In Washington State, every time a Washington Supreme Court case dramatically changes laws involving DUI. State v. Gauthier is just one of those cases. In case you are unfamiliar with this Supreme Court case, the defendant's use of his or her constitutional right to refuse consent to a search without a warrant in criminal proceedings is considered to be in breach of the defendant. constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
In this case, it was the DNA erasure and rejection of the Accused, which was later used against him in criminal proceedings. So how does this apply to Washington state DUI law.
Well under RCW 46.20.308 (2) (b), which is a Washington state statute that deals with the breath test and refusal of blood tests. The implied consent law states that one of the warnings required by this statute is that a driver's refusal to consent to a breathless test "may be used in criminal proceedings." Thus, if a defendant in a DUI case refuses to have a breath test or a blood test, the prosecutor in that criminal trial may state that the defendant chose not to take the test because he knew it would be beyond the legal limit. This is a conscious assertion of guilt that has been supported by Washington's case law for years.
However, if you apply the analysis in the case of State v. Gauthier on DUI, you can make the following argument. First, since the blood test was determined to be the fourth subject to the analysis, then a breath test should also be taken. If the breath test is the subject of a 4th Amendment search and the defendant exercises his or her 4th Amendment right and there is no exception to the warrant requirement. Such a reference to constitutional law cannot then be used against them.
In addition, because Washington State uses a default consent statute that states that the denial can be used against them. This is not confusing and misleading. Because the denial of a constitutional right cannot be used against a defendant.
Now there is clearly more to it than this argument and analysis. But since this Washington State Supreme Court case came up with a new interpretation of Washington State's implied consent law, it can be used and used in a criminal case or a DUI trial.