The case is no more “lacking substance” than any other criminal prosecution. You are obviously unfamiliar with standardized field sobriety testing – try googling it and educate yourself about the process (specifically, check out the “Romberg balance test” – that’s the count to 30 thing your “friend” mentioned), the scientific validity of the test, and it’s court acceptance as evidence of impairment. Since said “friend” refused a blood draw, there will be no chemical test that the prosecution can present to a jury. However, that also means that there will be no chemical test for the defense to use to refute the officer’s testimony regarding the impairment shown in the SFSTs – cuts both ways.

