The person being under 21 does not entitle them to talk to a parent. You can not really invalidate a refusal. It is for a jury to decide as to whether you refused a chemical test or not. To be quite hones, most DUI attorneys recommend clients to refuse chemical tests because it gives the prosecution less proof to convict them. I have always had juries say that they absolutely wanted to have a breath or blood test in order to convict. So, look at the glass half full, you made it more difficult for the DA whether you refused or not.
The information provided in this answer does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are interested in his legal services, feel free to call Chris at (303) 409-7635 at his law office in the Denver Tech Center. All initial consultations are free of charge.
This is a REALLY complicated question that this format cannot do justice.
However, I'll give you a couple of examples...
If an officer provides a Miranda advisement BEFORE an Expressed Consent advisement, that MAY invalidate a 'refusal.'
If an officer improperly explains the Expressed Consent law to you, that MAY invalidate a 'refusal.'
You are better served by setting an appointment to discuss the details of your case with a DUI defense attorney. Many of us offer free consultations.
Best of luck to you.
No answer here should be considered to form an attorney-client relationship. You should consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction so that a full evaluation of the facts of your case can be conducted.
Failure to mirandize, failure to provide good explanation of express consent, changing options (blood to breath because the hospital is too full, for example), other crazy circumstances that make it look like you didn't refuse. Regardless, no test = no proof of intoxication, other than officer observations, which are mostly subjective.
A roundup of the best tips and legal advice.