True or False: If a person refuses to submit to a chemical test, evidence of the refusal can be used in court surrounding any events that occurred while driving.

The statement is true because, in many jurisdictions, a refusal to submit to a chemical test can be used as evidence in court in relation to driving events, particularly in cases of suspected driving under the influence. This reflects the understanding that refusing a chemical test (such as a breathalyzer or blood test) can imply consciousness of guilt. Courts may interpret this refusal as an indication that the individual was aware of their own impairment, potentially supporting charges of driving while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

In jurisdictions that have implied consent laws, individuals generally agree to submit to chemical testing when they operate a vehicle. Thus, refusing to take such tests can have legal ramifications, including the possibility of using that refusal as evidence during trial proceedings, regardless of whether there was an accident involved or other indicators of intoxication.