So a Breathalyzer and blood test confirm that the guy was below the limit. How would they have been able to prosecute him anyway. I was just in Indiana and they have warning signs up everywhere that speeding Max 1000.00 fine reckless driving up to 8 years in jail. I wonder what the fine and jail time would be for drunk driving? It would have to be massive for a judge to sign off on the search warrant!
My understanding is that with the right court order, you can be forced to comply. I know if I'm pulled over and refuse a sobriety test I lose my license.
I suspect there's more to this that hasn't come out yet.
A couple of points, without really being able to go too far on what's here.
First, implied consent laws (which most if not all US states have) mean that, as a condition of choosing to drive on the roads of the state, you've consented to a chemical test to determine whether you are driving while intoxicated (or whatever they call it). The chemical test is chosen/defined by the state's law. In VA, it's a breath test unless the breath test is unavailable for some reason, or the officer has reason to believe that you're high, not drunk. If breath testing isn't available or appropriate, it's a blood test, which must be drawn in both a forensically acceptable manner and a medically acceptable manner. We don't use a urine test.
Second, to answer a later question from Bob, breath alcohol testing is generally reliable.
Henry's Law tells us that the proportions of chemicals in the gas above a liquid are directly relatable to the proportions in the liquid. From that, we can assume that the breath sample is going to give us a good idea of what's in the blood as it passes through the lungs, if some basic conditions (like no alcohol in the mouth) are met. Generally, the testing protocol and device are designed to ensure that the assumption will hold. For example, in VA, we observe a 20 minute observation to make sure that there is no alcohol in the mouth, and the device will detect other interferants as well as the wrong progression of the test results that would indicate mouth alcohol was present.
There are two common methods of determining the breath alcohol concentration: IR spectrometry (alcohol has a specific absorption spectrum in the ranges monitored, and the absorption is directly related to the concentration of alcohol in the sample), or electrochemical testing (fuel cells). Both are reliable, if used appropriately.
Finally, it seems from the scant information in the article that the officers obtained a search warrant for urine and blood. All that is required for a search warrant to be issued is that there be probable cause that the specific evidence in question is more likely than not going to be found in the place or person named; absent things that would kill a person, it doesn't matter whether we're looking for urine, hair, or DNA in or on the subject's person, or a semi hidden in their garage. Some warrants will specify the method or timing of the execution. For blood or urine, all that would be required is that they be taken in a medically acceptable manner. The evidence in question here (alcohol or drugs in the sample) is perishable, and diminishes over time, so there would have been exigency supporting taking the sample by more forcible means, such as handcuffing or sedating him.
Bluntly, given a proper search warrant for perishable evidence in the blood or urine, I can take a subject into a hospital, and basically sit on his chest if need be to allow the medical staff to take the sample. It's really not all that different than bashing a door in with our "universal door key" (ram).
Note that I am not suggesting that the action of obtaining the search warrant in this case was automatically reasonable and appropriate. There's not enough given to know... I once had a guy who was so high/drunk that nobody could figure out what he was on, and he claimed not to know. We took blood (less dramatically) and basically said "find out; this is how he was acting!")
