Refusal to Undergo Drug Impairment Test and Minor Offence: The Supreme Court with Judgment no. 24291/2025

Driving under the influence of narcotic substances poses a serious danger to road safety. Article 187 of the Highway Code penalizes not only driving while impaired but also the refusal to undergo testing. A crucial aspect is the applicability of the ground for non-punishability due to the minor nature of the offence (Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code). On this delicate issue, the Supreme Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 24291 of 2025, has provided important clarifications, outlining the boundaries within which such an exemption can be invoked.

The Regulatory Framework: Art. 187 of the Highway Code and Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code

Refusal to undergo tests to verify the state of psychophysical impairment due to drugs is equated by law to driving under the influence of such substances, leading to severe criminal and administrative sanctions. This equivalence underscores the seriousness of the omission, which prevents the ascertainment of a potential public danger.

Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code introduces non-punishability for the minor nature of the offence, applicable when the offense is of minimal entity and the conduct is not habitual. Its application requires careful assessment of the specific case, considering the manner of the conduct, the insignificance of the damage or danger, and the degree of culpability.

The Supreme Court's Ruling and the Practical Case

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court provides an authoritative interpretation, applying the principle to a concrete case. Here is the legal principle enunciated:

In matters of refusal to undergo testing for psychophysical impairment due to drug use, the reasons why, at the time of the check, the officers responsible for carrying it out note that the driver exhibits a condition of impairment related to the consumption of said substances are relevant for the applicability of the ground for non-punishability due to the minor nature of the offence. (In application of the principle, the Court found the decision to be free from censure, which had excluded the application of the exemption under Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code, on the grounds that the refusal to undergo testing had been opposed by the driver of a vehicle inside which a strong smell of marijuana was perceived and, furthermore, a pre-rolled joint and a packet containing five grams of the same substance had been found).

The Court clarifies that to assess the minor nature of the offence in refusing the test, one cannot disregard the circumstances that led law enforcement to suspect impairment. The refusal itself is not an isolated act but takes on specific weight based on the existing indicators of impairment at the time of the check. In the case examined (Judgment no. 24291/2025), the defendant L. M. A. had refused the test, but a strong smell of marijuana was perceived inside the vehicle, and a joint and a packet containing five grams of the same substance were found. These clear indications of impairment and possession of drugs reinforced the decision to exclude the applicability of Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code, as the refusal, in this context, could not be considered of minimal offensiveness.

Conclusions: A Strict Approach to Road Safety

Judgment no. 24291 of 2025 by the Supreme Court reiterates that non-punishability for the minor nature of the offence is not a "get out of jail free card" for those who, despite refusing tests, already show evident signs of impairment or possess drugs. This strict approach protects road safety and sends a clear message.

• Refusal to undergo testing is never "neutral" with respect to the circumstances.
• Indicators of impairment or drug possession are decisive.
• Road safety is paramount.

For those in similar situations, it is essential to seek legal professionals experienced in criminal law and road traffic law.