Well, I still don’t see the correlation but since I already went over the original topic maybe I should just touch on this a bit. DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion only. Check with all applicable laws, court rulings, etc. which may apply to your area.

My state too has a similar “ Implied Consent” law. But that “ Implied Consent” only refers to breath tests. Refuse to take the breath tests and you are issued a separate summons for failing to do so. Any fines, license revocations, jail time etc. as a result of that failure are in addition to any fines, license revocations, etc. for the summons issued for driving while under the influence. So if you are convicted of both you get hammered twice. If you manage to be found not guilty of driving while impaired you can still be found guilty of refusing to take the breath tests.

Now here is where it gets a little tricky, and maybe a little too technical for many. Lets suppose you refuse to take the breath tests. You are issued a summons for that refusal and think, oh well, at least I’ll beat the driving while impaired.

Maybe, maybe not.

Leaving out the experience of the officer, their training, credibility, observations, etc. which could be used to convict a person even if there are no breath samples available to the court let us look at something else.

The” Implied Consent” law in my state only applies to the taking of breath samples, not blood or urine . Last I checked most state Supreme Courts I know of, and the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that blood and urine are not testimonial in nature and thus ( specifically referring to the Federal Constitution issue here ) is not subject to the Fifth Amendment protection ( similarly to State Constitution's provisions).

Because of the volatile nature of the evidence ( the body breaks it down over time and the evidence is lost ) a person can not refuse to give blood or urine samples. Supreme Courts have ruled that if a person resists they may be strapped down and blood taken by force, catheters may be used to extract urine, etc. ( although most sane Courts require it be done in a medically approved manner. )

See where I am going with this?

O.K. For the cynics.
Q. Why aren’t breath samples considered “ none testimonial in nature” like blood and urine?
A. They are.

Q. Then why are the “ Implied Consent” laws necessary?
A. Just think about that for a moment. The term “ shocks the conscious “ comes to mind here. I can just see a police officer on the side of the road, a hose taped to a persons mouth who is lying on the ground and the officer jumping up and down on their chest to retrieve a breath sample. That just won’t work ( at least not where I live! )

To tie this in with the failing to divulge encryption keys: if, in the case of taking blood or urine samples, someone were to fight so hard even when strapped down to make it impossible to take the samples safely that person could be charged with destruction of evidence ( as they know the evidence will disappear with time. ) If someone were to withhold encryption keys they could possibly be charged with
a) withholding evidence
b) contempt of court
c) obstruction of justice ( or law, depending on the wording of the applicable statutes )

and maybe other offenses. ( I’m under the influence now, so I may miss some things. )

BTW, the part of the U.S. Fifth Amendment right referred to here is known as the right against self-incrimination, founded, in pertinent part:
... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...
.
To my understanding that refers to being forced ( compelled ) to answer questions ( testify ) at a hearing or trial which may tend to incriminate ones self. It does not refer to a record ( written, recorded, or any other physical evidence etc. ) someone made at some previous time just because that person is the subject of said hearing, trial, etc.

All of the above assumes that the officer had what is know here in the U.S. as Probable Cause that an offense has been committed. What is that? I’m not that drunk to try to explain it!

I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this. Or maybe it has sparked within you an outrage with a sincere desire to discredit my ranting. To do so would mean you would have to research these topics, which would mean you would have to learn something, and thus, I have won anyway!

As catch would say,

cheers,