Answer :
Final answer:
The correct answer is option b. An officer typically needs probable cause, which is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, to administer a chemical test for DUI due to implied consent laws, making the answer 'False'.
Explanation:
The question asks whether an officer needs to have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to administer a chemical test for DUI. The concept of implied consent laws in many jurisdictions means that by driving on public roads, drivers are assumed to have consented to DUI tests (blood, breath, or urine) if they're suspected of driving under the influence. However, the threshold for administering such tests typically aligns more with probable cause — an officer must have sufficient reason to believe the driver is intoxicated, rather than just a hunch or lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. Situations that might give rise to probable cause include observable signs of intoxication or impairment, erratic driving, or the result of a preliminary field sobriety test. Therefore, the answer is False; an officer does not typically need only 'reasonable suspicion' to administer a chemical DUI test. Implied consent laws generally support the requirement for a higher standard of proof akin to probable cause, given the invasive nature of chemical tests.
