Apparently, being accused of DUI is now prima facie evidence. Hat’s off to Radley Balko, again, for this gem

Now, please do not think that I am trying to condone drunk driving. The point I’d like to make, is that this type of interpretation of the law is the same sort of logic by which its advocates would suggest that “If you’re not guilty of anything, you shouldn’t be bothered if the police want to search your home for [insert contraband here].

I know the interpretation in Michigan here is similar, although the officers themselves are not trained to draw your blood, they do have the authority to drag you to the nearest hospital and have your blood drawn by someone who is trained. And the result is the same— failing to submit oneself to a preliminary breath test (or the blood test if you don’t consent to the PBT) is punished by a mandatory revocation of one’s driver’s license, for a period of 6 months.

The state is using your failure to invalidate your rights, as evidence against you. They are, in effect, saying that silence is an admission of guilt. Regardless of the outcome of the test. You could blow a .000 and you would still be subjected to a revoked license. Try applying for a job? Try applying for car insurance. Check the box.

Now, DUI is in most cases a criminal offense, mostly a misdemeanor, and sometimes a felony. This is not to be confused with a civil infraction (speeding, parking tickets, etc.) for which the burden of proof is only to show a “preponderance of the evidence.” As a criminal offense, the burden of evidence is on the State, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the crime. And they need to do this by following “due process” of law. There are rules, which are put in place to “protect the innocent.” One of these rules, is that they cannot execute a search without first obtaining a warrant, and said warrant may only be obtained by showing probable cause.

This interpretation of the law treats the fact that you have been pulled over as equivalent to probable cause. Except, you weren’t pulled over for DUI, you were pulled over for [failure to yield, failure to signal, improper passing, speeding, etc.] If you pass the roadside tests, you know, touch your thumb to your nose, count backwards, say the alphabet…can they still require you to take the blood/breath test? And if so, under what pretense? If they have probable cause to search your body for alcohol, does it not follow that they ought to have equally probable cause to search your vehicle for illegal drugs, too? If not, why not?