[andyk]

Then by implication, would they claim that does not constitute assault? Because it seems like it would be.

They most certainly would argue that it is not assault, but the court was very clear that it does constitute a taking as shown here from the decision:

The administration of a blood alcohol test constitutes a seizure of a person and a search for evidence under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 17 of the Idaho Constitution. Halen v. State, 136 Idaho 829, 833, 41 P.3d 257, 261 (2002) (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966); State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368, 370, 775 P.2d 1210, 1212 (1989)).

The decision goes on to provide justification for the taking via implied consent, as Krankor first indicated at the beginning of this thread.

[babygene]

“The decision goes on to provide justification for the taking via implied consent, as Krankor first indicated at the beginning of this thread.”

Implied consent is horse manure. Is there “implied consent” to have sex when a person gets a marriage license? I don’t think so.... That wouldn’t get you very far.