Ratliff refused an on-scene breath test, so officers subsequently obtained a warrant to draw a blood sample, police said.
As he should refuse. ANY DUI lawyer will tell you that as far as I know.
Consider this is all about the letter of law, not opinions about drinking.
Personally, I see these tests they are
mandating as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment. The operative word that's the problem is "mandate".
Here's why; a driver can refuse a test, as they should be able to do, but every action has it's own consequences, so if you refuse, there should be a way to deal with that if the person appears to be doing something illegal. They have decided forced tests to see if you got alcohol in your system, but my contention is that they shouldn't force anything, just have a consequence for refusing.
Instead, the system allows them to get a bogus "warrant" to remove blood by restraint or force. This is forcing the person to violate their 4th Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure, in taking something from them unrelated to the driver's actions, which might incriminate themselves. It's also a violation of their 5th Amendment right to remain silent, which most people simply find it hard to do when being strong-armed and intimidated by police.
If you agree to the tests, then you have legally waived your constitutional right, just like allowing a search of your vehicle after being pulled for a tail light out (you were pulled for a light out, not for what might be in your car! Remember that thing about "probable cause"?).
I look at it like this, if a driver is violating traffic laws, then fine, pull them and give them a ticket. But they want to jump from a moving violation to wanting to search you and your vehicle, all because you were "swerving between lanes". How do they make that jump from writing a ticket for observed illegal driving, or a tail light out, to wanting to do a vehicle and person search? Probable cause is what, the swerving? No, they claim cause by their "professional observation of the suspect", as in they smelled something, or the person wasn't talking normal, etc. Are cops doctors? Nope, so they are not qualified to determine if a person is not normal. Besides, I still ask how we went from a moving violation, to a search of a driver? We know how, they claim the cause is their observation of a driver's actions, but that doesn't mean it's legal.
A cop cannot search your vehicle without permission or probable cause, like observing a bag of drugs on the seat. If they pulled you for a traffic violation, that should be it, end of stop, give the ticket and move on. But some try to get driver's to let them search the vehicle, and most drivers allow it, and the next thing they know, they got handcuffs on for something the cop never had the right to discover in the first place. In the end, the driver has been duped into agreeing with the request for a search. And cops do it by intimidating drivers, getting them to talk about stuff unrelated to the initial reason for the traffic stop.
It's simply a wicked worldly system.