One of the things about DRE analysis is that it has to be administered almost perfectly by the officer. That's one of the reasons they talk about having to videotape the process. Forget about the response of the test subject, if the officer doesn't administer the test in the perfect standardized way he or she is trained, the results of the test are entirely fallible. The people who designed the test say so. This is not something a defence lawyer has conjured up.
That's why we're saying it's going to give rise to very lengthy and costly litigation. I will tell you right now, I wouldn't know of a self-respecting defence lawyer in the country where one of these cases came up who didn't challenge the reliability of the grounds used to make the subsequent blood or urine demand. That's the problem. It wouldn't be a constitutional challenge to the section. It would be a case-by-case challenge to the reliability of the officer.
If it were one constitutional challenge, you'd be okay, because it wouldn't be that expensive. You'd have one case work its way up and you're done. But you're talking about every case being a challenge.