Refusing Breathalyzer Test in Poland: Legal Consequences

Refusing Breathalyzer Test in Poland: Legal Consequences

Refusing a breathalyzer test in Poland means not providing an exhaled air sample when a police officer lawfully requests it to check alcohol concentration. In practice, it is treated as a refusal to cooperate with a sobriety check and usually triggers escalation to a formal alcohol test, typically via blood sampling or (where available) another authorised method of alcohol determination.

Refusing breathalyzer Poland: when the police can demand a sobriety test

Police powers to verify sobriety arise mainly from the Act of 20 June 1997 – Road Traffic Law (Prawo o ruchu drogowym) and the Act of 26 October 1982 on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism [1][2], with general competence also resulting from the Act of 6 April 1990 on the Police [6]. If there is a lawful basis to check sobriety (for example after a road incident, observable signs of intoxication, or a routine traffic control where sobriety checks are conducted), an officer may require a breath test using an approved device.

For companies, the operational impact is often immediate: immobilisation of a vehicle, delay of deliveries, absence of a key employee, internal reporting duties after an incident, and reputational exposure if the event becomes public or affects clients.

Breath test refusal: what happens immediately after refusal

A refusal typically does not end the procedure. It usually leads to:

• documentation of the refusal and the circumstances by the police,
• transport to a medical facility for a blood test or another authorised method of alcohol determination,
• practical restrictions on continuing to drive, including securing the vehicle,
• in some cases, detention if statutory grounds exist (for example, to secure the proper course of proceedings).

The key point is evidentiary: refusal may remove the fastest and least invasive method (breath test) and replace it with a medical test that is harder to dispute and creates a stronger evidentiary record for criminal or petty offence proceedings.

Legal consequences: criminal offence vs petty offence thresholds

In Poland, driving after alcohol can be handled under two regimes depending on alcohol concentration:

• State after use of alcohol – typically a petty offence, when blood alcohol concentration is from 0.2‰ to 0.5‰ or breath alcohol is from 0.1 mg to 0.25 mg in 1 dm³ [1].
• State of intoxication – a criminal offence, when blood alcohol concentration exceeds 0.5‰ or breath alcohol exceeds 0.25 mg in 1 dm³ [1].

The criminal offence of driving in a state of intoxication is regulated in Article 178a of the Polish Criminal Code [3]. The petty offence regime is regulated in Article 87 of the Petty Offences Code [4].

Refusal itself is not automatically the same as “being intoxicated.” However, it often leads to a blood test that establishes the level and can result in charges under the relevant provisions. In business terms, refusal frequently increases legal cost, time, and disruption because it makes the process longer and more formal.

Sobriety test rights: what refusal does and does not mean

A driver is expected to comply with lawful police instructions during a traffic control. If the officer has a legal basis to test sobriety, refusing the breath test is usually treated as non-compliance and will not prevent verification. It may also be recorded as a fact that can be assessed together with other evidence, such as manner of driving, smell of alcohol, speech, balance, witness statements, and the later medical result.

Important: the procedural position in criminal cases is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the right to defence and the right to counsel [5]. Refusal should not be confused with the right to remain silent in relation to explanations. A breath test is an evidentiary/procedural action, not an “explanation.”

Three exceptions where refusal may be justified in practice

The factual situation matters. There are limited scenarios where a “refusal” may not carry typical consequences or may be defensible from a procedural perspective. Three recurring exceptions are listed below.

1. Medical inability to provide a breath sample – for example, acute asthma attack, severe respiratory distress, or another condition preventing a reliable exhaled air test. In such situations, the correct approach is usually to request a medical test (blood) as an alternative and ensure the condition is documented.

2. Lack of a lawful basis or procedural defects – if the sobriety check is conducted outside legal powers or in a way that materially breaches procedure, the defence may challenge admissibility or reliability of the evidence. This depends on the facts, documentation, and whether the defect could affect the result.

3. Doubts about device reliability and a request for verification – when there are specific, articulable reasons to question the breathalyser measurement (for example, inconsistent readings, clear malfunction, or issues with calibration confirmation), the safer path is usually not a blanket refusal but a request for a confirmatory test using another device or a blood test. The aim is to preserve evidentiary integrity, not to obstruct.

Why breathalyzer refusal increases risk for management and employers

From a company perspective, an incident involving an employee-driver may create parallel risk streams:

• Criminal exposure for the driver, including driving bans and fines, affecting workforce availability.
• Insurance and contractual consequences, especially if refusal is treated as aggravating conduct in internal or insurer assessments.
• Reputational impact if the event is linked to brand visibility (company car, logistics, public incident).
• Compliance and HSE implications if driving is part of regulated operations or safety-critical duties.

Where a driving ban is imposed, business continuity planning becomes necessary: substitution of drivers, amended schedules, and possible disciplinary processes under labour law, depending on the circumstances.

Practical steps if a refusal already happened

Case strategy depends on documents and timing. Typical early steps include:

• securing the police documentation and confirming what exactly was recorded as “refusal,”
• verifying whether and when a medical test was performed and obtaining the laboratory documentation,
• checking whether rights and procedural rules were followed during control and detention (if any),
• assessing whether the facts point toward petty offence or criminal offence thresholds,
• planning communication and internal measures if the case affects the employer or a fleet policy.

More background on DUI-related liability and typical procedural paths is available in the firm’s materials on driving under the influence and the justice system for foreigners, which can be relevant where a non-Polish driver faces proceedings in Poland.

Information note

This article is informational material, not legal advice. The legal assessment depends on the specific facts, evidence, and procedural record.

If a sobriety control escalated into criminal proceedings or there are concerns about reputational or personal consequences, it may be reasonable to consult the case and obtain an initial assessment of available steps. Kopeć & Zaborowski (KKZ) handles criminal cases, including sensitive matters, and consultations can be arranged via https://criminallawpoland.com/contact/.

FAQ: Refusing Breathalyzer Test in Poland

1) Can a driver refuse a breathalyzer test in Poland?

A driver can physically refuse to blow, but refusal usually results in escalation to a medical alcohol test (often blood) and does not prevent the authorities from determining sobriety under applicable laws [1][2].

2) Is refusing a breath test a criminal offence by itself?

Refusal is primarily a procedural issue that triggers other measures. Liability for drunk driving usually depends on the established alcohol level (petty offence vs crime) and the facts of the case, for example under Article 178a of the Criminal Code when intoxication is proven [3].

3) What is the difference between a petty offence and a crime for drunk driving in Poland?

Typically, 0.2‰ to 0.5‰ in blood (or 0.1 to 0.25 mg/dm³ in breath) is treated as “after use of alcohol” and falls under the Petty Offences Code [4]. Above 0.5‰ (or above 0.25 mg/dm³ in breath) is “intoxication” and can trigger Article 178a of the Criminal Code [3].

4) What if a driver has a medical condition and cannot blow into the device?

Medical inability can justify moving directly to a medical test. The condition should be communicated promptly and, where possible, documented. The key is to enable a reliable alternative method rather than obstruct verification.

5) Can the police force a blood test after breath test refusal?

Authorities may arrange a medical test to determine alcohol concentration under the applicable legal framework for sobriety verification [1][2]. Whether coercive measures were lawful depends on the factual and procedural circumstances and should be assessed from the case file.

6) Does refusing a breathalyzer make the situation worse in court?

It often increases practical and evidentiary risk because it leads to more formal actions, stronger documentation, and additional evidence. Courts evaluate the whole record, including later medical results and documented behaviour.

Bibliography

1. Act of 26 October 1982 on Upbringing in Sobriety and Counteracting Alcoholism (Ustawa o wychowaniu w trzeźwości i przeciwdziałaniu alkoholizmowi) – including statutory definitions/thresholds of “state after use of alcohol” and “state of intoxication”.

2. Act of 20 June 1997 – Road Traffic Law (Prawo o ruchu drogowym).

3. Act of 6 June 1997 – Criminal Code (Kodeks karny), in particular Article 178a.

4. Act of 20 May 1971 – Petty Offences Code (Kodeks wykroczeń), in particular Article 87.

5. Act of 6 June 1997 – Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego).

6. Act of 6 April 1990 on the Police (Ustawa o Policji).