Most states that I know of have an implied consent law for field sobriety tests for drivers suspected of driving drunk. You can either complete the field sobriety test (walk down the stripe in the road, touch your nose, follow the pen with your eyes) or blow into the breathalyzer, but if you choose not to, you automatically lose your license.
Recently I have heard of officers getting warrants to take blood from drivers suspected of driving under the influence of drugs other than alchohol, which will not show up in a breathalyzer. That still seems pretty reasonable to me, but then I ran across this story where a judge authorized both a blood and a urine sample and the police used that warrant to forcibly catheterize someone.
How reasonable does that sound? If a judge can order a procedure as private and invasive as a catheterization on someone, I suspect that I will read in the future that a judge will order forcibly obtaining samples for a rape kit from a man or woman. Does that sound like security in your person against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Read the full article here. The guy ended up testing positive for several drugs, but evidently there was such a rush that they couldn’t wait for “nature to take its course” (in the words of one court decision) or use the blood sample already obtained.