The good news is he didn't do steroids or swap wives. THAT would have been bad.

Doesn't he watch "Cops"? Every other episode is filmed in Hillsborough County. Maybe he'll make Saturday's show.

Wouldn't Primates consider wife-swapping a matter of personal freedom (assuming the wife is party to the decision)? It's wife-beating that gets 'em all riled up, I think.

"Longtime Yankees executive Mark Newman ... refused to take a blood-alcohol test, according to the arrest inquiry."

Is there some good reason for refusing to take a blood-alcohol test? Am I wrong to think that courts will hold that against you and presume automatically that you were driving intoxicated? And if they don't, why should anyone ever submit to one of those tests?

I sense that the only people who refuse those breathalizers are in three classes: 1) lawyers, because lawyers try to make everything harder than f*ck; 2) libertarians, esp. libertarian lawyers, because they are paranoid about every f*cking thing everyone else is trying to do and blame everyone else for their own f*ck ups; and 3) people driving under the influence of lawyers.

I looked this up and here is what I found about "Refusal to take the blood-alcohol test":

Generally, there are three adverse results:

(1) Your driver's license will be suspended for a period of time, commonly three, six or twelve months. This is true even if you are found not guilty of the DUI charge.

(2) In some states, refusal is a separate crime; in others, it adds jail time to the sentence for the DUI offense.

(3) The fact of refusal can be introduced into evidence as "consciousness of guilt". Of course, the defense is free to offer other reasons for the refusal.

Thus, the decision is one of weighing the likelihood of a high blood-alcohol reading against the consequences for refusing.

In other words, it sounds to me like Mr. Newman is going to be found guilty of drunk-driving (based on the sheriff's testimony) and his punishment will be worse because he did not agree to take the breathalizer. F*cking Yankified douche.

Does this mean Tony LaRussa has the inside track to replace Girardi if things go badly this year?

Wouldn't Primates consider wife-swapping a matter of personal freedom (assuming the wife is party to the decision)? It's wife-beating that gets 'em all riled up, I think.

Maybe he meant to say wife-swatting?

When they say you refused a "blood-alcohol" test, are they talking about a breathalyzer, or are they actually talking about test where they draw blood? I can imagine reasons for refusing the latter, even if they're not particularly good ones.

Breathalyzer.
If they really want a blood draw, they can make you. And (as you might imagine) it can get ugly.

Is there some good reason for refusing to take a blood-alcohol test?

If you have good reason to believe that the judge is an orthodox stat nerd who wants the numbers and not some ####### scouting.

Is there some good reason for refusing to take a blood-alcohol test?

If I told you that off-duty cops stopped for DUI nearly always refuse the breath test & insist on giving blood or urine, would that answer your question?

Possibly. Is it true, or did you just make it up? If it's true, why do they do that? And I think blood vs. urine would give quite different ideas of what's going on the body at that moment.

If they really want a blood draw, they can make you. And (as you might imagine) it can get ugly.

This certainly isn't the law in my state or any near me that I know of (not that I'm an expert on the subject).

But then, I live in a civilized and progressive area of the country.

For years the standard advice from lawyers was to refuse the test because (a) they aren't always accurate; and (b) without the breath test evidence it usually comes down to the officer's testimony regarding the driver's behavior, demeanor, etc. Breath test evidence is, in most states, irrefutable for all practical purposes. You can cross-examine a police office, establish that maybe he didn't have cause to pull you over, etc., but you can't cross examine a machine. To that end, the acquittal rates are much, much higher for test-refusers than test takers, and settlements (plea-downs to reckless driving or something) are more common.

That said, there have been many new laws passed in recent years to try to compel test-taking. While I'm not aware of any state that makes refusal of the test a felony on the order of DUI (i.e. you may get a penalty, but not as bad as a DUI for refusing), there are two instances in which you definitely want to take the test (in most states): (1) if you have a CDL license and you refuse to blow, your license can be revoked for life, which essentially will end your career if you're a driver of some kind. The DUI, however, may only lead to a six-month to one-year suspension; and (2) if you have a prior DUI and you don't blow they will throw the friggin' book at you. In Ohio at least you'll get something like an aggravated DUI or something really, really gnarly.

If I was pulled over and was worried that I was borderline and didn't have any priors, I'd probably refuse the test, but that's just me.

EDIT: On blood, at least in Ohio, they can take blood against your will if they get a judge to sign off on it. Most of the time it doesn't happen because (a) no one wants to try to draw blood from an uncooperative person; (b) it takes extra people to do it, like a med tech and stuff; and (c) most DUI stops happen at night, and it's not easy to rouse a judge and a med tech if one isn't on staff to make it happen. You almost never see blood taken like that unless there is an injury accident or something. The exception: a few rural counties in Ohio have judges who have made a point to sign blood-draw orders at all hours, giving police officers their home phone number and telling them to call at any hour of the night. Pickaway county, the county just south of Columbus has a judge famous for this, as to a few others.

Possibly. Is it true, or did you just make it up? If it's true, why do they do that? And I think blood vs. urine would give quite different ideas of what's going on the body at that moment.

To the best of my knowledge, it's true. Breathalyzers have a relatively low level of accuracy, compared to the other tests.

I wonder whether a Jehovah's Witness could successfully challenge giving blood?

If you burp, it throws off the breathalyzer. If you puke in it, I bet it's not accurate either.
If this wasn't a random check and he was pulled over due to poor driving, it doen't look good: 60 years old and he hasn't figured out how much is too much?

If they really want a blood draw, they can make you. And (as you might imagine) it can get ugly.

This certainly isn't the law in my state or any near me that I know of (not that I'm an expert on the subject).

Full disclosure: I'm a criminal defense attorney in North Carolina with a particular interest in DWI/DUI law, since most legislators consider DWI/DUI an easy place to "tighten laws," thereby getting the approval of MADD, SADD, and the general public. Never mind that they're ignoring basic rights and freedoms.

The justification for being required to blow/undergo a blood draw is that DWI/DUI is an "implied consent" offense. The legal fiction is that you have impliedly consented to undergoing a breath/blood test by driving on the public streets or highways of the State you're in.

In any event, in NC the officer can force a blood draw under "exigent circumstances," based on the logic that impairment doesn't last. This is so even though in NC, at least, the State can try to use expert testimony regarding retrograde extrapolation to show that you were impaired at the time of driving even if you didn't blow .08 later. The officer can also get a search warrant for the blood draw.

As to refusing, in NC for a first DWI it's almost always best to blow, since a refusal revokes your license for a year (limited driving privilege after 6 months). The main exception to this is if you're so lit that you blow .15 or greater, since that will require you to get an ignition interlock device for the first year you're legal to drive again.

If you're charged with a second DWI within 7 years of another DWI conviction, though, refusal is probably best. That's because in that circumstance you're facing certain jail time and, if I'm not mistaken, a two- or three-year revocation of your license.

If you burp, it throws off the breathalyzer. If you puke in it, I bet it's not accurate either.

In NC, the officer is supposed to observe you for 15 minutes prior to the test to make sure nothing like that has happened before you take the test. Burping or puking should (repeat, should) require a retest or restarting the observation period, as the case may be.

In undergrad (ca. 2004), I took a constitutional law class taught by a NY lawyer who specialized in DUI cases. He told us that, if you are drunk, refuse the test. You immediately lose your liscense for 6 months if refuse. Part of the reasoning was that they'll test your blood, but it will probably be a few hours before they do and there's a good chance you could sober up significantly in the meantime.

But see, he works for the Yankees, so of course, nothing will happen.

Unless the Yankees want it to, that is...

But see, he works for the Yankees, so of course, nothing will happen.

Right. LaRussa wouldn't be in jail today if he'd been a Yankee.

Breathalyzer Fail