In the UK (and some other countries) the law is simple: If you fail to give either a satisfactory breath or blood sample then you will be treated the same as someone who provided a postive sample: you get prosecuted for drunk driving which means losing your license and a big fine. I have no problem with that - drunk drivers are a nuisance.

In the US we have this little nuisance called the Constitution, with these little pesky things called Rights, which I'm sure you've heard of them in the UK, they were based off your Magna Carta. These barbaric tactics by law enforcement will hopefully not happen in all states here, thanks to that pesky Constitution. It gives individual States the power to decide whether to adopt a particular statute or law, that cannot be forced upon them by Federal Powers, unless passed as Federal Law. Thus, the reason this is only occurring in Idaho, and Texas. The guest forgot to mention the main wording of the 4th Amendment, (partially); "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". So it can be argued, that the police officer has no probable cause to search and seize, (blood, bodily fluids, etc.). Don't think I'm defending drunk drivers, cops mistakenly pull over sober drivers, who may just be a bit tired for whatever reason, (work, lack of sleep, etc.) There is not law against it in most States, and it would be classified under reckless driving if it cause a non-fatal accident. I wish I could say this law will not spread, but thanks to the apathetic millions in the U.S. that suck up the Orwellian frenzy that has ensued since Bush, laws and tactics like this will only propagate. One can only hope that more like Ron Paul, and those in the CFL, (Campaign for Liberty), will prevail against tyranny like this.

-To the writers of the article: I can see how the guest's words can be misinterpreted as "active", versus, "act of". I felt it necessary to correct this because of the word that follows. "...Active [rape]." Meaning: The [rape] is happening right now, and will continue. "...Act of [rape]." Meaning: A form, type, or category of [rape].

This has already been an implemented program in the state of Arizona since 1995, and there have been almost no serious complications resulting from it in that state. Individual states have the prerogative to take different approaches toward prosecuting suspected drunk drivers. In many states, the same policy as is followed in the UK (as mentioned by JG) is followed: if you refuse to give a satisfactory breath or blood sample, then you lose your license. If you haven't been drinking, then you should have no problem with giving a breath or blood test. Futhermore, if an individual has a medical condition that would cause drawing blood to be unsafe, the individual may be taken to a hospital where the procedure can be performed with greater safety, and he or she should be perfectly capable of informing a police officer of such a condition. Additionally, there exists a plethora of means by which an individual, if he or she believed the police were abusing their power, could raise a legal challenge against such practices (and courts do often find in favor of such individuals).

As the article on ohmygov.com points out, there are better ways this can be done so cops don't abuse this power.

The Big Bear Observation Post has posted a Youtube video demonstrating another serious reason to avoid a Breathalyzer test administered by a cop. These are crazy days in America. The video appears at http://bbvm.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/never-let-a-cop-administer-a-breathalyzer-test/