Skip to contentSkip to Search and the menu

The Breath, Blood or Urine Test

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227b — asked for after an arrest, after a chance to call a lawyer, and a refusal can be used in court

Anyone who operates a motor vehicle in Connecticut is deemed to have consented to a chemical test of their blood, breath or urine, and to the nontestimonial portion of a drug influence evaluation by a drug recognition expert.

Email

Who handles this in Connecticut: legal aid programs and the state offices, listed in the Connecticut directory.

  • The officer asks for the test after placing the person under arrest for driving under the influence.
  • Before it, the person is apprised of their constitutional rights and given a reasonable opportunity to telephone an attorney.
  • The person is told that a refusal is admissible and may be used against them in a criminal prosecution, and that the license may be suspended.
  • A person who refuses is not given the test, except that a person who refuses or cannot give blood is asked for another kind of test.
  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227b

A breath, blood or urine result is admissible in the criminal case only on the conditions the statute lists, the first of them that the defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to telephone an attorney before the test and consented to it.

  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a

Refusing the testimonial portions of a drug influence evaluation, the questions, is not treated as a refusal of the evaluation in a criminal prosecution.

  • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227b

Testing is also limited by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a breath test may be taken without a warrant as part of a lawful arrest for drunk driving and a blood test may not; that a driver may not be criminally punished for refusing a blood test where no warrant was obtained; and that the natural fall of alcohol in the blood does not by itself create an emergency excusing a warrant in every case, which is decided case by case on all the circumstances. Those holdings are a floor: a state's own constitution and statutes can give more protection than they do, never less.

  • Birchfield v. North Dakota
  • Missouri v. McNeely
Sources for this section (4)
  1. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227b — Implied consent to test operator's blood, breath or urine and to nontestimonial portion of drug influence evaluation. Testing procedures. License suspension. Hearing
  2. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a — Operation while under the influence of liquor or drug or while having an elevated blood alcohol content
  3. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) — A breath test may be taken incident to arrest, a blood draw needs a warrant
  4. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) — The natural fall of blood alcohol is not by itself an emergency justifying a warrantless draw

Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of October 2026. Applying it to a particular situation is the work of a licensed Connecticut attorney.

From here

Walked through

This section is the long version of a step in one walkthrough. Each one takes the same law one decision at a time, with both sides of the moment written out.