Breath and Blood Tests, Refusal and Your License in Michigan

Under MCL 257.625c, a driver is considered to have consented to chemical tests after arrest for OWI and related offenses. Refusing triggers a one-year license suspension, or two years for a second refusal within 7 years, plus 6 points. The test is not given without a court order, but the officer may seek one.

MCL 257.625c(1) provides that a person who operates a vehicle on a public highway or other place open to the public is considered to have consented to chemical tests of blood, breath, or urine when arrested for a violation of section 625(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8), among other offenses. Refusing does not end the case. The criminal charge goes forward, and a refusal can also trigger a separate sanction. Under MCL 257.625a(6)(b), the arrested person must be told about the right to an independent test, that results are admissible, that a test will not be given without a court order if refused (though the officer may seek one), and that refusal results in license suspension and 6 points. Under MCL 257.625f(1) and (7), the sanction is one year, or two years for a second or subsequent refusal within 7 years, and points are added under MCL 257.320a(8). A person with hemophilia, diabetes, or a condition requiring an anticoagulant is not considered to have consented to a blood draw under MCL 257.625c(2). The refusal sanction runs on its own track with a 14-day deadline to ask for a hearing, covered in the next answer.

Authority: MCL 257.625c; MCL 257.625a; MCL 257.625f; MCL 257.320a. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

You can decline the preliminary breath test, but refusing is a civil infraction under MCL 257.625a(2)(d), and a driver under 21 who refuses gets 2 points. This is different from refusing the chemical test after arrest, which brings a one-year license suspension and 6 points. A commercial driver who refuses faces a misdemeanor and a 24-hour out-of-service order.

A peace officer with reasonable cause to believe a person was driving and may have been affected by alcohol or drugs can require a preliminary chemical breath analysis under MCL 257.625a(2). The officer may arrest based in whole or in part on the result. A person who refuses is responsible for a civil infraction, except a commercial motor vehicle operator, who commits a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days or a fine of up to $100 under subsection (5) and is placed out of service for 24 hours. Under MCL 257.320a(1)(v), a refusal by a person under 21 adds 2 points. A preliminary test is admissible in a criminal case only for limited purposes: to help decide whether the arrest was valid, and to rebut certain testimony about the person's alcohol level at the time of driving. Even after a preliminary test, the person remains subject to the implied consent rules for the later chemical tests. Different rules and penalties apply to the post-arrest chemical test, covered in separate answers.

Authority: MCL 257.625a; MCL 257.320a. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

You have 14 days from the date of the notice to request a hearing, under MCL 257.625f(1). If you do not ask, the Secretary of State imposes the suspension. The hearing covers only four issues: reasonable grounds, arrest, whether the refusal was reasonable, and whether you were advised of your rights. If you lose, you have 63 days to petition the circuit court (182 with good cause) under MCL 257.323(1).

If a person who refuses a chemical test does not request a hearing within 14 days after the date of the notice, the Secretary of State imposes the sanction under MCL 257.625f(1), so the deadline runs from the notice, not from the court case. If a hearing is requested, it is held as provided in section 322, scheduled within 45 days after the arrest and finally adjudicated within 77 days, with exceptions for unavailable witnesses and similar delays, and the hearing officer cannot impose a sanction for missing those limits. Under subsection (4), the hearing covers only whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person committed a covered crime, whether the person was arrested for it, whether any refusal was reasonable, and whether the person was advised of the rights under MCL 257.625a(6). Guilt or innocence of the OWI charge is not decided there. If the person loses, subsection (7)(a) allows a petition in the circuit court of the county where the arrest was made, filed within 63 days (182 with good cause) under MCL 257.323(1). For a first refusal, the court may take testimony beyond the hearing record and may affirm, modify, or set aside the suspension (MCL 257.323(3)). If the person wins, the officer may, with the prosecutor's consent, seek circuit court review under subsection (8).

Authority: MCL 257.625f; MCL 257.323. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Not entirely. The refusal hearing is a separate Secretary of State process on four issues, and the criminal case is decided in court. A conviction adds its own suspension under section 319. If the conviction comes from the same incident as a refusal suspension, the Secretary of State does not enter further points for the conviction beyond the 6 points for the refusal. If the Secretary of State receives more than one conviction from the same incident, only the longest suspension is imposed. How the two cases fit together depends on your facts, and I plan for both from the start.

Not entirely. Two separate processes follow an OWI arrest where you refused the test. The criminal case is decided in court. The refusal is handled by the Secretary of State under MCL 257.625f, and the refusal hearing is limited to four issues. If no hearing is requested within 14 days, the suspension is 1 year for a noncommercial driver, or 2 years for a second refusal within 7 years. A refusal suspension carries 6 points under MCL 257.320a(8). A conviction adds its own suspension or restriction under MCL 257.319. If the conviction comes from the same incident as a refusal suspension, the Secretary of State does not enter further points for the conviction beyond the 6 points for the refusal. If the Secretary of State receives more than one conviction from the same incident, only the suspension with the longest period is imposed under MCL 257.319(12). Because a result in one process does not decide the other, the timeline matters: the window to request a refusal hearing is short and can pass while the criminal case is just beginning. How the two cases fit together depends on your facts, and I plan for both from the start.

Authority: MCL 257.625f(4); MCL 257.319(8), (12); MCL 257.320a(8). Reviewed Oct. 27, 2026.

The jury can hear that a test was offered, but under MCL 257.625a(9) a refusal is admissible only to show a test was offered. It is not admissible as evidence of innocence or guilt, and the jury must be instructed that way. The refusal still has separate license consequences handled by the Secretary of State.

MCL 257.625a(9) provides that a person's refusal to submit to a chemical test is admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime described in section 625c(1) only to show that a test was offered to the defendant, but not as evidence in determining the defendant's innocence or guilt. The statute requires that the jury be instructed accordingly. That limit applies to the trial of the criminal charge. The license sanction for refusal is a different process: it is imposed by the Secretary of State under MCL 257.625f, either automatically if no hearing is requested within 14 days, or after a hearing on four limited issues. The two tracks can have different outcomes. In practice, the questions are whether the instruction was requested, how the prosecutor framed the refusal in opening and closing, and whether the advice required by MCL 257.625a(6)(b) was given correctly before the refusal.

Authority: MCL 257.625a; MCL 257.625f. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes, with a court order or search warrant. If you refuse, the implied consent statute says no test is given without a court order, but the officer may seek one. Only a licensed physician, or a person acting under a physician's delegation who is qualified to withdraw blood and acting in a medical environment, may draw blood at an officer's request (MCL 257.625a(6)(b)(iv), (c)). Refusal also starts a separate license sanction under MCL 257.625f.

MCL 257.625a(6)(b)(iv) provides that if the arrested person refuses the officer's request to take a test, a test must not be given without a court order, but the peace officer may seek to obtain a court order. Under subsection (6)(c), only a licensed physician, or an individual operating under the delegation of a licensed physician under section 16215 of the public health code who is qualified to withdraw blood and acting in a medical environment, may withdraw blood at a peace officer's request. Urine and breath samples must be taken and collected in a reasonable manner. Under MCL 257.625c(2), a person with hemophilia, diabetes, or a condition requiring an anticoagulant is not considered to have consented to a blood withdrawal. Without a warrant, consent, or a recognized exception, a blood draw raises Fourth Amendment questions: Missouri v McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013), held that the natural dissipation of alcohol is not an exigency in every case, and Birchfield v North Dakota, 579 US 438 (2016), held that a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest. Whether the warrant was supported by probable cause and the draw done correctly is reviewed in the criminal case. The license sanction under MCL 257.625f runs separately, with its own 14-day deadline.

Authority: MCL 257.625a; MCL 257.625c; Missouri v McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013); Birchfield v North Dakota, 579 US 438 (2016). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes. Before a chemical test, the arrested person must be told they may demand that a person of their own choosing administer one of the chemical tests. Under MCL 257.625a(6)(d), a person who takes the officer's test must be given a reasonable opportunity to have their own test done within a reasonable time after detention. The person is responsible for obtaining the analysis.

MCL 257.625a(6)(b) lists the advice that must be given to a person arrested for a crime described in section 625c(1): the right to demand that a person of the person's choosing administer one of the chemical tests, that the results are admissible and considered with other evidence, that the person is responsible for obtaining a chemical analysis of a sample from their own test, that a test will not be given without a court order if refused, and that refusal results in license suspension and 6 points. Subsection (6)(d) adds that a person who takes the officer's test must be given a reasonable opportunity to have a person of their own choosing administer one of the chemical tests within a reasonable time after detention. If the person charged is tested by a person of their own choosing, the person charged is responsible for obtaining the analysis of the sample. If an independent test was refused or you were not given a reasonable opportunity to get one, the remedy is not dismissal. Under People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436 (2006), the court decides after a hearing whether the right was violated and, if so, may on request tell the jury so and let the jury decide what weight to give that fact.

Authority: MCL 257.625a; People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436 (2006). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes, in some cases. If a driver is taken to a medical facility after a crash and blood is drawn for medical treatment, MCL 257.625a(6)(e) makes the lab analysis admissible in a civil or criminal case to show alcohol or drug content, whether or not the person was offered or refused a chemical test. The medical facility must give the result to a prosecutor who requests it.

MCL 257.625a(6)(e) addresses a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident who is transported to a medical facility where a sample of blood is withdrawn for medical treatment. The results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance in the blood at the time alleged, regardless of whether the person had been offered or had refused a chemical test. The medical facility or person performing the analysis must disclose the results to a prosecuting attorney who requests them for use in a criminal prosecution, and the statute gives immunity from civil and criminal liability for compliant disclosure. The Michigan Supreme Court rejected constitutional challenges to the predecessor of this procedure in People v Perlos, 436 Mich 305 (1990), but the statute does not make the result automatically accurate. Chain of custody, the type of test (serum versus whole blood), the time of the draw, and the reliability of the lab remain open questions. For a deceased driver, subsection (6)(f) directs that blood be withdrawn as the medical examiner directs.

Authority: MCL 257.625a; People v Perlos, 436 Mich 305 (1990). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

MCL 257.625a(6)(a) makes the result of a blood, breath, or urine analysis admissible and presumes it matches the alcohol level at the time you drove. On a written request, the prosecution must provide the results at least 2 days before trial, and failure to comply bars admission of the results by the prosecution.

Under MCL 257.625a(6)(a), the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance in a driver's blood or urine, or the amount of alcohol in a person's breath, shown by chemical analysis, is admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding and is presumed to be the same as at the time the person operated the vehicle. Under subsection (8), if a chemical test is administered, the results must be made available to the person charged or the person's attorney on written request to the prosecution, with a copy of the request filed with the court. The prosecution must furnish the results at least 2 days before trial, and failure to fully comply bars the prosecution from using the results. Subsection (7) states that the chemical testing provisions do not limit other admissible evidence on impairment or alcohol content. A presumption is not the same as proof, and the defense can challenge the testing method, instrument maintenance, the observation period, and timing. The request for the results should be made in writing early and filed with the court so the statutory deadline is documented.

Authority: MCL 257.625a. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Possibly. Michigan asks whether you were in actual physical control of the vehicle, and under People v Wood the question is whether it was in motion or in a position posing a significant risk of a collision. A person asleep in a parked car is in a different position from one asleep at the wheel of a running car on or near a roadway. OWI applies on highways and places open to the public, including parking areas.

MCL 257.35a defines operate or operating as being in actual physical control of a vehicle. MCL 257.625(1) applies to a vehicle on a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles. Under MCL 257.625a(1), an officer may arrest without a warrant on reasonable cause to believe the person was the operator in an accident while violating section 625, or found in the driver's seat of a vehicle stopped on a street with any part in the roadway. In People v Wood, 450 Mich 399 (1995), the Michigan Supreme Court held that once a person using a vehicle as a vehicle has put it in motion, or in a position posing a significant risk of causing a collision, the person continues to operate it until it is returned to a position posing no such risk. Wood was found unconscious in a van at a drive-through with the engine running and his foot on the brake. Where the keys were, whether the engine was running, and where the vehicle sat are the facts that decide it.

Authority: MCL 257.35a; MCL 257.625; MCL 257.625a; People v Wood, 450 Mich 399 (1995). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

No law requires you to hire a lawyer, and if you cannot afford one the court must advise you of the right to a court-appointed lawyer (MCR 6.005). A first OWI is a misdemeanor, but it carries up to 93 days in jail (up to 180 days at 0.17 or more), a 180-day license suspension (1 year at 0.17 or more), 6 points, and a conviction that counts toward later OWI charges. If you refused a chemical test, the request for a license hearing is due within 14 days after the date of the notice.

A first-offense OWI under MCL 257.625(9)(a) lets the court impose one or more of up to 93 days in jail, up to 360 hours of community service, and a fine of $100 to $500. If the alcohol content was 0.17 or more, the limits are 180 days in jail and a fine of $200 to $700. The Secretary of State separately suspends the license for 180 days under MCL 257.319(8)(a) (1 year at 0.17 or more under subsection (8)(g)) and adds 6 points. At arraignment the court must advise you of your right to a lawyer, and to a lawyer at public expense if you are financially unable to hire one (MCR 6.005(A)). If there was a refusal, the request for a hearing must be made within 14 days after the date of the notice under MCL 257.625f(1). A conviction also counts as a prior for a second OWI within 7 years, and for a third OWI it counts no matter how long ago it was, so the long-term effect can be larger than the first sentence. A lawyer can review whether the stop and arrest were lawful, whether the officer gave the required advice, whether the test was reliable, and what the license options are. Some people handle a first offense on their own, and that choice is yours. I explain my fee arrangement at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.

Authority: MCL 257.625; MCL 257.319; MCL 257.625f; MCR 6.005. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes, the statute allows it. After a first OWI conviction, MCL 257.319(8)(a) allows the Secretary of State to issue a restricted license during part of the 180-day suspension, but not during the first 30 days. A restricted license covers work, school, treatment, probation, community service, regular medical treatment, and the interlock provider, and requires carrying proof of your destination.

A restricted license is not automatic. Under MCL 257.319(8)(a), for a first OWI conviction with no prior within 7 years, the suspension is 180 days and the Secretary of State may issue a restricted license during a specified portion, except the first 30 days. Under subsection (16), a restricted license permits driving in the course of employment or occupation and to and from any combination of the residence, work, court-ordered alcohol or drug education or treatment, the court probation department, court-ordered community service, an educational institution where the person is enrolled, a place of regularly occurring medical treatment for a serious condition, and an ignition interlock provider. Social trips are not among the listed purposes. Under subsection (17), the driver must carry proof of destination and hours and show it to an officer on request. The Secretary of State cannot issue a restricted license that permits operating a commercial motor vehicle under subsection (15), and none is available if the person is otherwise ineligible for a license under subsection (14). A 0.17 conviction has a one-year suspension, no restricted license for the first 45 days, and an interlock requirement.

Authority: MCL 257.319. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Two routes exist. Under MCL 257.304, a person with two or more OWI or OWVI convictions can get a restricted license after 45 days of revocation once a specialty court judge certifies admission and an interlock is on each vehicle owned or operated. After the minimum revocation period in MCL 257.303(4), a Secretary of State hearing officer may also issue a restricted license with an interlock under MCL 257.322(6).

Route one is MCL 257.304. It applies to a person whose license was suspended, revoked, or denied based on two or more convictions under section 625(1) or (3), or one such conviction preceded by an out-of-state or federal one, for arrests on or after January 1, 2011 (subsection (12)). The license issues only after 45 days and a specialty court judge's certification of admission to an interlock program with an approved device on each vehicle the person owns or operates. A person who is otherwise ineligible for a license cannot use it unless the ineligibility rests only on the grounds listed in subsection (3). If the specialty court sends the Secretary of State a notification under subsection (9), the full license sanction that would have applied without the program is imposed. Driving is limited to the interlock vehicle, skills tests, and listed trips. An unrestricted license waits for specialty court completion and at least 1 year of interlock use; alcohol or non-prescribed drug use bars it for at least 1 year. Route two is MCL 257.322(6). After the waiting period in MCL 257.303(4), a hearing officer may issue a restricted license to a person revoked under section 303(2)(c), (d), or (g). If one is issued, the officer must require an interlock on each vehicle the person owns or intends to operate, for an initial period of at least 1 year (subsections (6) and (9)). The waiting period is at least 1 year, or 5 years after a second revocation within 7 years of a prior one.

Authority: MCL 257.304; MCL 257.322; MCL 257.303. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Possibly. MCL 257.625(8) prohibits driving with any amount of a schedule 1 controlled substance, or cocaine, in the body, and it does not require impairment. Marijuana and its active THC are listed in schedule 1, so a positive result for active THC can support a charge. People v Feezel held that the inactive metabolite 11-carboxy-THC does not count. Registered medical marijuana patients have a limited exception under People v Koon.

There are two drug routes. Under MCL 257.625(1)(a), the prosecutor must prove the person was under the influence of a controlled substance, another intoxicating substance, or a combination with alcohol. That route reaches prescription drugs too, because it says controlled substance without limiting it to illegal ones. The court generally requires a special verdict or finding on whether drugs were involved under subsection (18), subject to subsection (20). Under subsection (8), the prosecutor must prove the person had in the body any amount of a schedule 1 controlled substance under MCL 333.7212, or a drug described in MCL 333.7214(a)(iv), which covers cocaine, and impairment is not an element. Marijuana and THC are listed in schedule 1. In People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 205 (2010), the Michigan Supreme Court held that 11-carboxy-THC is not a schedule 1 substance, so that inactive metabolite alone cannot support a subsection (8) charge. In People v Stock, 961 NW2d 214 (Mich 2021) (order), the Court held that proof of an unidentified cocaine metabolite alone did not show cocaine in the body. In People v Koon, 494 Mich 1 (2013), the Court held that subsection (8) does not apply to a registered patient's medical use of marijuana unless the patient is under the influence. The penalties are those in subsection (9). What the lab actually identified is the first question.

Authority: MCL 257.625; MCL 333.7212; MCL 333.7214; People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184 (2010); People v Koon, 494 Mich 1 (2013); People v Stock, 961 NW2d 214 (Mich 2021) (order). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes. Legalization does not authorize driving while impaired by marijuana: MCL 333.27954(1)(a) says the adult-use act does not authorize operating under the influence, so MCL 257.625(1)(a) and (3) still apply. Separately, MCL 257.625(8) prohibits driving with any amount of a schedule 1 substance in the body, marijuana's active THC is listed in schedule 1, and impairment is not an element of that charge.

MCL 333.27954(1)(a) says the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act does not authorize operating, navigating, or being in physical control of a motor vehicle, aircraft, snowmobile, off-road recreational vehicle, or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana. Subdivision (1)(g) adds that the act does not authorize consuming marijuana while operating such a vehicle, or smoking it in the passenger area of a vehicle on a public way. On the criminal side there are two routes. Under MCL 257.625(1)(a), the prosecutor must prove impairment, and there is no numeric THC limit, so the case rests on testing, observations, and driving evidence. Under subsection (8), a positive result for active THC can be enough by itself, because marijuana is listed in schedule 1 and impairment is not an element. People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 205 (2010), removed only the inactive metabolite 11-carboxy-THC from that rule. A registered medical marijuana patient has a limited exception under People v Koon, 494 Mich 1 (2013). Whether an adult-use consumer has similar protection from subsection (8) is unsettled. People v Hess, Docket No. 167895 (Mich July 6, 2026), held that a court may not bar adult-use-compliant marijuana use as a probation condition solely because it violates federal law, and did not decide the subsection (8) question. The penalties follow MCL 257.625(9).

Authority: MCL 333.27954; MCL 257.625; MCL 333.7212; People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184 (2010); People v Koon, 494 Mich 1 (2013); People v Hess, ___ Mich ___ (2026) (Docket No. 167895). Reviewed Oct. 2026.