Iowa DUI Lawyer: Should I always refuse breath tests?

Some Operating While Intoxicated, or, OWI, defendants in Iowa who reach my office tell me that they refused to provide both portable and desktop breath tests because some criminal lawyer, somewhere, at some time told them they should “always refuse.” I don’t “always” recommend that as it depends on a defendant’s objectives and the factual circumstances. Here’s why.

In an Iowa DUI investigation, called Operating While Intoxicated, or, OWI, in Iowa, an officer assesses both driving and in-person conduct. If he or she believes further investigation is necessary to rule in or out impairment, the investigating officer will request voluntary participation in standardized field sobriety testing, or, SFSTs.

A portable breath test is usually the last such field test is commonly called a PBT, or, portable breath test. It does not relate to driver’s license revocation. Moreover, the prosecutor may not offer a PBT test result as evidence of intoxication before the jury. However, the prosecutor may offer at a pretrial hearing on Defendant’s challenge to later evidentiary breath testing any PBT test result as part of the sum total grounds that support “reasonable grounds” to temporarily detain and request such evidentiary testing. Officers usually describe a PBT as the test subject’s last chance to “prove” that alcohol isn’t causing the impairment the officers claim they already see. The Defendant has no duty to “prove” their innocence in the field or in a courtroom—but officers need not presume innocence anywhere. They can set up such litmus tests to decide whether to invoke implied consent for further testing or even make an arrest. Therefore, the calculation becomes a little more complicated than “always refuse.”

Moreover, the main breath test is the Datamaster DMT, or, desktop test. Datamaster is a brand name and DMT is the model name of the machine. However, a good way to distinguish the portable test from the evidentiary Datamaster DMT is that the latter is a more consequential desktop test. It may be used as evidence of intoxication before the jury if timely requested, correctly advised, and properly administered. Consent or refusal here affects both evidence and the privilege to operate a motor vehicle—otherwise known as your driver’s license.

A refusal on the DMT may be used as evidence of guilt in an Iowa jury trial on drunk driving. Moreover, it typically results in an administrative revocation of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle twice as long as if the motorist provides a DMT breath test over the presumptive level of intoxication.

The “Texas math” on whether to consent or refuse hinges on two important facts and circumstances. First, a DMT test result below the presumptive level of intoxication is not necessarily a free pass, especially if there are drugs other than alcohol present. However, an average 180 pound male usually metabolizes one beer, one shot, or one glass of wine in one hour. A motorist who has not consumed enough to exceed the presumptive level of intoxication may decide to provide a test to show that they are “relatively sober,” or, below the presumptive level of intoxication. Such a test does not result in an administrative revocation of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle—although a later conviction or deferred judgment will result in either a 180 day or 90 day revocation. A refusal typically results in a one-year revocation on a first offense.

Therefore, whether to consent or refuse hinges on a very personal decision and “always refuse” is not always the right legal advice.

If you are facing prosecution and have appeared before a judge on a drunk driving charge in Iowa, contact us for a free initial consultation.