$8\mathrm{.}8$ Ethics Case

Drunk drivers take a grisly toll on the nation's roads, killing more than $10,000$ people each year$-$approximately one death every hour$-$and injuring many more victims. All states have enacted laws that prohibit motorists from driving with a blood alcohol concentration $($BAC$)$ that exceeds a specified level. Most states calculate BAC by administering a breath test to suspected drunk drivers, usually at the time and place of the traffic stop. Several states also provide a second means of calculating BAC by taking blood samples from the suspect.

Many drivers who are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving do not submit to testing when given the option. Most states have enacted implied consent laws, under which the state automatically finds a person liable for drunk driving if that person refuses to undergo a blood alcohol test. These statutes impose penalties for refusing blood alcohol testing, which usually include mandatory alcohol addiction treatment, fines, and imprisonment of repeat offenders.

Two drivers from states that require BAC testing by either a breath test or blood test were stopped for suspected drunk driving. The drivers, who faced the imposition of the penalties imposed by implied consent laws, sued, alleging that requiring the taking of BAC breath or blood tests violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches. The U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court heard an appeal.