So ... you TOLD the officer you had not been drinking, but, seriously, you had been, right?
Public intoxication in CA has two main elements: (1) The consumption of alcohol, and, (2) An apparent inability to care for yourself or others (this can be shown by stumbling about, yelling, arguing, fighting, etc.).
No test is required as the "tests" you are thinking of are designed to test for impairment when it comes to driving a motor vehicle, not to test for being intoxicated in public. Would a chemical test help in a prosecution? Sure. Is it required for an arrest? Nope.
Most 647(f) arrests are simply detentions (per PC 849(b)) and no prosecution is often made on them ... at least in most counties in CA. If it IS prosecuted, these tend to be relatively minor offenses.
Entirely their prerogative and completely separate from any legal issues.The school wants to put me on probation which will be indicated on my transcript.
It's not really a court - it's an internal, administrative process that fashions itself in a manner similar to a court but without the same legal constraints.The judicial system at the school prevents the use of attorneys, does not disclose previous cases (no case law to work with), and places the burden of evidence on the defense and has its certainty based off preponderance of evidence. Talk about a kangaroo court!
Legally, no test is required. However, you can certainly try to argue to the student council that there was no proof of your intoxication ... heck, if there are college students on your panel, they will sympathize with you ... even if they don't believe the story of the beer foul (the spilled booze). It's possible the school will pat you on the head and say it's fine - but, this is a separate issue.I am trying to prove that you NEED a chemical test to to prove someone meets the CA standard legal definition of intoxication- .08 blood alcohol level. Any advice?
- Carl

