¶ 24. concurring. I agree that the officer’s testimony here concerning defendant’s refusal to submit to the PBT had no effect on the verdict. Thus we need not — and do not — decide whether the evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, in light of the separate concurring opinion advocating exclusion of the evidence, I am compelled to state my views to the contrary.
¶25. The analysis begins, as always, with the statutory language. See State n O’Dell, 2007 VT 34, ¶ 7, 181 Vt. 475, 924 A.2d 87 (in discerning legislative intent we look first to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statutory language). The DUI statute at issue provides that the “results of [a PBT] may be used for the purpose of deciding whether an arrest should be made and whether to request an evidentiary test and shall not be used in any court proceeding except on those issues.” 23 V.S.A. § 1203(f). In reviewing the statute, the trial court here made the sensible observation that the State was not seeking to admit the “results” of a PBT, since it was never administered, and thus the plain *207language of the statute did not appear to bar evidence of defendant’s refusal.
¶ 26. Plain language to the contrary notwithstanding, it is asserted that admitting evidence of a suspect’s refusal eviscerates the statute’s underlying purpose. This is a claim that warrants close examination. We addressed the nature and purpose of PBTs in State v. McGuigan, explaining that they “are common tools in the investigatory kit officers use to ascertain whether probable cause exists to believe that an individual has been driving under the influence of alcohol.” 2008 VT 111, ¶ 14, 184 Vt. 441, 965 A.2d 511. Although the statute reflects a legislative judgment that a PBT’s utility consists principally in its use as “a screening device” to determine whether more accurate testing is appropriate, id. (quotation omitted), we have recognized that their substantive inadmissibility “does not deprive them of all utility, but merely reflects a [legislative] determination that more sensitive measurements are easily available” for later use. State v. Orvis, 143 Vt. 388, 391, 465 A.2d 1361, 1362 (1983). Thus, we have held that the “results of a preliminary breath alcohol screening test which indicate impairment, although inadmissible as evidence, may alone provide the reasonable grounds to believe a person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” Id. at 391, 465 A.2d at 1363.
¶ 27. If — as both the Legislature and this Court have recognized — a PBT bears sufficient utility to establish probable cause to believe that a suspect has been driving while intoxicated, a suspect’s refusal to submit to the test certainly implies some awareness that the test would reveal the suspect’s intoxication, or, in other words, some “consciousness of guilt” of the offense relevant for admission at trial. Indeed, this was precisely our reasoning in State v. Blouin, where we considered the analogous situation of a suspect’s refusal to perform an HGN test, a standard field sobriety test used for determining probable cause to arrest for DUI. 168 Vt. 119, 716 A.2d 826 (1998). As we there explained, “inasmuch as defendant’s refusal to perform the HGN test goes to consciousness of guilt, the refusal evidence is admissible.” Id. at 122, 716 A.2d at 828 (citation omitted); accord State v. Curavoo, 156 Vt. 72, 75, 587 A.2d 963, 965 (1991). Numerous other courts have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., State v. Ferm, 7 P.3d 193, 204 (Haw. Ct. App. 2000) (observing that an “inference of consciousness of guilt” is a “reasonable and permissible inference[] from evidence of [a] refusal” to submit to field *208sobriety tests); Thompson v. State, 65 P.3d 534, 537-38 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003) (holding that defendant’s failure to submit to field sobriety tests “which could have confirmed or dispelled the suspicion of intoxication” supports “inference of consciousness of guilt” of DUI); State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-109, ¶ 9, 36 P.3d 446 (“The State can use evidence of a driver’s refusal to consent to the field sobriety testing to create an inference of the driver’s consciousness of guilt.”).
¶28. It is claimed, nevertheless, that Blouin is distinguishable and indeed supports a contrary conclusion because the HGN test — unlike the PBT — is not statutorily inadmissible. The argument is not sustainable. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Blouin was not based on the absence of statutory language barring the admission of a suspect’s HGN test; it was based on the absence of statutory language barring a suspect’s refusal to submit to the test. As we explained: “In the absence of statutory language prohibiting introduction of the refusal evidence, we will not invent it.” Blouin, 168 Vt. at 122-23, 716 A.2d at 828. The statute at issue here contains no language prohibiting the admission of a suspect’s refusal to submit to a PBT, and we should be similarly disinclined to invent it.
¶29. Our colleagues also maintain that Blouin is critically distinguishable because the reliability of an HGN test allows the fact finder to infer from a suspect’s refusal that “the evidence gained from taking the test would be prejudicial,” ante, ¶ 16, whereas the purported unreliability of a PBT bars any such inference. Thus, they conclude that allowing evidence of a refusal would undermine the statutory purpose of preventing the PBT from being used substantively. As noted, however, its substantive inadmissibility “does not deprive [a PBT] of all utility, but merely reflects a determination that more sensitive measurements are easily available and therefore should be used.” Orvis, 143 Vt. at 391, 465 A.2d at 1362. Indeed, the PBT is sufficiently reliable and probative of intoxication that a result “which indicated] impairment, although inadmissible as evidence, may alone provide the reasonable grounds to believe a person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor” in violation of the DUI statute. Id. at 391, 465 A.2d at 1363 (emphasis added). It is therefore reasonable — and entirely consistent with the statute — to infer that a suspect’s refusal to submit to a PBT indicates some concern that the test would reveal his or her intoxication and is therefore relevant and admissible to show consciousness of guilt.
*209¶ 30. Our colleagues also claim that refusal evidence in this context would have “limited probative value” because an individual might refuse the test on the basis that he or she distrusted its accuracy or for other reasons not indicative of guilt. Ante, ¶ 21. This is an argument for countervailing evidence, however, not for exclusion. As in all contexts, the weight to be accorded the refusal evidence lies with the trier of fact, and a defendant remains free to argue that it is worth little because the refusal was for reasons unrelated to guilt. See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 701, 704 (Fla. 1995) (rejecting claim that refusal to perform field sobriety tests was not probative of guilt because the refusal may have been “motivated by a factor other than guilt, such as a simple desire to end the encounter,” and holding that defendant was “free to offer that explanation in court”). Indeed, this is no different from evidence of flight or other conduct commonly recognized as indicative of a consciousness of guilt, and does not undermine its essential relevance. See State v. Perrillo, 162 Vt. 566, 570, 649 A.2d 1031, 1034 (1994) (recognizing that where prosecution presents evidence of flight to show consciousness of guilt, “defendant should in fairness be afforded the opportunity to explain why his absence was consistent with his innocence”). Thus, as the trial court here correctly concluded, the probative weight of the refusal evidence was for the jury, not for the court, to determine.
¶ 31. The concurring opinion also notes that other state courts have barred the admission of PBT refusal evidence. The ease law in this area, however, is not entirely uniform. See, e.g., Crusselle v. State, 694 S.E.2d 707, 710 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that defendant’s refusal to submit to preliminary alco-sensor test was “admissible as circumstantial evidence of intoxication and together with other evidence would support an inference that [defendant] was an impaired driver” (quotation omitted)). In any event, the cases cited merely repeat the arguments for exclusion discussed above, and are no more persuasive.
¶ 32. Therefore, if the issue were properly presented, I would hold that evidence of a refusal to submit to a PBT is not barred by 23 V.S.A. § 1203(f).
¶ 33. I am authorized to state that Justice Burgess joins this concurrence.