Breath test refusal study shows alarming trends

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interim report, released May 2005, shows some alarming trends in the number of alcohol-related fatalities across the country. Most alarming though is how some state laws actually help drunk drivers from facing stiff penalties. Breath Test Refusals in DWI Enforcement outlines three goals of the study: to document the breath test refusal rate, to investigate why some states have higher rates than others, and to determine and develop effective countermeasures.

According to the report, the number of alcohol-related auto accident fatalities fell nationally from 25,165 in 1982 to 15,935 in 1998, a drop of 37%. However the trend has seemed to reverse, with 16,635 in 2000, 17,400 in 2001, and 17,419 in 2002. The rate dropped again slightly in 2003 at 17,013. The report stated that: “It appears that new initiatives are required to achieve additional reductions.”

Although the national average of breath test refusal rates stays steady at 25%, the percentage varies widely between states. The state with the lowest refusal rate is California at about 5%, and the highest is Rhode Island at 85% according to data from 2001. Texas ranked fifth at just over 40%.

The report found that refusal rates tended to be higher in states that had High-BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) laws, and in states with “soft” license suspension laws. And states that criminalize breath test refusal tended to have lower refusal rates. Of those states with the highest increase in refusal rates over the study period, none had a law that criminalizes test refusal or gives the police means to obtain a warrant for forced testing in non-accident situations (i.e. police pulled the vehicle over).

The report concluded that in many states, drivers who refuse a breath test do not understand the consequences, including those states where refusing the test is a criminal act. The recommendation was that law enforcement should let the driver know the penalties involved with refusing the test, which should in turn reduce refusal rates.

In two particular states, Florida and Oklahoma, the report could make no recommendations until current legislation is changed. In fact, the way the law works in these states, it is more beneficial for a drunk driver to refuse the test because the charges for doing so are much lower than failing a BAC test. A blood test can only be forced in cases of injury involving others (Florida) or serious injury or fatality (Oklahoma). In essence, it is very difficult to prove drunk driving in these two states without driver compliance, and impossible to verify BAC except in accident situations.

If you have been injured by a drunk driver, protect your legal rights and increase your compensation by contacting a personal injury lawyer at Jim S. Adler & Associates immediately. You could lose your rights to seek a settlement if you wait too long, and crucial evidence to support your case could get lost in the shuffle. Jim S. Adler & Associates will help you ensure that your case is as strong as possible, increasing the likelihood of a bigger, and faster, compensation package. Contact right now for a free case review.

DUI Accident Lawyer | Drunk driving toll is like a war against innocent Americans | Teen drunk driving sparks social hosting laws | Drunk driving fatalities take no holiday | Drunk drivers down but not out | BAC laws reduce number of drunk drivers | MADD wants to eliminate drunk drivers through interlock system | Drunk driving is one of America's deadliest crimes: NHTSA | Dry counties have a higher drunk driving accident rate than wet counties | NHTSA report shows alcohol-related fatalities declining, but still high | DUI conviction hinges on legality of evidence | Making Texas roads safer from drunk drivers | Hit by a drunk driver? | A drunk driving injury lawyer gets the straight truthbr