In Ryan v. Department of Transportation, 823 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), the Court explained the difference between the two types of tests: The Vehicle Code contemplates two different types of tests. . . . The test described in Section 1547(k) is a preliminary breath test in the field, performed on an instrument which detects the presence of alcohol. . . . The sole purpose of the field sobriety test is to assist the officer in determining whether a driver should be placed under arrest, not whether the driver is actually intoxicated. . . . The test serves the same purpose as other, perhaps more familiar, field sobriety tests, such as walking a straight line or touching your nose with your finger. . . . Obviously, this type of test occurs before arrest. Significantly, refusal to perform a preliminary breath test cannot be the basis of a license suspension. . . . The second type of test contemplated by the Vehicle Code is a test administered after arrest 'for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of the blood . . . .' and implicates the Implied Consent Law. . . . Unlike the preliminary breath test, refusal to submit to a post-arrest test to determine the alcoholic content of the blood under the Implied Consent Law can result in license suspension. Also, the results of the test may be admissible in court in subsequent criminal and civil actions. Ryan, 823 A.2d at 1103-1104.