Comment: I don't think they can do

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Now what about (see in situ)

I don't think they can do

I don't think they can do anything to you if you are under the influence of Micheal Jordan, but I'm not from Colorado. If you are taking about marijuana on the other hand, then they will most certainly try anything they can for you to consent to the blood test. Just don't give them an "exigency" to do so. Here is the meat of the opinion (having only skimmed the ruling):

"In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), this Court upheld a warrant less blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay neces­sary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threat­ened the destruction of evidence.” Id., at 770 (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for non-consensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. We conclude that it does not, and we hold, consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances."

I conclude that since the natural metabolization rate of marijuana is much long than alcohol they could never prove there is a "exigency" to take your blood on the account you are driving under the influence and present a danger to the general public and there is a risk of evidence will be destroyed, before the warrant could be issued.

If they pull you over in Colorado, or any state for that matter, and you are under the influence of marijuana do not consent to a blood test. If after that they say there is a "exigency" or emergency to get your blood, let them know again, YOU DO NOT CONSENT, but let them take the blood. You will have a case, then, to argue that it violated your Four Amendment and you can make Colorado pay. If you were so bold to take it to court.

Know that even though the US Supreme Court ruled in this mans favor from Missouri, you are not in Missouri and you are not under the influence of alcohol. It's a whole new case.

"...that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances."

If you have the Balls, maybe you would like to be a proverbial guinea pig for the Colorado Law. Study much and calculate the right time you wish to be caught to challenge the law. If you pull it off, You would be a God among men, in this movement anyway.

Take a look at this to get a better understanding of how the courts could rule in regards to your question.

It was written 12 years after the case the supreme court mentioned in their opinion yesterday.

~Good Night, And Good Luck~