Actually, it is a total refusal on the scene.. but then, of course a few hours later at the station house he does the FST and looks pretty good.

How would you VD and argue on that?

Also, how do you argue just a BT refusal?

Thanks

Plea bargaining.

And, then, get involved in the next legislative session to argue for mandatory blood/breath, even for elected officials.

Was it really a "few hours" later when he did the FST's? If it was, you can voir dire on how people Sober Up after a few hours. You also voir dire on why would someone refuse to do simple coordination skills tests when an officer can smell ETOH on their breath.

Can't imagine an officer letting a "few hours" go by before doing the FST's.

Facts at the scene. Driving, (hope they were good ones). Subjects demeanor at the scene, (belligerent, confused, how he (or she) moved around, slurring speech, distracted?, smell of alcohol.

Basically, grab at every little straw you can find.

Then plea, if you can.

Just because a defendant refuses to do any field sobriety tests and refuses to blow does not mean in and of itself that you have a bad case. In fact, when they refuse everything, it may be a great case.

I do not know your facts. Look at the evidence very closely. Watch the tape, review the reports and talk to your officer and any witnesses.

In regards to developing better skills at trying these type of cases, my advice is to purchase Aplert's book DWI Investigation and Prosecution from TDCAA. It is an invaluable resource.