Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  569 U. S. ____ (2013) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

warrantless  blood  testing  of  railroad  employees  involved
in  certain  train  accidents  under  the  “special  needs”  doc­
trine);  Schmerber,  384  U. S.,  at  770–772.    We  have  never 
retreated,  however,  from  our  recognition  that  any  com­
pelled  intrusion  into  the  human  body  implicates  signifi­
cant, constitutionally protected privacy interests. 

Finally, the State and  its amici  point to the  compelling 
governmental  interest  in  combating  drunk  driving  and 
contend that prompt BAC testing, including through blood
testing,  is  vital  to  pursuit  of  that  interest.    They  argue 
that  is  particularly  so  because,  in  addition  to  laws  that
make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influ­
ence of alcohol, all 50 States and the District of Columbia 
have enacted laws that make it per se unlawful to operate
a  motor  vehicle  with  a  BAC  of  over  0.08  percent.    See 
National  Highway  Traffic  Safety  Admin.  (NHTSA),  Al­
cohol  and  Highway  Safety:  A  Review  of  the  State  of
Knowledge  167  (No.  811374,  Mar.  2011)  (NHTSA  Re­
view).8   To  enforce  these  provisions,  they  reasonably  as­
sert,  accurate  BAC  evidence  is  critical.    See  also  post,  at 
4–5  (opinion  of  ROBERTS,  C. J.);  post,  at  4–5  (opinion  of 
THOMAS, J.).

“No  one  can  seriously  dispute  the  magnitude  of  the
drunken  driving  problem  or  the  States’  interest  in  eradi­
cating it.”  Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 
444,  451  (1990).  Certainly  we  do  not.  While  some  pro­
gress  has  been  made,  drunk  driving  continues  to  exact  a 

—————— 

8 Pursuant  to  congressional  directive,  the  NHTSA  conditions  federal 
highway grants on States’ adoption of laws making it a per se offense to 
operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 percent or greater.  See 23 
U. S. C.  §163(a);  23  CFR  §1225.1  (2012).    Several  federal  prohibitions
on drunk driving also rely on the 0.08 percent standard.  E.g., 32 CFR 
§§234.17(c)(1)(ii),  1903.4(b)(1)(i)–(ii);  36  CFR  §4.23(a)(2).    In  addition, 
32 States and the District of Columbia have adopted laws that impose
heightened penalties for operating a motor vehicle at or above a BAC of
0.15 percent.  See NHTSA Review 175.