Question, sir, you being an attorney.
In yesterday's afternoon newspaper, I read the police report, and there was one about a guy who was arrested for drunken driving, but refused to take the tests (blood-alcohol, breathing, urine, whatever it is they use).
Apparently refusing to take such a test is a right.....and apparently there are some who think there is a particular advantage to refusing to take a test.
What might those advantages be?
And USA4ME above is correct; politeness works.
I've been stopped by policemen before--generally usually always for not stopping at a STOP sign (I just slow down to a crawl, and then go on if it's clear [it's a habit in the lonely Sandhills]), but a couple of times for going 62 mph in a 35 mph zone, and 84 mph on a 60 mph highway (it's a habit in the carless highways of Nebraska)--but I've never gotten a ticket, not even a written warning.
The cop isn't out to "get" someone.
Truthfulness with a law-enforcement official works. I suggest the primitives try it.
BlueStateSaint's answer is pretty good but I'll try to give you one not specific to a particular state. The general rule in the US is the so-called "implied consent" to testing in accepting your license. In actual application, this means that you can certainly refuse to cooperate with a blood alcohol test (be it breath, urine, blood, or some other means yet to be invented; some states allow you a choice, some do not), however if you do, your license becomes immediately suspended administratively by the licensing authority.
There are variations on this from state to state, such as if you are involved in a fatal accident your blood will be tested with or without your consent, based on a probable cause search and seizure approach (with the 'exigent circumstances' exception to the warrant requirement in play because the alcohol content of the blood is being continously metabolized away as time passes).
If you agree to the test and bomb it, generally your license is in a lot of jeopardy too of course, but this is less uniform from state to state than most other aspects of intoxicated driving law and practice. However, while consenting to the test and bombing it will very likely result in the damning stigma of a DUI conviction, you can probably get at least limited driving privileges for commuting and other truly necessary purposes, or even a pretrial diversion or suspended judgment for a first offense, which can ultimately avoid the actual conviction if at considerable expense and additional court scrutiny of your life for an extended period.
Refusng may possibly prevent the government from having quite enough evidence to convict you for DUI; after all, as attorneys are wont to say, it's not "Drinking and driving" that is illegal, it is "Drunk driving," so just because the cop smelled liquor on your breath, by itself that does not show you were over the limit. If you can get by without being behind the wheel for a year or two, it's a valid strategy to avoid the conviction if that is the most important risk to you .
Agreeing to the test is probably going to make it a whole lot easier to convict you, but there are various ways to mitigate the consequences or even avoid the conviction if you take this route.
Each approach has icertain advantages, of course copping an attitude with the arresting officer is a great way to make a bad situation worse, for those so inclined, no matter which way you go.
The down side of refusing is that you will lose
