• They appear to need a warrant to do that without consent, at least, if I read the article correctly. Of course, “consent” is more or less mandatory anyway.

    But is there something wrong with breath tests in most situations? Blood should be a backup if the person can’t breathe hard enough to register, or something. Why go right for the most invasive test?

    • “Of course, “consent” is more or less mandatory anyway.”

      Mandatory consent is not consent at all.

  • I just don’t like it.

    You don’t need a warrant to get a blood sample, but I think Scalia left open the possibility that if such a case came before him, he’d consider requiring it.

  • That is so cool. They’ll beat you to the ground, cuff you and draw your life’s blood.
    Based on the say-so of just any old cop.
    No chance of abuse there, huh?