Yes, you can refuse a field sobriety test in Minnesota. The roadside coordination exercises officers ask you to perform, following a pen with your eyes, walking heel-to-toe, standing on one leg, are voluntary. No statute requires you to attempt them, and no penalty attaches to declining. That is not true of every test an officer might ask for during a DWI stop, though, and confusing the categories is where drivers get into trouble.
The Three Tests, and Which Ones Are Optional
Minnesota law treats three different things as separate tests with separate rules. Getting them straight in your head before you ever need to is worth more than any single piece of advice.
- Field sobriety tests are the roadside physical exercises. Completely voluntary. No legal penalty for refusing. Officers use them to build probable cause for an arrest.
- The preliminary breath test, or PBT, is a handheld breath device used at the roadside before arrest. Under Minnesota Statutes 169A.41, an officer who suspects impairment can require a sample. The results are limited in how they can be used at trial and mainly serve to help establish probable cause.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.41 – Preliminary Screening Test
- The evidentiary chemical test is a breath, blood, or urine test given after arrest, usually at the station or a medical facility. This is the test governed by Minnesota’s implied consent law, and refusing it is a crime.2Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.51 – Chemical Tests for Intoxication
PBT results can also be admitted in prosecutions for test refusal under Minnesota Statutes 169A.20, subdivision 2. So declining the later evidentiary test does not necessarily keep the preliminary breath reading out of the case.1Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.41 – Preliminary Screening Test
Why the Roadside Tests Are Worth Declining
Even the federal government acknowledges these tests have reliability problems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s own training manual notes that the tests are designed for “ideal conditions” and that roadside realities like uneven pavement “may have some effect on the evidentiary weight given to the results.”3National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) Refresher Instructor Guide Performing them on the shoulder of a highway at night, nervous and possibly cold, is about as far from ideal as it gets. Poor lighting, weather, fatigue, medical conditions, and simple anxiety all affect performance. An officer grading your balance in those conditions is making a subjective judgment, and that judgment becomes evidence against you.
What Happens When You Say No
Declining the roadside exercises does not end the encounter. Officers do not need your test performance to arrest you. They can rely on everything else they have already observed: the reason they pulled you over, how you spoke when they approached your window, whether they smelled alcohol, and how you handled your license and registration. All of that is fair game in court.
Some prosecutors will try to use your refusal against you by arguing it shows “consciousness of guilt,” the idea being that you declined because you knew you would fail. Whether that argument gains traction depends on the judge and the rest of the evidence. The flip side: by not performing the tests, you have also kept the state from getting video of you stumbling through exercises designed to be difficult even sober. A defense attorney working with limited prosecution evidence often has more room to maneuver than one trying to explain away a recorded failed walk-and-turn.
The Chemical Test Is Different, and This Is Where It Matters
By driving in Minnesota, you have already given implied consent to a chemical test of your breath, blood, or urine if an officer has probable cause to believe you are impaired and has lawfully arrested you.2Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.51 – Chemical Tests for Intoxication Refusing that test is a separate criminal offense under Minnesota Statutes 169A.20, subdivision 2.4Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.20 – Driving While Impaired
Before requesting the test, the officer must read an advisory stating three things: that Minnesota law requires you to take it, that refusing is a crime, and that you have the right to consult with an attorney as long as doing so does not unreasonably delay the test.2Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.51 – Chemical Tests for Intoxication If the officer skips or botches that advisory, it can become a defense issue later. The advisory itself should make the stakes clear in the moment.
Refusing a chemical test also acts as an aggravating factor that pushes DWI charges up the scale. A basic DWI with no aggravating factors is a fourth-degree misdemeanor, carrying up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Add a chemical test refusal and the charge jumps to at least third degree, a gross misdemeanor with up to 364 days in jail and a $3,000 fine.5Minnesota House of Representatives. An Overview of Minnesota’s DWI Laws
On top of the criminal charge, the Department of Public Safety revokes your license administratively. Under Minnesota Statutes 169A.52, revocation for refusing a chemical test starts at one year with no prior incidents in the past ten years and climbs from there: two years with one prior incident in that window, three years with two priors, four years with three, and six years once you have four or more.6Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.52 – Test Refusal or Failure; Revocation of License Those are minimums. For anyone with a prior incident, the revocation for refusing runs longer than the revocation for failing.
A refusal that leads to revocation also triggers license plate impoundment under Minnesota Statutes 169A.60 if you have at least one prior impaired driving incident within the past ten years.7Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Statutes 169A.60 – Administrative Impoundment of Plates Special “whiskey plates” go on the vehicle.
You Can Call a Lawyer Before Deciding on the Chemical Test
Minnesota offers something most states do not: a constitutional right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take the chemical test. In Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that under Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution, you have the right to “a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”8Justia. Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety
The right has limits. Officers must provide a phone and a reasonable amount of time to reach a lawyer, but the consultation cannot unreasonably delay the test. If you cannot get an attorney on the line within that window, you have to make the decision without one.8Justia. Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety This right applies to the evidentiary chemical test only, not to field sobriety tests or the PBT. If officers deny or interfere with your attempt to reach an attorney, that failure can become grounds to challenge the results or the refusal charge. Having a DWI lawyer’s number in your phone before you ever need it is one of the more practical pieces of preparation a Minnesota driver can do.
What Officers Do Not Have to Tell You
Officers are not required to read Miranda warnings before asking you to perform field sobriety tests or before requesting a chemical test. Miranda protections apply to custodial interrogation, and courts have consistently treated roadside DWI investigation as something short of that threshold. Questions like “where are you coming from?” and “how much have you had to drink?” are treated as preliminary investigative questions, and your answers are admissible without a Miranda warning.
Miranda also does not protect physical evidence. Even if an officer should have read you your rights and did not, observations like slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the smell of alcohol remain admissible because they are not testimonial. You can politely decline to answer questions about where you have been or what you have consumed. Just do not assume that silence leaves the officer with nothing.
The Short Version
Refusing the roadside coordination exercises in Minnesota is legal and carries no direct penalty. Refusing the preliminary breath test sits in a gray zone where results are limited but still useful to the state. Refusing the chemical test after arrest is a crime, elevates the DWI charge, and triggers a longer license revocation than failing the test would have. If you are arrested and the officer reads you the implied consent advisory, that is the moment to ask for a phone and a lawyer.