In the News, On the Bar Exam: Tiger, Testing, and Two Issues Hiding in the Headline
- Tommy Sangchompuphen
- Mar 27
- 2 min read
When news broke yesterday that Tiger Woods was involved in a rollover crash in Florida—with reports of breathalyzer testing and refusal to submit to additional testing—it immediately raised a pair of issues that can show up on the bar exam.
Before we go any further, a quick disclaimer (because that’s what we do here): I’m not weighing in on what happened, whether any testing (or refusal) was justified, or how this situation should be resolved. I’m using the headline as a clean bar-exam hook to answer a question you may see in some form.
And in this scenario, there are two distinct issues:
Issue 1: Due Process (Constitutional Law)
On the bar exam, you might see something like: A driver refuses a breathalyzer test, and the state immediately suspends the driver’s license without a prior hearing.
Your instinct might be: “Wait—that violates due process.”
That instinct is only half right.
Yes, under the Due Process Clause, a driver’s license is a protected interest. That’s the baseline rule from Bell v. Burson (the government generally must provide some form of hearing before taking it away).
But here’s where the exam twist comes in.
In Mackey v. Montrym, the Supreme Court upheld a statute that allowed immediate suspension for refusing a breathalyzer test, without a prior hearing, so long as the driver is given a prompt post-suspension hearing.
Why? Because the state’s interest in public safety (keeping potentially impaired drivers off the road) is strong enough to justify acting first and hearing later.
Issue 2: Self-Incrimination (Criminal Procedure)
A second issue often appears alongside the first: The defendant refuses to provide a breath, blood, or urine sample and claims a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimonial or communicative evidence—not physical evidence.
That distinction is everything.
Providing a breath sample, a blood sample, or a urine sample is considered physical evidence, not testimony. So even if a person refuses, the key takeaway is this: There is no Fifth Amendment right to refuse these tests.
(Whether a state can penalize refusal is a different analysis, but the Fifth Amendment itself isn't the shield students often think it is.
Remember: News headlines like this aren’t just news. They're pre-written fact patterns.
