The Petitioner, a Georgia motorist who was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, refused to submit to a warrantless blood test. Breath testing is readily available in Georgia and effective in prosecuting DUI alcohol cases. There were no exigent circumstances preventing the officer from obtaining a search warrant for Petitioner's blood. The trial court issued an Order permitting Georgia to use Petitioner's refusal to waive her Fourth Amendment rights at trial as evidence of guilt pursuant to Georgia statute.

I. Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment and Due Process, is it reasonable and therefore constitutional to permit the government to arbitrarily demand an intrusive, warrantless blood test as a motorist's only option for complying with implied consent laws to avoid civil and criminal evidentiary penalties (i.e., license suspension and evidence of guilt at trial) when breath tests, the less intrusive alternative, are readily available and effective at prosecuting DUI cases?

II. If the government is permitted to arbitrarily demand the intrusive, warrantless blood test under implied consent laws, despite this search's protections under the Fourth Amendment, may the government use motorist's exercise of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from the intrusive blood test at trial as positive evidence of guilt based on a statutory presumption to prove the motorist is guilty of a criminal offense (DUI alcohol)?

III. Whether Georgia's Implied Consent Scheme is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Petitioner where the officer designated a warrantless blood test as Petitioner's only option for complying with state-administered testing without a warrant or exigent circumstances; where Petitioner refused the warrantless blood test; and where statutes permit the government to use Petitioner's refusal at trial as positive evidence of guilt?

IV. As a matter of first impression, may the government use a defendant's exercise of Fourth Amendment rights as evidence of guilt at trial?

Whether the government can use a motorist's refusal of a warrantless blood test as evidence of guilt