AZ implied consent law valid under McNeely

“Defendant now challenges the facial constitutionality of [the Arizona implied consent law,] § 28-1321, arguing that it is invalid under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), and the doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions.” We reject these facial challenges. Consistent with the underlying principles of McNeely (an exigent-circumstances case), § 28-1321 authorizes warrantless searches of a DUI arrestee’s bodily substances only when the arrestee gives actual, voluntary consent, as determined by the totality of the circumstances. Further, the statutory penalties for failure to give consent do not violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The state has a substantial interest in keeping intoxicated drivers off the roadways, and the statute reasonably serves that interest by penalizing an arrestee’s refusal to submit to testing with suspension of his or her driver’s license.” State v. Okken, 2015 Ariz. App. LEXIS 296 (Dec. 8, 2015).*