Refusing the alcohol test may seem like a way to prevent a blood alcohol level from being detected. The law, however, considers refusal an independent fact, which can carry criminal consequences and affect your driving licence and vehicle. It is not only the result that the breathalyzer could have produced that matters: what also matters is what assessment was requested, why it was requested, and how the person reacted.

I want to help you clarify an essential distinction: a preliminary check, the breathalyzer, and a hospital assessment are not the same thing, but Article 186 of the Highway Code expressly refers to each of these situations. We will see what refusing truly means, what effects the rule provides, and why an actual impossibility of carrying out the test should not be confused with a voluntary denial.

Refusing the alcohol test can constitute an offence

Refusing does not eliminate the problem. Article 186, paragraph 7, of the Highway Code establishes that a driver who refuses the assessments referred to in paragraphs 3, 4, or 5 is punished with the penalties provided for the most serious bracket of driving under the influence. The contested offence, therefore, does not consist in having an ascertained blood alcohol level exceeding a certain threshold: it consists in the refusal of the assessment provided for by law.

This rule is important because it avoids a frequent misunderstanding. The absence of a number on the breathalyzer does not equate to the absence of consequences. If a refusal is contested, the proceedings concern first and foremost the request for a check and the conduct held by the driver. The blood alcohol level is not automatically presumed to be higher than 1.5 grams per litre, but the law attaches the same penalty framework to the refusal as that provided for that bracket.

Not every incomplete test proves a refusal on its own. An express denial is the most immediate situation, but conduct that prevents the assessment from being carried out without a concrete reason can also be evaluated in context. A different case is that of a person who is materially unable to perform a test due to an actual condition: in that case, the sequence of facts, what appears in the report, and any available medical findings become central.

The text of Article 186, including paragraph 7 on refusal, is reported in Law no. 177 of 2024 published in the Official Gazette, which entered into force on December 14, 2024. The amendments introduced by that law concerned, among other things, further consequences for specific convictions provided for by Article 186, but they did not transform the refusal into a simple administrative infraction.

What checks traffic police can request

The initial check can be purely indicative. Article 186, paragraph 3, allows traffic police officers to subject drivers to non-invasive qualitative assessments or tests carried out also with portable devices. These tools serve to acquire useful elements to decide whether to proceed with a subsequent assessment: they do not necessarily coincide with the breathalyzer that determines the blood alcohol level relevant for the purposes of the statutory thresholds.

The breathalyzer requires one of the provided prerequisites. Paragraph 4 identifies three situations: a positive outcome of the preliminary check, involvement in a road accident, or other elements giving reason to believe that the driver is in a state of psychophysical alteration due to alcohol. The accident alone does not prove that a person has been drinking, but it allows officers to carry out the assessment using the instruments and procedures established by the regulation.

Hospital checks follow a distinct rule. For a driver involved in an accident and undergoing medical treatment, paragraph 5 provides that the healthcare facility carries out the assessment of the blood alcohol level at the request of the traffic police. Healthcare necessary for health and the verification linked to traffic are different plans. Precisely because paragraph 7 also refers to paragraph 5, a contestation of refusal can concern this situation as well.

To understand whether the fact falls within the rule, knowing that a patrol was present is not enough. What matters is the link between the request and the planned check. A report should make it possible to reconstruct whether there was a preliminary test, an accident, or a different element indicated as the reason for the assessment. This does not anticipate the outcome of the proceedings, but it makes it possible to distinguish a request placed within the perimeter of Article 186 from a generic reconstruction.

Breathalyzer: why test procedures matter

The breathalyzer is a technical assessment. The enforcement regulation of the Highway Code provides that the ascertainment of the state of intoxication is carried out through the analysis of exhaled alveolar air. Therefore, this is not an evaluation based solely on the smell of alcohol, speech, or the person's appearance: when the test is carried out, it produces technical data that are related to the blood alcohol level.

Two concordant readings are required. Article 379 of the regulation requires at least two concordant determinations, carried out five minutes apart. This rule is particularly relevant when the assessment has been carried out and the contestation concerns the recorded value. If, on the other hand, the procedure does not reach a conclusion, it must first be clarified whether a refusal occurred or a concrete impediment that made it impossible to complete it.

The report describes the context, it does not replace the test. Article 379 itself requires the reporting officers to indicate in the crime report the symptomatic circumstances of any state of intoxication, both during the assessments and when they document a refusal. Those annotations do not create a blood alcohol value that was not measured; however, they can assume relevance in understanding why the test was requested and how the driver's conduct was described.

The procedures for the assessment are governed by Article 379 of the enforcement regulation of the Highway Code. The distinction between technical data, officers' notes, and the contestation of refusal prevents treating all situations as if they were identical.

Consequences provided for those who refuse

The criminal framework is the highest one under Article 186. The reference to paragraph 2, letter c), entails a fine ranging from 1,500 to 6,000 euros and arrest from six months to one year. This is the penalty provided in the abstract by the rule. It does not mean that every proceeding automatically leads to an effective custodial sentence, since the concrete definition depends on procedural rules, ascertained circumstances, and the decisions of the judicial authority.

Conviction also entails consequences regarding the licence. For the offence of refusal, paragraph 7 provides for the suspension of the licence from six months to two years. With the suspension order, the prefect also orders that the driver undergo a medical examination in accordance with the provisions referred to by the rule. Administrative suspension and criminal proceedings have a different nature, even if they stem from the same episode.

Confiscation is not indifferent to the ownership of the vehicle. Conviction entails the confiscation of the vehicle used, under the methods provided for the most serious hypothesis of driving under the influence. Article 186, however, makes an exception for the hypothesis in which the vehicle belongs to a person unrelated to the violation. A generic statement is not enough: the ownership of the vehicle and the non-involvement of the owner must result from verifiable facts.

A specific prior conviction can lead to revocation. If the act is committed by someone who has already been convicted, in the preceding two years, for the same offence, paragraph 7 provides for the revocation of the licence. The reference is precise: not every prior conviction relating to traffic produces this effect, but a prior conviction for the same offence can decisively change the administrative consequences.

Refusal, illness, and requests for assistance are not the same thing

A real illness must not be treated as a formula. Shortness of breath, injuries, respiratory difficulty, or another concrete condition can affect the possibility of correctly performing the exhalation required by the breathalyzer. Saying you feel unwell, however, does not solve the problem on its own. It is necessary to understand whether the impediment was actual and concurrent with the test, or whether the conduct manifested a choice not to undergo the assessment.

The second exhalation is not an optional step. Since instrumental assessment requires two concordant determinations, stopping after the first test does not equate to regularly completing the test. The reason for the interruption is therefore decisive: a real impossibility must be distinguished from the conduct of someone who voluntarily interrupts the procedure to prevent the technical data from being formed.

Asking for a lawyer does not coincide with refusal, but it does not automatically stop the act. The request for legal assistance can be expressed clearly, without turning it into a denial of the test. If a person declares that they will not carry out any check until the arrival of a defender, the wording and concrete conduct can assume relevance in the reconstruction of the fact. The right to defense must not be confused with a general faculty to block the assessment.

After a contestation: what distinguishes possible positions

The documents received must be read for their content. The report, any measures concerning the licence, the indication of the time, and the medical documentation can reconstruct an essential sequence: what check was requested, based on what circumstance, what information was given, and what is indicated as a refusal. Building subsequent explanations disconnected from the documents is not useful; what is needed is to verify whether the documents correctly describe what happened.

Licence and offence require separate attention. A prefectural measure on the licence does not decide criminal liability on its own, just as the existence of criminal proceedings does not render the administrative effects already ordered irrelevant. It is necessary to distinguish the act received, the authority that issued it, its subject matter, and the indications contained in the communication.

The central issue is proving the contested fact. A useful defence is not based on the idea that every contestation falls through because the breathalyzer value is missing, nor on the generic assertion that the report is wrong. The difference lies in the legitimacy of the request, the presence of an actual refusal, and the documentation of any reasons that prevented the test.

Frequently asked questions

Can I refuse the alcohol test if I haven't drunk?

Refusal remains risky even if you believe you have not drunk. Article 186, paragraph 7, penalizes the refusal of the assessment provided for by law, not just the refusal of someone who would have exceeded a blood alcohol threshold. If the test is requested under the prerequisites indicated by the rule, its failure to be performed can therefore constitute an independent contestation.

Does refusing the breathalyzer always lead to jail?

No, actual detention is not automatic. The rule refers to the fine from 1,500 to 6,000 euros and arrest from six months to one year provided for by paragraph 2, letter c). This is the penalty framework, while the way the proceedings are resolved depends on the circumstances of the fact and the decisions of the judicial authority.

If the vehicle is registered to another person, is it confiscated?

The ownership by someone unrelated to the violation can exclude confiscation. Article 186, paragraph 7, refers to the confiscation of the vehicle, but makes an exception for the hypothesis in which the vehicle belongs to a person unrelated to the violation. Actual ownership, however, must concretely emerge; recalling occasional availability or a simple statement is not enough.

Can I interrupt the test after the first exhalation?

The first exhalation does not conclude the procedure. Article 379 of the regulation requires two concordant determinations, spaced five minutes apart. If the test is interrupted, understanding the reason becomes essential: a real impossibility requires a different examination from behavior aimed at voluntarily evading the assessment.

Can I wait for a lawyer before taking the alcohol test?

The request for assistance does not automatically suspend the check. You can express the need to have a defender, but it is not prudent to express this request as a refusal of the test. The legal meaning of the episode depends on what was requested, the words used, and the conduct held during the assessment.

Regulatory references and practical guidance

The rules to read are few but decisive. Article 186 of the Highway Code governs preliminary checks, the breathalyzer, hospital assessments, and refusal; Article 379 of the regulation establishes the technical methods for assessment with a breathalyzer. The institutional links included in the guide allow you to directly verify the provisions referred to.

If you have received a report, a communication regarding your licence, or a document concerning criminal proceedings, you can contact me to precisely distinguish the contested fact, the administrative effects already indicated, and the elements resulting from the documents.