In some CA counties (and, likely, in other states as well) the testimony of a DRE (drug recognition expert) is sufficient to convict for drug influence cases including DUI. Since a chemical test can be mandated for a DUI, they are often conducted. However, in the case of a refusal or combative defendant, such a test can be difficult to get and many agencies have policies prohibiting forced blood draws due to the risk of harm to defendants and staff. However, the defendants refusal and behavior can most often be brought in as evidence either of knowledge of guilt or evidence of drug or alcohol impairment. In many agencies, if the offense is not a felony, they will not compel blood if there is even a threat of resistance. Refusal is one thing, resistance is another.
If it were the case that NO test means NO charges or conviction, then more DUI suspects would physically struggle, I suspect. Fortunately, good observations and competent testimony can result in a conviction all the same. I have never lost a DUI case and I have made quite a few without a chemical test.
I bet she would be identified as impaired through the HGN test. One cannot hide a CNS response.It's funny (not humorous funny but oddly funnny) that my mother whose average bac was likely to result in a comatose state for most people would not have been considered to be impaired. No joking. She literally drank enough vodka daily to keep several people intoxicated but was one of the most competent driver I've known. About the only way to legitimately convict my mother of
DUI would be through a bac test.
You must be related to my wife!!On the other hand, if I drink a single beer the impairment would be easily determinable. Heck, at .08 I would likely be unable to walk let alone drive.