When the first alcohol tests appeared on the roads, a legal debate immediately arose. Wasn't blowing into those devices the same as testifying against yourself? Is that constitutional? After the initial doubts, subsequent rulings made it clear that these controls are fully legal and that all drivers are obliged to submit to them, since what is being protected here is a protected asset, such as road safety. And those who refuse to blow or give up a sample of their saliva are reported for a crime of disobedience.
Almost three decades after that debate – which today is considered practically resolved – the Constitutional Court has just opened another front, until now unexplored, in the universe of alcohol abuse.
And with a scene that is repeated on urban roads and highways, such as taking a driver to the nearest police station to submit to a breathalyzer or drug test because there is no patrol nearby to carry out these tests on foot. asphalt. Always with the threat of opening a case for disobedience if these tests are negative.
The Constitutional Court has just opened a gap through which many drivers who have lived that experience and have ended up convicted could slip through. The High Court annuls the sentence of a driver who was “invited” under threat of accusing her of disobedience to go to a nearby police station to perform a breathalyzer test. The agents were not without reason to act, since the test showed an alcohol level that multiplied by four the maximum allowed level.
But the TC does not assess the degree of drunkenness here. What is questioned is whether that driver traveled “freely” to that police station or if, on the contrary, she did so “under pressure” due to the threat of a complaint for disobedience by the agents.
The ruling considers the second possibility proven. The magistrates understand that this driver, intercepted on a street in Madrid, “did not freely go to that police station.”
Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that the police themselves admitted that the woman “refused several times” to the transfer, and that if she finally agreed to go to those facilities it was, according to Diario.es, due to the repeated “persuasion” of the agents, who did not let up until the driver accepted that “invitation.”
The sentence is clear: from now on, no driver can be taken to police stations for an alcohol and drug test if he or she does not clearly state that he or she is doing so freely and voluntarily. Nor is it worth threatening or pressuring that refusing this transfer entails committing a crime of disobedience. If there is pressure, there is no freedom, the TC rules.
Another thing, judicial sources specify, is whether the refusal to take these tests is manifested on the asphalt in front of a patrol car with the devices to carry out the test. In these cases, the Supreme Court has already made it clear that if there are obvious symptoms of drunkenness or drug addiction and there is a refusal, the punishment, even if the test is not carried out, can be double: for driving under the influence of substances and for disobedience.
