ALR hearing, legal reason to deny field sobriety test?

[betachains]

I appreciate the assistance you guys, if the mandatory chemical test is the blood they draw after they take you to jail then yes but before this happened I had to sign some paper in the police car that I was refusing their test. He never asked me specifically to take a breathlyzer.

Hopefully I didn't screw myself by telling him just to take me to jail, I of course just meant that I would not be taking a field sobriety test but I can understand how it could be seen as an admission of guilt.

You refused the chemical test, and then changed your mind? Or, did the police get a warrant for a blood test? You are probably screwed with the ALR either way. But, if you can afford it (if even barely), get a lawyer. I had assumed that DMV hearings are just pro-forma kangaroo courts, but a surprising (to me at least) percentage of rulings go to the defendant. For example, in CA 10-15% of defendants win in DMV hearings.

 

[CdwJava]

Most those wins tend to be for one of two things: No chemical test results have come back (or they are blood and come back UNDER .08), or the officer's paperwork was not completed properly or not filed at all. The hearings look at very limited circumstances, so if the paperwork is properly completed and submitted and the chemical test shows a BAC of .08, the driver will lose ... though imposition of a suspension may not be immediate.

 

[robertreck19]

hello there

Refusing the field sobriety tests are not a basis for license suspension. Refusing the chemical test will result in a suspension if the arrest was valid. The question seems to be whether or not there was legal justification for the arrest, which will require a careful sophisticated evaluation of the other evidence of the arrest. You need an experienced DWI attorney with a record for winning ALR hearing-not all do, so select your attorney carefully. Until that is done properly, no evaluation is realistic. Have you already made your request for an ALR hearing?