The Supreme Court Has Ruled on Breathalyzer Refusal

The most consequential breathalyzer refusal court ruling of the past decade is Birchfield v. North Dakota, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016. Birchfield drew a constitutional line between breath tests (permissible to criminalize refusal) and blood tests (not permissible to criminalize refusal without a warrant). That line still controls how Rhode Island and every other state can structure refusal penalties.

This page summarizes the key holdings of Birchfield and the related court rulings that shape Rhode Island breathalyzer refusal defense. For practical refusal strategy, see breathalyzer refusal. For the broader DUI framework, see Rhode Island DUI laws.

Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)

The case consolidated three challenges to state implied consent laws that criminalized refusal of chemical testing. The Court's holding:

• Breath tests: Constitutional to require under search-incident-to-arrest doctrine; states may criminalize refusal
• Blood tests: Not within search-incident-to-arrest doctrine because of the bodily intrusion involved; warrantless requirement is unconstitutional, and refusal cannot be criminalized

The reasoning rested on a balancing test between the privacy interest of the driver and the state interest in DUI enforcement. Breath samples involve no significant bodily intrusion. Blood draws involve piercing the skin, which the Court treated as a substantial Fourth Amendment intrusion requiring a warrant or specific exception.

Why Birchfield Matters in Rhode Island

Rhode Island's chemical test refusal law (RIGL § 31-27-2.1) imposes civil penalties for refusal — license suspension, fine, community service. It does not impose separate criminal penalties just for refusing. That structure stays compliant with Birchfield for breath tests, and is the only viable structure for blood/urine refusals.

The practical effect: refusal is treated as a separate civil violation, prosecuted at the Traffic Tribunal, not a separate crime in District Court. The civil license suspension imposed by the Tribunal is independent of any criminal DUI charge.

Subsequent Cases Refining the Doctrine

Following Birchfield, lower courts have addressed:

• The "exigent circumstances" exception — when officers can take blood without a warrant despite Birchfield, particularly in accident cases
• The "implied consent through driving" theory — what privileges the state can condition on consent
• The "operator certification" rule — administrative requirements for valid breath testing
• Advisement defects — when the warning given to drivers about refusal consequences is incorrect or incomplete

Each line of cases produces incremental defense angles that experienced Rhode Island DUI lawyers pursue case by case.

Practical Defense Implications

1. Breath test refusal: Triggers civil suspension; the validity of the advisement and the operator's certification are the key challenge points
2. Blood test refusal: Cannot be criminalized; the state must obtain a warrant or rely on exigent circumstances
3. Subpoena the body-cam advisement video. An incorrect or incomplete advisement is the most common path to suppressing the refusal evidence
4. Verify the chemical test was administered by a certified operator. Expired certifications suppress the test result
5. The 10-day Traffic Tribunal request under RIGL § 31-27-2.1 is unforgiving — missing it locks in the suspension regardless of advisement defects

Notable Refusal Cases — Continued Reading

For specific case-level lessons, see breathalyzer refusal cases.

Free Consultation

If you refused a chemical test in Rhode Island, the 10-day Traffic Tribunal hearing window starts immediately. Contact The Law Office of Chad F. Bank for a confidential consultation. Available 24/7 at 401-573-2265.