Refusal typically produces an administrative license suspension through WYDOT processes, often for six months to a year or more depending on history, separate from the criminal case. Breath testing compulsion follows Birchfield; blood compulsion for criminal refusal penalties generally requires a warrant. That is what separates Wyoming refusing a breathalyzer from a generic national summary. Read Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102 before the background sections below. Wyoming's implied-consent statute requires chemical testing upon lawful DWUI arrest; refusal has administrative license consequences.
License suspension and administrative hearings
Refusal typically produces an administrative license suspension through WYDOT processes, often for six months to a year or more depending on history, separate from the criminal case.
The DMV / administrative track often runs separately from the criminal DUI case. Missing the short window to request an administrative hearing can lock in a suspension even if the criminal charge is later reduced or dismissed. Always calendar the administrative deadline the same day as the arrest.
Criminal consequences of refusal
Breath testing compulsion follows Birchfield; blood compulsion for criminal refusal penalties generally requires a warrant.
Under Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Fourth Amendment allows criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless breath test incident to a lawful DUI arrest, but generally requires a warrant (or a recognized exception) before the State may impose criminal penalties for refusing a blood draw. Missouri v. McNeely rejected a per-se exigency based solely on natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood. Wyoming statutes and case law implement those federal baselines with local detail.
Can refusal be used as evidence?
Chemical results and refusal evidence are commonly admitted in DWUI prosecutions.
Prosecutors often argue consciousness of guilt; defense counsel emphasize confusion, inadequate advisories, or medical inability to provide a sample. The precise jury instruction language is state-specific — search Wyoming opinions for “refusal” and “implied consent.”
A concrete Wyoming scenario
Here is one way the Wyoming pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A driver is arrested for DUI in Wyoming and refuses the evidentiary chemical test after the implied-consent advisory.
- Identify the administrative consequence under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102: Refusal typically produces an administrative license suspension through WYDOT processes, often for six months to a year or more depending on history, separate from the criminal case.
- Separate that track from the criminal case: Breath testing compulsion follows Birchfield; blood compulsion for criminal refusal penalties generally requires a warrant.
- Ask whether the refusal can be argued to the jury: Chemical results and refusal evidence are commonly admitted in DWUI prosecutions.
- If the request is for blood rather than breath, apply the warrant rule: Breath is ordinary; blood is used for drugs or hospital cases, usually under warrant when compelled.
In Wyoming the refusal question is answered first by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102, then by the administrative deadline and the criminal case.
Breath tests versus blood tests
Breath is ordinary; blood is used for drugs or hospital cases, usually under warrant when compelled.
Practical tip: a driver who refuses breath may still face a warrant-backed blood draw. Refusal does not create a permanent shield against chemical evidence; it mainly adds administrative (and sometimes criminal) consequences on top of the underlying DUI case.
Practical tips
- Ask whether the stop and arrest were lawful — implied consent usually requires a lawful DUI arrest first.
- Diary the administrative hearing deadline immediately.
- Do not confuse portable roadside breath screens with the evidentiary breathalyzer at the station; statutes often treat them differently.
- Research Wyoming opinions on implied consent, refusal, and license revocation in LawDiver before a contested DMV hearing.
Case law: implied consent and refusal in Wyoming
James S. NELLIS, Appellant (Plaintiff/Petitioner), v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee
…ntain substantial evidence to establish compliance with the implied consent statute? In particular, does the record establish that the officer made a lawful arrest, that the officer had probable cause to believe that appellant had been driving under the influence on a public street or highway, and that appellant submitted to a chemical test which indicated an alcohol concentrat…
On implied consent / breathalyzer refusal, James S. NELLIS, Appellant (Plaintiff/Petitioner), v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "ntain substantial evidence to establish compliance with the implied consent statute? In particular, does the record establish that the officer made a lawful arrest, that the officer had probable cause to believe that appellant had been driving under the influence on a public stre" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Kara WALTERS, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE of Wyoming Ex Rel. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee
…st a challenge that she had not been properly advised as to implied consent. She then sought review of the administrative suspension in the district court, where she also raised a number of constitutional challenges to a municipal eriminal ordinance in addition to the claim that she had not been properly advised under the implied consent statute. The district court concluded th…
On implied consent / breathalyzer refusal, Kara WALTERS, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE of Wyoming Ex Rel. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "She then sought review of the administrative suspension in the district court, where she also raised a number of constitutional challenges to a municipal eriminal ordinance in addition to the claim that she had not been properly advised under the implied consent statute." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
J. D. VROOMAN, Appellant (Appellant-Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Appellee-Plaintiff)
…fter an improper advisement of Appellant’s rights under the implied consent law of the State. “IV. Whether the District Court erred in finding that the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure were inapplicable to Appellant’s appeal from Justice Court to the District Court.” We will affirm. On June 12, 1979, appellant was driving southbound on Highway 26 in Grand Teton National Par…
Practitioners open J. D. VROOMAN, Appellant (Appellant-Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Appellee-Plaintiff) when Wyoming implied consent / breathalyzer refusal turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Appellant’s rights under the implied consent law of the State. “IV. Whether the District Court erred in finding that the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure were inapplicable to Appellant’s appeal from Justice Court to the District Court.” We will affirm." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Roland C. Bryant, (Petitioner) v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation, (Respondent).
…of Administrative Hearing (OAH) order, which sustained the implied consent suspension of his driver's license as well as the disqualification of his commercial driver's license. [12] We affirm. ISSUES [13] Bryant offers the following issues for our consideration: 1. Did the Hearing Examiner err when she indicated that the arresting officer did not need to have proof that he wa…
Wyoming opinions such as Roland C. Bryant, (Petitioner) v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation, (Respondent). are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "Administrative Hearing (OAH) order, which sustained the implied consent suspension of his driver's license as well as the disqualification of his commercial driver's license. [12] We affirm. ISSUES [13] Bryant offers the following issues for our consideration: 1." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In Re Hittner
In Re Hittner, 189 P.3d 872 (2008)
…ers of the Office of Administrative Hearings upholding the "implied consent" suspension of Hittner's driver's license and upholding Hittner's commercial vehicle disqualification, as imposed by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). WYDOT's orders were based on the circumstance that Hittner refused to submit to required chemical testing when, on *873 March 22, 2006, h…
Wyoming opinions such as In Re Hittner are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "Office of Administrative Hearings upholding the 'implied consent' suspension of Hittner's driver's license and upholding Hittner's commercial vehicle disqualification, as imposed by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Mike Flabio MARQUEZ, Appellee (Defendant)
…everse the district court. The issue on appeal is: Does the implied consent law require that a person arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating beverages be advised that his driving privileges may be suspended or that they will be suspended for thirty days, if he fails to submit to the chemical test. The statutory provisions that we deem controll…
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Mike Flabio MARQUEZ, Appellee (Defendant) is worth reading on Wyoming implied consent / breathalyzer refusal because the court put the point in its own words: "Does the implied consent law require that a person arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating beverages be advised that his driving privileges may be suspended or that they will be suspended for thirty days, if he fails to submit to the chemical test." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Kyle F. REGAN, (Petitioner) v. STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, (Respondent) Joseph
…rom two separate appellants, but both appeals challenge the implied consent advisement as affected by the same Laramie ordinance. While the appeals have not been consolidated, we join them for the purposes of opinion. [T2] Kyle Regan and Joseph Parsons, in separate incidents, were both arrested for driving while under the influence (DWUI). Following their arrests, each appellan…
Practitioners open Kyle F. REGAN, (Petitioner) v. STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, (Respondent) Joseph when Wyoming implied consent / breathalyzer refusal turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Laramie ordinance. While the appeals have not been consolidated, we join them for the purposes of opinion. [T2] Kyle Regan and Joseph Parsons, in separate incidents, were both arrested for driving while under the influence (DWUI)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Bryant v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP.
Bryant v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP., 55 P.3d 4 (2002)
…of Administrative Hearing (OAH) order, which sustained the implied consent suspension of his driver's license as well as the disqualification of his commercial driver's license. [¶ 2] We affirm. ISSUES [¶ 3] Bryant offers the following issues for our consideration: 1. Did the Hearing Examiner err when she indicated that the arresting officer did not need to have proof that he…
Wyoming opinions such as Bryant v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "Administrative Hearing (OAH) order, which sustained the implied consent suspension of his driver's license as well as the disqualification of his commercial driver's license. [¶ 2] We affirm. ISSUES [¶ 3] Bryant offers the following issues for our consideration: 1." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Key takeaways
- Primary authority: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102.
- Administrative hit: Refusal typically produces an administrative license suspension through WYDOT processes, often for six months to a year or more depending on history, separate from the criminal case.
- Criminal exposure: Breath testing compulsion follows Birchfield; blood compulsion for criminal refusal penalties generally requires a warrant.
- Evidence: Chemical results and refusal evidence are commonly admitted in DWUI prosecutions.
- Blood vs. breath: federal Supreme Court doctrine in Birchfield and McNeely still frames warrant rules.
Implied consent in Wyoming
Wyoming's implied-consent statute requires chemical testing upon lawful DWUI arrest; refusal has administrative license consequences.
Implied consent is not the same as a Miranda warning. Officers typically must advise of the consequences of refusal before requesting a chemical test. Failure to give a required advisory can affect whether the administrative suspension sticks — a frequent issue in Wyoming appellate opinions.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if I refuse a breathalyzer in Wyoming?
Refusal typically produces an administrative license suspension through WYDOT processes, often for six months to a year or more depending on history, separate from the criminal case. Breath testing compulsion follows Birchfield; blood compulsion for criminal refusal penalties generally requires a warrant.
Is refusal a separate crime in Wyoming?
Breath testing compulsion follows Birchfield; blood compulsion for criminal refusal penalties generally requires a warrant.
Will the prosecutor tell the jury I refused?
Chemical results and refusal evidence are commonly admitted in DWUI prosecutions.
Do I need a warrant for a blood draw?
Breath is ordinary; blood is used for drugs or hospital cases, usually under warrant when compelled. See also Birchfield and McNeely linked above.