Rights and LimitsStopped in the street or in a vehicleBreath tests, blood, and drug driving: what you must do
Breath tests, blood, and drug driving: what you must do
What you must do, and what you can refuse
Every claim below links to the law it comes from, with the wording quoted so you can check it yourself.
You must
Refusing is a criminal offence.
Co-operate with a roadside preliminary test when a constable requires one under s.6.
The power only arises if one of the conditions in s.6(2)-(5) is met — for example, reasonably suspected alcohol or drugs while driving, or after an accident.
Road Traffic Act 1988, s.6(1), (2) and (5)
“If any of subsections (2) to (5) applies a constable may require a person to co-operate with any one or more preliminary tests administered to the person by that constable or another constable.— This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person— is driving, is attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and— has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug— an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and— a constable reasonably believes that the person was driving, attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Failing without reasonable excuse to co-operate with a preliminary test is itself an offence.
Road Traffic Act 1988, s.6(6)
“A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he fails to co-operate with a preliminary test in pursuance of a requirement imposed under this section.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Provide an evidential specimen of breath, blood or urine when a constable validly requires one under s.7.
Road Traffic Act 1988, s.7(1)
“a constable may, subject to the following provisions of this section and section 9 of this Act, require him— to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State, or— to provide a specimen of blood or urine for a laboratory test”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Failing without reasonable excuse to provide that specimen is a criminal offence in its own right.
Road Traffic Act 1988, s.7(6)
“A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so in pursuance of this section is guilty of an offence.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
You can refuse
No penalty for saying no.
You do not have to answer the questions put to you, though there can be consequences if you do not.
Providing the specimen is a specific, separate duty. It is not a duty to answer an officer’s wider questions.
GOV.UK, Being arrested: your rights — your rights in custody
“You do not have to answer the questions but there could be consequences if you do not.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Lawful to refuse — but it costs you
Not an offence, but it carries a penalty or an inference.
Ask to speak to a solicitor before providing the specimen — but the police do not have to wait for one.
Courts have repeatedly held there is nothing in PACE that requires police to delay taking the specimen while a solicitor is found. Asking is not a reasonable excuse to refuse or stall.
Myles v DPP [2004] EWHC 594 (Admin), quoting DPP v Billington [1988] 1 WLR 535 (Div Ct)
“All that the Act of 1984 requires is that the Defendant be permitted to consult a solicitor as soon as practicable. There is nothing in the Act of 1984 which requires the police, whether expressly or by implication, to delay the taking of a specimen”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Two separate stages, two separate offences
Drink and drug driving law works in two stages. First, a preliminary test — usually a roadside breath test — under s.6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Second, if that leads anywhere, an evidential specimen of breath, blood or urine under s.7, normally at a police station.
A constable can require the preliminary test if they reasonably suspect you have alcohol or a drug in your body while driving, have been driving, or after certain accidents or offences. Refusing without reasonable excuse is itself a separate offence from any drink-driving charge.
There is no right to wait for a solicitor
This is the one place on this site where the usual rule about legal advice does not hold. Everywhere else, you are entitled to consult a solicitor before you are questioned. Not here.
The courts settled this decades ago in DPP v Billington, and it has been followed ever since: the police only have to let you consult a solicitor as soon as practicable — nothing in the law makes them delay taking the specimen while you wait for one. Asking for legal advice is not a reasonable excuse to hold up the procedure, and treating it as one will not help you.
Refusing is the offence, not the failed test
Failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen when validly required — breath, blood or urine — is a criminal offence in its own right, separate from and often prosecuted alongside any drink-driving charge itself. A constable must warn you, when requiring the specimen, that refusing may lead to prosecution.
“Reasonable excuse” is a narrow, medically-rooted defence — not a general escape hatch, and not something to invoke on the spot as a stalling tactic. Refusing outright, on the theory that no evidence means no case, does not work: refusal is prosecuted as its own offence, and is not a strategy this site can recommend.
What you can still do
Complying with a lawful requirement to be tested is not the same as being required to answer every question an officer asks. You do not have to speculate about how much you had to drink, agree with an officer’s account, or fill any silence while the procedure is carried out.
If it develops into an interview under caution, the ordinary right to free legal advice applies in full from that point — it is only the specimen procedure itself that cannot be delayed for it.
Last reviewed 2026-08-25. Next review due 2027-02-25. No solicitor has reviewed this page — see [email protected] if you think something here is wrong.