To the extent that the bill before you authorizes roadside testing without suspicion, and there is a link to the methods you just mentioned, this certainly raises privacy issues. In other words, submitting someone to roadside testing without any grounds for suspicion clearly does raise privacy issues. The question then becomes, is it necessary to achieve the compelling state objective to do that, and is it proportional?
We've seen the arguments made by the government in their charter assessment, and although we might quibble on some of the details, we think, on the whole, that the answers given to these questions are appropriate.