The answer is clear: refusal, although materially possible, entails very serious penalties, often equated with the most severe cases of driving under the influence.
Driving under the influence of alcohol, governed by art. 186 Italian Road Code, provides for different penalties depending on the blood alcohol level. However, law enforcement may subject the driver to checks even in the absence of obvious symptoms, using portable devices and rapid procedures, always with respect for the person.
Refusal treated as the most severe blood alcohol level
The crucial point concerns refusal: anyone who does not undergo preliminary tests or the breathalyser is penalised as if they had a level above 1.5 g/l, that is, in the most severe bracket. The consequences may include:
- heavy fines;
- arrest of up to one year;
- licence suspension or revocation;
- further ancillary measures concerning the vehicle.
In practice, refusing the test is not a solution, but automatically exposes the driver to a heavy penalty framework.
Checks at medical facilities and accidents
Where there are grounds for suspicion, or in the event of a road accident, the Police or the Carabinieri may take the driver to a medical facility or station to carry out more thorough tests. Even blood tests performed for medical reasons may be used to establish the offence, as confirmed by the Italian Court of Cassation.
The same rules apply to narcotic substances
The same rules apply to driving under the influence of narcotic substances, governed by art. 187 Italian Road Code. Here too, refusing the tests constitutes a stand-alone offence, with consequences analogous to those provided for proven impairment.
From an operational standpoint, it is essential to know that every choice made during the check has a direct impact on the proceedings. Mishandling — often driven by anxiety or limited knowledge of the legislation — can considerably worsen the driver's position.
A case I handled personally
I recall a real case I handled: it was the dead of night, around two in the morning, when I was contacted on my mobile by a long-standing client of mine (criminal matters) — for privacy reasons I will refer to him as A. — stopped at a checkpoint and visibly worried. He was asking me whether it would be better to refuse the breathalyser test to avoid worse consequences. After quickly assessing the situation, I clearly explained to him the risks of refusal and steered him towards the correct choice. He followed my advice, and this avoided an automatic aggravation of his position, subsequently allowing us to manage the matter more favourably from a defence perspective.
Conclusions: the importance of 24/7 legal assistance
This episode shows just how important it is to have prompt, 24/7 legal assistance — agreed in advance with the client — even in apparently simple situations. In matters of driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances, a decision taken at the right moment can be the difference between a manageable penalty and far more serious consequences.