 "2009-08-04T16:36:50Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > The police videotape you when you’re performing the sobriety tests. They’ve already decided to arrest you at that point, but they’re gathering evidence to use against you. You can refuse the sobriety tests with no legal consequence. I’m sure that’s not true, since I once had to take both a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer and passed both, and was thus let go with no further trouble. It kinda taught me never to admit to the cops of having even one beer (which is all I had, an hour before, during dinner, and I’m not a small man-- I think cough drops would have registered higher on the breathalyzer). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/27 "2009-08-04T16:55:48Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > This seems incredibly easy to abuse to me. If a policeman declares you drunk, based on his personal judgment, what recourse do you have to appeal it? I wonder if anyone’s been convicted of being impaired and then blown a 0.0? I would _hope_ you’ve sobered up enough to blow a 0.0 by the time you’re convicted. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/28 "2009-08-04T17:42:19Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > This seems incredibly easy to abuse to me. If a policeman declares you drunk, based on his personal judgment, what recourse do you have to appeal it? I wonder if anyone’s been convicted of being impaired and then blown a 0.0? It will depend on the laws of the particular jurisdiction. For example, in Canada there are two separate offences: driving with a blood alchohol concentration of over .08, and driving while impaired. The only evidence that will be enough to prove a .08 charge is the breathalyzer reading. The constable’s personal observations of the motorist and conclusion that the person has consumed enough alcohol to make the motorist impaired amounts to probable cause to issue the demand for a breathalyzer test. By itself, the constable’s observations can’t lead to a conviction of .08. The impaired driving charge is different. It doesn’t depend on the .08 test at all. It’s based on the observations of the constable and any other witnesses, and requires convincing proof, not just that the motorist was driving after consuming alcohol, but that in fact, the motorist’s ability to drive was impaired. That has to be proven based on the observations of the way the motorist was driving - things like swerving, crossing the centre line, ignoring traffic signals. It also has to be above the ordinary mistakes that people make while driving. Plus, a police officer can’t declare someone to be drunk, in the sense that it’s criminal conviction. At most, the police officer’s observations are evidence that the court may consider. Plus, the Crown has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve seen people acquitted by the courts because the judge hasn’t been satisfied that the motorist’s driving reached the required level of impairment, even though there was no doubt that the motorist was under the influence, nor any doubt that the motorist had not complied with traffic laws. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/29 "2009-08-04T17:44:51Z")
> [@GreedySmurf](#): > > [QUOTE=pravnik] > Once at the jail he refuses the intoxilyzer.] I guess that is a big difference, In Australia there are penalties for refusing to be tested, and those penalties are often of a similar level as being convicted of DUI anyway. [/QUOTE] Ditto for Canada. Refusing to give a breath sample at roadside for screening, or at the detachment for the breathalyzer, is a criminal offence carrying exactly the same penalty as the offences of driving over 80 / impaired driving. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/30 "2009-08-04T17:48:54Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Why do they need justification to give a breathalyzer test but not a field sobriety test? In Canada, they need authority to do either. The authority for the roadside screening test is set out in statute; the authority for sobriety tests is the common law duties of peace officers to protect the public. However, in both cases, the results are only admissible for the purposes of making a demand for a breath sample for analysis. The results of that test are admissible to prove .08. The reason that neither type of roadside test is admissible is that the motorist is not allowed to consult counsel at road-side. ---
**Author:** ![GreedySmurf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a698b9/32.png) [@GreedySmurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreedySmurf)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143/31 "2009-08-04T23:20:06Z")
> [@picker](#): > > Is this test detecting metabolites or volatile compounds/residue from recent ingestion? It seems to me that with aTHC half-life of ~28 days, every Aussie I’ve ever partied with would be forbidden for driving due to the presence of THC. I’m not sure. The publicily available information I was able to find didn’t go into that sort of detail. Apparently if the roadside test returns a positive, your license is automatically suspended for 24 hours and a second salivia sample is taken and sent to a lab for more comprehensive testing . It did however specifically point out that the levels of the substances one might have from taking cold and flu drugs with pseudophedrine in it would not return a positive on the test. So I’m presuming the roadside tongue scrape has a certain threshold inbuilt into whatever the reacting agent is in the test. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-a-sobriety-test/505143.md?page=1)