The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Andrew White for criminal refusal following a jury trial. This ruling, issued on November 6, 2026, is significant as it clarifies the legal consequences for refusing a breath test when suspected of driving under the influence (DUI).

White was involved in a motor vehicle accident in March 2022, which led to his arrest for DUI, criminal refusal, and negligent operation. The case has implications for individuals facing similar charges in the future, emphasizing the legal obligations of drivers suspected of intoxication.

The case began when a state trooper responded to a report of a motor vehicle accident. Upon arrival, the trooper observed a damaged utility pole and a pickup truck belonging to White. The trooper spoke with White, who admitted to losing control of his vehicle. During the interaction, the trooper noted signs of impairment, including a strong odor of alcohol and slurred speech. White initially hesitated to answer questions regarding his alcohol consumption but eventually stated he had consumed two beers.

After further questioning and observing White's behavior, the trooper requested that he perform field sobriety tests. White exhibited signs of impairment, leading to his arrest. At the police barracks, he refused to submit to a breath test, which resulted in the charge of criminal refusal. The jury ultimately convicted him of this charge while acquitting him of DUI and negligent operation.

In his appeal, White claimed that it was unconstitutional to punish him for refusing the breath test. He argued that he had a constitutional right to refuse the test and that the request for the test was not valid without probable cause. White's arguments were based on the belief that an evidentiary breath test constitutes a search under the Vermont Constitution.

The Vermont Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber, along with Associate Justices Nancy J. Waples and Christina E. Nolan, reviewed the appeal. The court noted that it would only review for plain error, a high standard requiring that an error be obvious and affect substantial rights.

The court found that White could not meet this standard. It stated, "A novel constitutional argument does not rise to the level of plain error because it is not an 'obvious' error for a trial court to fail to extend the meaning of the constitution on its own motion." The court emphasized that White's claim contradicted the established language of Vermont law regarding DUI and refusal.

The court further explained that by choosing to drive, individuals accept the legal consequences that come with being suspected of DUI, including the obligation to submit to a breath test when requested by law enforcement. The court affirmed that the statute under which White was convicted has been upheld in previous cases, reinforcing the legality of punishing refusal to submit to a breath test.

This ruling has significant implications for future DUI cases in Vermont. It clarifies that individuals cannot avoid legal consequences for refusing a breath test simply by claiming a constitutional right to do so. The decision reinforces the idea that drivers implicitly consent to breath tests when they operate a vehicle.

Looking ahead, this ruling may influence how law enforcement approaches DUI cases and how defendants understand their rights and obligations when suspected of intoxication. The court's affirmation of the conviction sets a precedent that could deter future refusals of breath tests in similar circumstances.

As for potential next steps, White may seek further legal recourse, but the court's ruling is a strong affirmation of the existing law. There is no indication in the court filing that a related case is pending or that this decision will be appealed to a higher court.