NOT A DUI - Refusing a Breathalyzer

[authentiix]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia

I know this is in the DUI category, because I didn't know what other category to put it under. This question involves refusing a breathalyzer and underage drinking.

If a cops bust a party at a private residence (most likely for a noise complaint), where alcohol and underage drinking is present and they ask for me to take a breathalyzer, I know I am legally allowed to refuse (the implied consent law only refers to DUI). In this case, I am not driving nor am I publicly intoxicated. I believe that without a BAC test, I cannot be charged with possession/consumption of alcohol, although correct me if I'm wrong.

However, if I kindly refuse to take the PBT...
1. Is refusal enough for them to take me to the station to take an official, mandatory breathalyzer test?
2. Is being present at a party with alcohol enough to take me to the station?
3. Is being at a party that got a noise complaint considered acting disorderly/disruptive for me, personally? Being that acting disorderly/disruptive usually is enough for a cop to assume that the person is intoxicated and then take them to the station.
4. If the cop claims to smell alcohol on my breath OR that I was acting disorderly, is that enough to take me into the station?
5. If I'm NOT acting intoxicated (not falling over, causing a disturbance, etc.), but the cop still suspects me of drinking just for being at a party with underage drinking and refusing the PBT, could I be taken to the station? Or does the cop need solid evidence like acting intoxicated/smelling alcohol on my breath?

Going off of the last question, say the cop claims that I was acting disorderly or that they could smell alcohol on my breath and they do take me to the station to take the official breathalyzer test. If I do not pass and am charged, in court could the lawyer argue that the cop had no right to arrest me based on the smell of alcohol/disturbance claims, in which case my results at the official breathalyzer do not count. Or, no matter the reasoning for taking me to the station, if I fail the official breathalyzer then that's it and I'm in trouble?

Sorry this question is so long, but my friend said that when he refused a breathalyzer test (although this was on a college campus in Indiana), the cops took him to the hospital because he was now their responsibility and basically wanted to make sure that he wouldn't die. I'm curious if I'm taken to the hospital and am found fine (intoxicated, but not going to die), are the cops allowed to charge me for intoxication? Or, is that where doctor/patient privilege applies and they aren't allowed to technically find out? Although I guess if I'm considered drunk enough to be taken to the hospital, that counts as acting disorderly which is enough for a mandatory breathalyzer test.

 

[LordofBooks]

Basically police are allowed to make arrest if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In every situation you outlined, the cops could make an argument that you exhibited conduct that gave them reasonable suspicion that you may have violated the law. In such cases, they can arrest you and take you to the station for booking and give you a breath test.

For instance, in the case of a minor in possession, a person can be cited based solely on their behavior, regardless of whether they took a breath test.

Disorderly conduct in Virginia (and every state) is a law that is very broadly written. It can encompass almost any behavior that disturbs the peace. For instance, guys who prank live news reports by yelling Howard Stern references on camera are often cited for disturbing the peace. Think of the law as a catch all for any behavior that is annoying.

Bottom line, to be arrested for underage drinking and forced to take a breath test at the station, a cop only needs reasonable suspicion that you've been drinking.

As far as your question regarding doctor patient privilege, the cops can still cite you for underage drinking if they already suspected you of doing the deed. The way privilege works is that it can exclude evidence obtained illegally. It doesn't come into play until you actually have to fight your charge.

 

[HighwayMan]

Basically police are allowed to make arrest if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

No, reasonable suspicion is required to stop/question someone. Probable cause is the standard of proof necessary for an arrest.

 

[authentiix]

No, reasonable suspicion is required to stop/question someone. Probable cause is the standard of proof necessary for an arrest.

So what is considered "probable cause"? Being at the party, acting disorderly, smelling of alcohol, not taking the PBT, or something else?

 

[HighwayMan]

It depends on the specific situation and everything the officer observes and determines from an investigation.

And stop posting multiple threads on the same topic.

 

[HighwayMan]

Why don't you Google "probable cause" and read up on it.

 

[BigMouthWino]

So what is considered "probable cause"? Being at the party, acting disorderly, smelling of alcohol, not taking the PBT, or something else?

Any or all of the above. And by the time you're arrested it's too late. Why don't you just behave yourself for a few more years until you can drink legally or at least until you're out of your parents house. Because if you are arrested drunk I'm getting the feeling from your posts that your parents are not going to be looking for a way to sue the city because there was not enough probable cause to sustain an arrest.