Journalist Adam Liptak wrote for The New York Times 11 December 2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether states can make it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse breath, blood or urine tests. Thirteen states have such laws. ...In 2013, in Missouri v. McNeely, the Supreme Court ruled that the police investigating a drunken-driving incident must generally obtain warrants before drawing blood without consent. The state laws get around that ruling by making refusal to consent to testing a separate crime. State officials justify those laws in part on the ground that drivers have given their consent to be tested as a condition of being permitted to drive.

The defendants in the new cases say the laws violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Minnesota law, people convicted of refusing to be tested can face a mandatory minimum sentence of three years — and up to seven years — even if they are never convicted of drunken driving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article