Table 1. Summary of narratives: perceived role of traffic officer and descriptive balance between individual and public constitutional rights.

Country (in alphabetical order)	Individual vs. public, constitutional rights, and perceived role of traffic agent
Argentina	Constitutional rights are guaranteed, but the “self-incrimination” aspect is not accepted in this case. There is a tendency to penalize the individual when public health is an issue, but in some cases this is still a “fuzzy approach” - for example, although the law defines a sentence of 1-10 days in prison for a positive breath test, in practice it does not happen. There are marked differences between written law and practice, and officers sometimes are not supported in their enforcement practices.
Australia	There is no question about public vs. individual rights. Penalties are severe from the start, and refusal is a serious punishable offense, although there are variations in size of fine and length of sentencing across provinces. The role of the officer seems to be final.
Brazil	There seems to be a “legalistic approach” - individualities come first, public health comes later, since there are many loopholes and sequences of steps, which tend to bureaucratize the process. Sanctions do exist but are rarely enforced - only in the extremely severe cases (death with a blood alcohol concentration over 0.06 mg/dL). In most cases there is a tendency towards “community service” as the most typical sanction. The role of the officer may be questioned in different spheres of the process. Perception of enforcement varies, since subjective issues, such as the judge’s or the officer’s perception of intoxication will define sanctions when a breath test is not available.
Mexico	Breath tests are not always available, which would then privilege the individual vs. the public. A breath test refusal would generate a sanction but the driver can appeal to the court in a separate administrative process. There are increased sanctions that vary from state to state, including administrative detention of up to 36 hours, or prison in some states. Enforcement is extremely variable from region to region, and sanctions will vary accordingly.
Norway	Intoxicated drivers are seen as dangerous to public health, with no margin for interpretation or subjective measures. The driver may be taken by force if refusing to provide a sample. Since penalties are extremely severe (2 years for refusing a breath test) it is implied that the authority of the acting officer is unquestionable.
United States	Laws vary by state, but in general, public good is protected in most states - such as through implied consent. Even if not driving, a person may be penalized if it is understood s/he was in “actual physical control of the car” (for example, sitting inside the vehicles and holding the keys). Refusal to follow police instructions is considered punishable. A driver may be convicted even when refusing to provide a test - and the refusal may be an aggravation during the hearing.