I'm not a LEO, so I won't attempt to answer the question, even though I'm sure I know what the correct answer is. I'll just throw out this interesting little quasi-related nugget from
VC 23612 that I hadn't noticed before:
Quote:
(d) (1) A person lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 may request the arresting officer to have a chemical test made of the arrested person’s blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of that person’s blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.
|
If you
weren't driving under the influence, but somehow end up getting arrested anyway, you can actually insist that they
do give you a test. The blood test would be best in such a scenario as it is the most accurate, covers drugs and not just booze, and is repeatable (the blood can be tested again in the future if the state or the defendant wants to). Note that I said "insist" instead of "request" because the officer must honor your request and have the test performed.
Is that cool or what? There must have been a libertarian lurking in the legislature who threw that one in when no one was looking.