Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Underdog

Criminal Law

: Underdog

Your refusal to talk to the cops stays out of evidence, but your refusal of a blood alcohol test does not.

By Marks & Katz, LLC

  Bill of Rights (From public domain.) Yesterday I blogged that refusing a search is inadmissible at trial. So is refusing to talk with the cops. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976); U.S. v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (1975); Grier v. Maryland, 351 Md. 241, 718 A.2d 211 (1998). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not afford a Fifth Amendment or any other Constitutional right to bar the jury from knowing that a drunk driving defendant refused a blood alcohol test. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983); Stevenson v. District of Columbia, 562 A.2d 622 (D.C. 1989). That makes no sense. Refusing a blood alcohol test is a communication. Refusal to communicate with the police is at the very heart of the Fifth Amendment. Hopefully Neville will be overturned...continue to full post

Full post as published by Underdog on January 07, 2009 (boomark / email).