The U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing whether it is a criminal offense for suspected drunk drivers to refuse breath, alcohol or blood test if the police officer doesn't have a search warrant

"If the police came to your house and wanted to search and you said, 'Gosh no, I'm sorry. You can't come in without a warrant and I'm not going to answer any questions without a lawyer,' they couldn't use that against you," Said Daytona Beach defense attorney, Aaron Delgado who said in a News Journal report that the case is protected by the Fourth Amendment. "But in the case of a DUI they can and there's no real difference legally between those two."

Meanwhile, in a report by the ABC 5 Eyewitness News, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that it is unconstitutional for suspected drunk drivers to be charged with criminal offense after refusing to take urine, blood, or alcohol tests without warrant. This decision stemmed from an Owatonna driver, Ryan Mark Thompson, who declined to take the test after being arrested in 2012. He said he is protected by the Fourth Amendment, which says his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures are protected.

Star Tribune reported that Thompson, 41, was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. His crime was second-degree test refusal and third-degree driving while under the influence, to name a few. The ruling on Monday in the state Court of Appeals said that the blood test on Thompson was warrant-less was unconstitutional, because it violates his rights to be free from unconstitutional searches.

There are other test-refusal laws in Minnesota. Just a couple of weeks ago, the US Supreme Court agreed to reconsider Minnesota's state law that refusal on warrant-less breath, blood, and urine test a crime. Eyes are now set on the overall impact of the ruling. Delgado said 50 of his clients will benefit from the ruling.