St. Louis County implemented a no-refusal policy for driving while intoxicated arrests in November 2025, eliminating the option for drivers to decline breath tests after being read Missouri's implied consent warning. The policy change, developed in partnership with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, aims to provide prosecutors with chemical evidence of blood-alcohol concentration in all DWI cases. Previously, drivers could refuse breath tests after hearing the implied consent warning, which states that refusal results in a one-year driver's license suspension. This refusal sometimes complicated prosecutions by allowing defense attorneys to argue alternative explanations for observed impairment, such as fatigue or the unreliability of field sobriety tests. Prosecutors have stated the new policy ensures intoxication is supported by scientific proof in a state that emphasizes demonstrable evidence.
The policy creates significant consequences for drivers, who may now face two separate license suspensions from a single stop. A driver can receive a one-year suspension for refusing a breath test and an additional 90-day suspension if a subsequent blood test shows a blood-alcohol concentration above 0.08 percent. All administrative suspensions may be appealed by a DWI attorney, including refusal suspensions and suspensions based on alleged breath or blood test results above the legal limit. DWI filings in St. Louis County have increased substantially since the policy change. In 2024, prosecutors filed 498 DWI cases, while 2025 filings increased by nearly 40 percent following the implementation of the no-refusal approach.
According to St. Louis-area criminal defense attorney Brendan Block, the role of defense counsel becomes more critical under the new policy. "Once chemical testing becomes mandatory, the focus shifts to whether proper procedures and training were followed and whether the evidence holds up in court," said Block. Defense attorneys can cross-examine arresting officers, review police reports, and evaluate whether blood draws and testing complied with legal and constitutional requirements. Critics have raised concerns about hospitals being overwhelmed or unable to perform timely blood draws, medical personnel refusing blood draws due to liability concerns, and delays caused by the need to obtain judicial warrants, particularly during overnight hours.
Block identifies timing as the biggest challenge facing blood-draw cases, noting that blood-alcohol concentration decreases as time passes. "I recently handled a case where it took two and a half hours to obtain a blood draw. The result was a 0.03 percent BAC, and the case was dismissed," said Block. "If blood results are not obtained in a timely manner, it can ultimately hurt the prosecution in some DWI cases." The policy represents a significant shift in DWI enforcement strategy that balances the goal of obtaining scientific evidence against practical challenges in evidence collection and constitutional protections for defendants.
