Evidence of Refusal To Take SFST Allowed Drunk Driving Case

Under the U.S. Constitution, you have a 5th Amendment right to refuse the SFSTs in criminal DUI's correct? Wrong. The courts have deemed these "tests" as non-testimonial. However, testimonial is arguably exactly what they are! The court clarified that if one refuses to take the "tests," their refusal can be used against them in court. This was decided in State v. Rubick 16 Kan.App.2d 585, 827 P.2d 771 (1992).

In that case, the magistrate judge declared a mistrial when the State attempted to introduce evidence of defendant's refusal to perform the standardized field sobriety testing. The State appealed and the higher court deemed that there was no error in the admission of refusal to perform SFSTs. They discussed how K.S.A. 8-1001 expressly admits refusal of a BAT and is silent on refusal of field tests. They deemed that there is no constitutional privilege against self-incrimination involved, analogizing to the refusal to submit handwriting exemplars in State v. Haze 218 Kan. 60 (1975). It should be noted, that the above 5th amendment issues relate to criminal cases. The refusal should be used against a person in a civil case in the event they injured someone and are getting sued.

As personal injury lawyers, we have represented numerous people injured by drunk drivers. We have helped numerous people get the money they needed due to their injuries received by drunk drivers. Contact us to speak with experienced drunk driving car accident attorneys representing people who were injured by somebody who was drinking and driving. It is especially helpful to your case if the other driver was charged with DUI in Kansas or DWI in Missouri.

Related Posts
  • The Things One Should Consider When Filing a Claim After a Car Accident Read More
  • Personal Injury Law Firm Hosts Dr. Snow for a CLE Regarding Acute vs Chronic Disc Pathologies Read More
  • Qualified Immunity Shouldn't Qualify To Continue Read More