---
title: "Breathalyzer Refusal Cases: Know Your Rights"
description: "The legal landscape around breathalyzer refusal has shifted substantially over the past decade. The U.S. Supreme Court's Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) ruling reshaped what states can criminalize..."
url: https://riduiguy.com/breathalyzer-refusal-cases/
date: 2019-05-05
modified: 2026-04-27
author: "The RI DUI Guy"
categories: ["Blog"]
type: post
lang: en
---

# Breathalyzer Refusal Cases: Know Your Rights

The legal landscape around breathalyzer refusal has shifted substantially over the past decade. The U.S. Supreme Court's *Birchfield v. North Dakota* (2016) ruling reshaped what states can criminalize when drivers decline chemical testing. Rhode Island courts have addressed advisement defects, chain-of-custody questions, and the line between roadside PBT and station chemical test in a series of decisions that drive how refusal cases are actually litigated today.

This page summarizes the notable breathalyzer refusal cases relevant to Rhode Island defense strategy. For the practical refusal framework, see (https://www.riduiguy.com/ri-breathalyzer-refusal-attorney/). For the broader DUI framework, see (https://www.riduiguy.com/ri-dui-laws/).

## Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)

The U.S. Supreme Court held that warrantless blood draws cannot be criminalized under implied consent laws. Warrantless breath tests, however, can be criminalized — they are less invasive and fall within the search-incident-to-arrest exception. The practical result:

- **Breath test refusal:** May be subject to civil penalties (license suspension) without violating the Fourth Amendment

- **Blood draw refusal:** Cannot trigger criminal penalties without a warrant or warrant exception

- **Urine test refusal:** Sits in a gray area; treated similarly to blood draws in most jurisdictions

For Rhode Island purposes, the chemical breath test under RIGL § 31-27-2.1 falls within *Birchfield*'s permissible category — refusal can trigger civil license suspension but cannot, on its own, create a separate criminal offense.

## Advisement Defect Cases

Several Rhode Island and federal cases have addressed what happens when the refusal advisement is given incorrectly. The advisement is the warning read by the officer about the consequences of refusal. If the warning is wrong (incorrect suspension period stated, incorrect fine range, omission of key elements) or is given in a manner the subject cannot understand (language barrier, hearing impairment), the refusal can be excluded from evidence.

The leverage from a successful advisement challenge is substantial: it collapses the administrative refusal case at the Traffic Tribunal, which lifts the 6 to 12 month refusal license suspension entirely.

## Chain-of-Custody Cases

For blood and urine refusal evidence (where the subject did provide a sample later, voluntarily or by warrant), the chain of custody from collection to laboratory analysis must be documented. Gaps in the chain — unaccounted time, missing seal documentation, lab handling errors — are grounds for exclusion. Rhode Island courts have suppressed chemical evidence where the chain of custody could not be established to a reasonable certainty.

## Lessons for Rhode Island Refusal Defense

1. Subpoena the advisement video. The body-cam recording of the advisement is the single most important piece of evidence in the administrative case.
2. Verify operator certification. If the chemical breath test was administered, the operator's Department of Health certification at the time of the test must be current. An expired certification suppresses the result.
3. Distinguish PBT from chemical test. The roadside preliminary breath test is not the chemical test referenced in § 31-27-2.1. Refusing the PBT does not trigger the same automatic license consequences. See (https://www.riduiguy.com/ri-preliminary-breath-test-refusal/).
4. Document medical conditions. GERD, asthma, severe respiratory issues, or recent oral surgery can produce false positives or "deficient sample" indicators that affect refusal analysis.
5. File the 10-day request. The Traffic Tribunal hearing request must be filed within 10 days of arrest under § 31-27-2.1. Missing the deadline forecloses the entire administrative defense.

## The Court Ruling Worth Knowing About

For a closer look at how appellate decisions have shaped current refusal law, see (https://www.riduiguy.com/breathalyzer-refusal-court-ruling/).

## If You Refused the Chemical Test

The 10-day Traffic Tribunal hearing window is unforgiving. Missing it locks in the administrative suspension regardless of what happens with the criminal case. Contact (https://www.chadbanklaw.com/) for a confidential consultation. Available 24/7 at 401-573-2265.