A field sobriety test is distinct from a chemical analysis (breathalyzer or otherwise).
In California, you are required to submit to chemical testing (breath, urine, or blood — I don’t recall the rules for which applies in which situations). However, you are not required to otherwise talk to or perform the absurd procedure of the field sobriety test (“you have the right to remain silent”).
I was under the mistaken impression you could refuse and then would get a blood test, seems that was wrong/out-dated (also wrong!). The backup test at the station is also usually a breath test apparently. And it seems we have field sobriety tests but it looks like they're for drug-driving.
It's also an offense in most (all?) of the US. Even then, if someone is pulled over for DUI, at that point the officers are just collecting evidence. If someone has had anything to drink, it's in their best interest to say they want a lawyer and refuse all tests. Then there will be less evidence to argue against in court.
I would love to be corrected, but I was under the impression if you refused any testing, your driving license will be revoked. Drivers license is a privilege, not a right.
Depends on the state. Illinois refusal of everything is typically a 3 month suspension. But if you are guilty that is better than submitting to evidence that gets it suspended for 6 months+. If you are innocent, it is in your interest to pass the test.
Sure, but it's typically less than a DUI conviction and doesn't show up on your record as a DUI and you can avoid insurance increases.
If the police decide to have you exit the car and do the field tests, the odds are high they have already decided to arrest you. At that point, it's best to refuse all unless you have had absolutely zero drugs/alcohol. And then the question has to be why did they have you get out the car.