Nope...each of those situations specify, "Reasonable grounds."
I'll make it very simple for you.......
577.020. 1. Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to, subject to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041, a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, saliva or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood pursuant to the following circumstances:
(4) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater; snipped
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5770000020.htm
There.....get it now? The ACLU punk rolled his window down just a crack......very reasonable for the cop to suspect he didn't want the cop to get a whiff of his breath. Then the matter of his avoiding conversing with the cop.
the jury (or judge) in any civil action will show this twit the door.....that is if any civil suit survives the motion to dismiss based on the 2 statute section/paragraphs posted above.