If it is your first offense, you should blow. The money you would have to pay a lawyer to win at trial or get a good plea bargain would probably be equal to the total fines and costs if you blew and just pled guilty, right?

What you risk is what happens daily across police departments across the United States (“You passed. Here are your car keys, have a good day”). (Of course–maybe I live in a bubble. We only have two DRE’s on duty that covers 200 miles of space). Plus, you have to consent to the DRE exam, don’t you?

This is why it is usually repeat offenders who have no license don’t blow. They have nothing to lose–their license is already gone.

If it is your second offense and beyond, fine the don’t blow analysis might work.

But if I were a defense lawyer, I think my advice to future clients would be “refuse roadsides, blow unless you are absolutely sure you are smashed.” I think a prosecutor would give a better deal to somebody who they knew had a BAC of .08 then someone who had enough indicia of intoxication to take something to trial, but refused a chemical test, then hired a Houston lawyer to argue “But wait, you see, the reason my client didn’t blow is because he knew even though he was at .000 that the cops would call a DRE….” I’m not sure if a jury buys that one all the time.

But then again, you’re the one winning DUI trials all the time

I tend to disagree, but nonetheless, even assuming you are giving good advice, how many of your future clients will remember all this great advice when your drunk. Afer all, the FIRST thing to go when your drinking is your JUDGMENT.