WA following McNeely holds that there is no per se exigency and refusal to take a breath test is admissible on question of guilt

Applying McNeely: “The district courts correctly rejected the State’s argument that alcohol dissipation constitutes exigency per se—exigency must be determined under the totality of circumstances, case by case. We hold that the implied consent statute does not authorize a warrantless search, and a driver has no constitutional right to refuse a breath test because such a search falls under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Further, although the implied consent statute gives a driver a statutory right to refuse the test, by exercising the privilege to drive, a driver consents to admitting that refusal to take the breath test into evidence. Accordingly, we hold that a driver’s refusal is admissible as evidence of guilt under Washington’s implied consent law.” State v. Baird, 2016 Wash. LEXIS 1377 (Dec. 22, 2016).