# You shouldn't take the Breathalyzer for a DUI. Urban Legend or sound legal advice? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 12, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913 "2003-03-12T19:46:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Badge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Badge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badge)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/41 "2003-03-13T09:15:00Z")
As a cop who has made many, many DUI arrests, let me try to cover a few things brought up in this thread. [list=1] [li]Obviously, the most important point is that law vary widely from state to state. Talk to someone who knows the law in your state.[/li][li]In Washington, you can refuse the breath test, but there are penalties if you do (your license will be suspended and the refusal can be used against you in court). Here, you can’t request a blood test as an alternative. Blood tests are only used if the person is physically incapable of giving a breath test, or in some other special circumstances (such as in a vehicular homicide case, when blood is taken **and** can be taken without your consent).[/li][li]You have the right to _speak_ to attorney before taking the test, but we don’t have to wait for the attorney to actually come to the station and watch the test be administered. If the attorney can be there within 30 minutes, we will allow it.[/li][li]Here, every attorney I’ve ever dealt with advises the driver to submit to the breath test but not to answer any questions. The lose of license is nearly impossible to fight, but DUI cases present a lot more opportunities to fight or at least to work a deal.[/li][li]Even if you have to option of a blood test, I wouldn’t recommend it. The results are nearly impossible to challenge because of the testing performed, and they often read a tiny bit higher than the breath test results.[/li][li]Delaying taking the test (either by stalling, requesting a blood test if that is an option) is really useless. No matter how long it takes to get the reading, your BAC level at the time of the stop can still be calculated by a technician.[/li][li]In Washington, the preliminary breath tester (the little handheld unit) can be admitted only to establish probable cause. So in court I can testify that the driver submitted a breath test and the results indicated he/she was over the legal limit, but I cannot state what the actual reading was.[/li][/list=1] I think that covered most of the questions for which I can offer any answers. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/42 "2003-03-13T11:43:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Badge \* > Delaying taking the test (either by stalling, requesting a blood test if that is an option) is really useless. No matter how long it takes to get the reading, your BAC level at the time of the stop can still be calculated by a technician. Is that admissible? It seems to me that unless you’ve done a study of the metabolic rate of the particukar driver, there’d be insufficient foundation to admit testimony along the lines of, “At 10:00 his BAC was .07; we therefore know that at 8:00 it was .11.” In Virginia, it would not be admissible in the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/43 "2003-03-13T13:48:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by psychonaut \* > \*\*I was under the impression that the breathalyzer machines were prone to giving false positives to people who had recently used mouthwash containing alcohol. \*\* Not only is it true, **it happened to my wife in the spring of 2001.**. It wasn’t just mouthwash, though… Mrs. RickJay blew over after consuming one of those Listerine breath-freshener strip thingies; she blew like a .15. The officers at the scene were nice enough to try it themselves after consuming one of her Listerine thingies, and sure enough, the cop blew way over the limit, so they had a laugh about it and let her go. Apparently this is something they knew about (although they had not encountered it with a breath strip thingie, just with regular mouthwash.) Absolutely 100% true story, I swear to God. Anyone who thinks it’s an urban legend can e-mail me and I’ll provide the times, dates, and relevant witnesses. > [@](#): > > Is this true, or simply an urban legend? If it is true, then this sounds like an excellent ground for refusing a breathalyzer test. \*\* Here (Ontario) refusing the test is a crime. Had Mrs. RickJay refused she would have been charged and probably convicted. By taking the test she avoided that charge, and it was easy enough to explain the test result. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/44 "2003-03-13T14:12:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by D.E.S.K.Top668 \* > \*\ ***pravnik** , I like to think that I would have thought to add that had I not accidentally hit submit. Of course, even for my fellow Californian Dopers, I make no claims as to the soundness of the advice given on the linked site. I just used it due to the fact that the Lawyer who owns it constantly runs ads on the radio station I listen to. > > Peace-D.E.S.K. \*\* I dig. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/45 "2003-03-13T14:42:22Z")
> [@](#): > > You aren’t refusing the alcohol test, you’re requesting legal advice before deciding. Even after reading all the posts so far, I feel I’d need legal advice to make an informed decision, at least in part because the “correct” answer can vary state to state. This is an area that varies from state to state. In Texas, your right to a lawyer hasn’t attached when you have the option to take an intoxilyzer test, so asking to see a lawyer is refusing to take the test. What do you think that your lawyer would know about your state of intoxication that you don’t already know? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/46 "2003-03-13T16:52:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Is that admissible? It seems to me that unless you’ve done a study of the metabolic rate of the particukar driver, there’d be insufficient foundation to admit testimony along the lines of, “At 10:00 his BAC was .07; we therefore know that at 8:00 it was .11.” > > In Virginia, it would not be admissible in the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. > > - Rick \*\* I took only a couple minutes to look at this, so take it for what it’s worth, but in Felts v. Com. Not Reported in S.E.2d Va.App.,1999. Oct. 5, 1999, the Appellate Court O.Ked the use of expert testimony regarding the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of a fatality accident, based, in part, on a blood test taken more than 2 hours after the accident and the testimony: > [@](#): > > Dr. James Valentour was qualified as an expert in toxicology. Based on minimum and maximum dissipation rates, he opined that, at the time of the accident, appellant’s blood alcohol would have been between “a .11 or .12 to as high as .19 or .20.” Valentour described how certain amounts of alcohol affect one’s physical abilities. Based on his data, Valentour opined that appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The Court also talked about Tipton v. Com. 444 S.E.2d 1 Va.App.,1994, which seemingly allowed the same type of testimony. I’m only bringing those out because, in Iowa and Illinois, at least, Badge’s statement is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/47 "2003-03-13T17:44:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Robb \* > \*\*This is an area that varies from state to state. In Texas, your right to a lawyer hasn’t attached when you have the option to take an intoxilyzer test, so asking to see a lawyer is refusing to take the test. What do you think that your lawyer would know about your state of intoxication that you don’t already know? \*\* One doesn’t call a lawyer to comment on one’s state of intoxication. The right to speak with an attorney is enforced by law so that those under suspicion of a criminal act can make informed decisions about how to respond to demands by law inforcement and prosecutors. Innocent people under suspicion of a crime need lawyers even more than the guilty. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/48 "2003-03-13T17:51:56Z")
> [@](#): > > What do you think that your lawyer would know about your state of intoxication that you don’t already know? I think he’d know more about the legal implications of refusing Vs. submitting to a BAC test, about whether I have a choice of which test to take, and about which test I should choose if I do have a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/49 "2003-03-13T18:23:51Z")
> [@](#): > > One doesn’t call a lawyer to comment on one’s state of intoxication. The right to speak with an attorney is enforced by law so that those under suspicion of a criminal act can make informed decisions about how to respond to demands by law inforcement and prosecutors. Innocent people under suspicion of a crime need lawyers even more than the guilty. But one doesn’t always have a right to an attorney when deciding whether to take a breath test. After all, you aren’t being interrogated. If you aren’t intoxicated, take a breath test. If you are intoxicated, don’t. So, in Texas, the only thing a defense lawyer could do is comment on whether you are intoxicated, then bill you for the opinion. > [@](#): > > I think he’d know more about the legal implications of refusing Vs. submitting to a BAC test, about whether I have a choice of which test to take, and about which test I should choose if I do have a choice. He’d likely know these things, but he can’t get to you to comment upon them. In Texas, you don’t have a choice of what test to take unless law enforcement presents that choice. Before you are given that choice, you are read a statement that tells you the consequences of refusing a test. But, you still don’t have a right to a lawyer, and it still hinges on whether you are intoxicated. So, I still say that the only thing the defense lawyer could help you with is helping you decide whether you are intoxicated. Sorry, the State of Texas is happy to let those accused of driving while intoxicated to decide on their own whether to take a test. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/50 "2003-03-13T19:07:16Z")
I say, be polite, take the test, blow a world-recod BAC and call a lawyer. Tell the lawyer that gee, you we embarassed to mention at the time of the test but you were so nervous waiting for the test that you vomited and swalled your own sill without anyone noticing. This would (I think) violate the test protcol and so the test result. Or maybe I am wrong. ---
**Author:** ![D.E.S.K.Top668](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@D.E.S.K.Top668](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D.E.S.K.Top668)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/51 "2003-03-13T20:49:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*May I ask why you get pulled over by the police so often? \*\* Not to hijack the thread, but since you asked directly, **Monty** , it’s only polite to respond. Among the reasons given by the police were: failure to use turn signal while making a lane change (on a road where the lanes merge), suspected DUI (swerving to miss a cat at 2:00 AM), broken brakelights (am I the only one who downshifts to slow down sometimes), not wearing a seat belt ( back when it was supposed to be a secondary offence only. ) The others were completely legit, though minor: two miles over speed limit, not using my turn signal for a lane change,etc. Strangely, all this started after being pulled over by some undercover cops (for a broken license plate light) and asking for their badge numbers when they let me go, after **over a hour** of questioning and searching my car. That was the first time I was stopped and I was young and dumb. The other twenty-four stops happened in the same city. If I was paranoid, I might actually have thought they were out to get me;) Peace-D.E.S.K. (Who still respects the job 99% of the police do) ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/52 "2003-03-13T22:27:14Z")
> [@](#): > > But, you still don’t have a right to a lawyer, and it still hinges on whether you are intoxicated. I’m skeptical that I wouldn’t have the right to ask a lawyer this question. Do you have a cite for this? If there’s no decision to be made, why would they even ask me? Asking to speak with a lawyer certainly shouldn’t hurt, and maybe (IANAL!!!) being refused the right to speak with a lawyer may get the breathalizer result thrown out. At any rate, for those of us who _don’t_ live in Texas, the question still (mostly) stands. **Badge** says (in his state, presumably) that I _would_ have the right to speak with an attorney first. Which answer is more common? More importantly, which answer is correct in Michigan? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/53 "2003-03-13T22:54:19Z")
Here’s anothe Urban Legend: supposedly, ifyou are stopped by the police (under suspicion of DUI), you can getout of the alcohol test by doing the following: -you immediately announce to the arresting officer that you are experiencing chest pains, and you request him to call an ambulance -you tell him that you feel dizzy, and ask to sit down The officer is then obligated to call an ambulance…and you may or may not escape the alcohol blood test. The hospital will keep you for at least 6 hours,by which time your blood alcohol has reached legal limits. Not recommended, but it might work! ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/54 "2003-03-13T23:01:57Z")
> [@](#): > > The hospital will keep you for at least 6 hours And the hospital might do blood tests to assess your condition. One test might be your alcohol concentration. The state will then subpoena that result, allowing them a rather easy prosecution should they decide to pursue. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/55 "2003-03-13T23:18:01Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m skeptical that I wouldn’t have the right to ask a lawyer this question. Do you have a cite for this? _GRIFFITH v. TEXAS_, 55 S.W.3d 598 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) > [@](#): > > The issue in this case is whether constitutional rights were violated by the admission, as substantive evidence of guilt, of a recording of the appellant’s request for an attorney when he was asked to take a breath-alcohol test before receiving Miranda warnings or being charged with an offense. We hold that they were not. > … > The admission of the appellant’s request for an attorney did not infringe on his federal constitutional rights to counsel. > … > Questions normally accompanying the processing of a D.W.I. arrestee do not constitute interrogation.[sup]15[/sup] In particular, the admission into evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test does not offend the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. > … > Administering a breath-alcohol test to an arrestee after he has made a request for, but not received, the advice of counsel does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when a formal adversary proceeding has not yet been initiated, because the right has not attached.[sup]20[/sup] In this case, formal adversary judicial proceedings had not started because the State had not filed any charges against the appellant. Therefore the appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached. That’s just the one case I found after a quick search. The Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort in Texas on criminal matters. > [@](#): > > If there’s no decision to be made, why would they even ask me? The decision is whether you will take the test. Unless you’ve killed someone, it is unlikely that your state will force you to take a test against your will. There is no decision that a lawyer can help you make - he doesn’t know your level of intoxication either, unless you take a test. > [@](#): > > maybe (IANAL!!!) being refused the right to speak with a lawyer may get the breathalizer result thrown out. Texas uses [Intoxilyzers](http://www.alcoholtest.com/intox5000.htm). Refusal to speak with a lawyer will not render the results inadmissible, because there is not right to a lawyer, yet. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/56 "2003-03-14T00:53:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\*I took only a couple minutes to look at this, so take it for what it’s worth, but in Felts v. Com. Not Reported in S.E.2d Va.App.,1999. Oct. 5, 1999, the Appellate Court O.Ked the use of expert testimony regarding the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of a fatality accident, based, in part, on a blood test taken more than 2 hours after the accident and the testimony: The Court also talked about Tipton v. Com. 444 S.E.2d 1 Va.App.,1994, which seemingly allowed the same type of testimony. > > I’m only bringing those out because, in Iowa and Illinois, at least, Badge’s statement is correct. \*\* In Virginia, a person arrested for driving under the influence within two hours of the offense is presumed to have consented to a blood alcohol test. _Felts_ stood for the proposition that even after the two-hour limit, although the Commonwealth cannot rely on the statutory presumption, they can present other evidence - including a description of the accident and a toxicologist’s report - to prove intoxication. What I meant to do earlier, and should have been more clear on, is to question whether a toxicologist’s expert extrapolation backwards in time can give the Commonwealth the presumption of intoxication. I agree that the prosecution can introduce an expert opinion about what the BAC would have been four hours ago… but can they then bootstrap that opinion into a guilty finding based on the statutory presumption? _Felts_ (and _Tipton_, I might add) say ‘no’. It’s clear from _Felts_ that: > [@](#): > > [the] Commonwealth … conceded at trial that it was not relying on the rebuttable presumption … to prove appellant’s intoxication. Instead, the Commonwealth asserted that the officer was entitled to conduct a search of appellant and seize his blood because there was sufficient probable cause to justify a search and exigent circumstances existed to justify noncompliance with the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. > [@](#): > > In this case, the presence of wine and beer at the scene inside the wrecked car, and the distance and manner that appellant’s car traveled after leaving the road, established sufficient probable cause of involuntary manslaughter and driving under the influence to enable Blevins to obtain a warrant for a search of appellant. … Due to the evanescent nature of blood alcohol and because appellant was being transported to another hospital, we agree that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest and search of appellant. Moreover, because the Commonwealth relied on expert opinion to explain the significance of appellant’s blood alcohol level and _did not rely on the presumption_ in Code § 18.2-269, the trial court did not err in allowing the test results in evidence. (Emphasis mine). So I certainly could have phrased my question a bit better – but the key element is the availability of the statutory presumption if you get BAC evidence by extrapolation. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/57 "2003-03-14T01:26:37Z")
I guess I’ll buy your caveat, Rick, but it was a poorly worded response. The presumption of intoxication that exists if the BAC is over .08 is no longer valid, but they do allow an expert to testify as to the defendants approximate BAC at the time of the driving. They don’t have to do a study of a particular driver’s metabolic rate to be able to testify that “At 10:00 his BAC was .07; we therefore know that at 8:00 it was .11.” and it would, in fact, be admissible in the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, which is contrary to what you said. The State could not avail themselves of the presumption, but they certainly can use the testimony to show actual intoxication. ---
**Author:** ![Eclectic\_Skeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19b73/32.png) [@Eclectic\_Skeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eclectic_Skeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/58 "2003-03-14T01:52:35Z")
This is what my lawyer told me after I was stopped for DUI: In my state, you can refuse the field sobriety and breathalyzer tests, but the penalty is automatic 1 year revocation of driver’s license. The penalty for 2nd DUI conviction is also 1 year DL revocation. Thus, you have nothing to lose by refusing the tests, and it is harder for them to convict you without the results. You would not want to refuse the tests if 1)you are not drunk or 2)it is your first DUI stop, in which case, even if you are drunk, a conviction results in only 90 day revocation. Of course, there are other considerations like criminal record and insurance. The other situation where I have heard lawyers generally say it is wise to refuse the tests is if you are drunk, have an accident and kill someone. But I think they can force you to give a blood sample anyway, but if you can delay that test long enough, you may pass. ---
**Author:** ![St.Urho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e7dd6/32.png) [@St.Urho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/St.Urho)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/59 "2003-03-14T02:19:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ralph124c \* > \*\*Here’s anothe Urban Legend: supposedly, ifyou are stopped by the police (under suspicion of DUI), you can getout of the alcohol test by doing the following: > -you immediately announce to the arresting officer that you are experiencing chest pains, and you request him to call an ambulance > -you tell him that you feel dizzy, and ask to sit down > The officer is then obligated to call an ambulance…and you may or may not escape the alcohol blood test. > The hospital will keep you for at least 6 hours,by which time your blood alcohol has reached legal limits. > Not recommended, but it might work! \*\* Only problem is, if you say you have chest pains, you’re guaranteed to get blood drawn to check for cardiac enzymes. These enzymes are produced by muscle damage caused by an MI. Anyway, blood will be drawn, and it’s pretty likely they’ll check a medical blood alcohol, as well. St. Urho EMT-B ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913/60 "2003-03-14T02:56:38Z")
And one other thing. Am I the only one disconcerted by the amount of effort put forward in this thread to give information on bypassing a valid, and quite important, law. How’s about we just don’t drive if we’re drinking? Is that so tough? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-shouldnt-take-the-breathalyzer-for-a-dui-urban-legend-or-sound-legal-advice/160913.md?page=4)