Due to implied consent laws, like the one that exists in the state of California, drivers in some cases may face more serious consequences for refusing to take a blood-alcohol content test than they would if they were convicted of driving drunk. Under these types of laws, there is generally an automatic, or implied, consent that drivers must take a breath test when they are asked by law enforcement who suspect them of being under the influence of alcohol, as well as to submit to a blood or urine test if an officer has enough probable cause to lawfully arrest them for driving drunk.
A woman who was reportedly stopped by law enforcement in New Jersey in 2012 and asked to perform a breath test was convicted not for driving under the influence, but was instead found guilty of refusing a Breathalyzer. She appealed her conviction, but it was reported recently that a state appellate court ruled to uphold the conviction. The woman claimed that she had not refused to take the test, she had just not specifically said yes. The court found that her responses and questioning of officers, while not a refusal per se, was still not the clear yes response sought by officers and required by law.