Does a motorist voluntarily consent to a warrantless blood draw if she has been warned that refusal to submit will result in a mandatory minimum period of incarceration upon conviction?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 2185-86 (2016), this Court disapproved of implied-consent laws that impose “criminal penalties” on motorists who refuse to comply with a request for a blood sample, holding that “motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to submit to a blood test on pain of committing a criminal offense.” Maine treats refusal evidence as a sentencing enhancement factor. Upon conviction for operating under the influence (“OUI”), a motorist who has refused to submit to a warrantless blood test is, inter alia, subject to a mandatory minimum period of 96 hours’ incarceration by virtue of that refusal. Petitioner submitted to a blood test after the police warned her that failure to do so would expose her to a mandatory minimum jail sentence if she were convicted. In a 4-3 decision, a majority of the Maine Supreme Court held that Maine’s impliedconsent statute did not impose “criminal penalties’ because it did not create a separate, independent charge for refusing to submit to testing. Therefore, the court reasoned, Petitioner’s consent was voluntary and not induced by unconstitutional coercion. This holding conflicts with the decisions of three other state courts. Only one other state court has agreed with Maine, in an unpublished opinion. The Question Presented is: Does a motorist voluntarily consent to a warrantless blood draw if she has been warned that refusal to submit will result in a mandatory minimum period of incarceration upon conviction? i