Whether a motorist's assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence?

QUESTION PRESENTED The petitioner, a Pennsylvania motorist, refused to submit to a warrantless blood test. Petitioner was charged with driving under the influence, and his refusal was used at trial as evidence of guilt. A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that statutory implied consent permits a State to use Petitioner’s exercise of his Fourth Amendment right against him, despite this Court’s holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 8. Ct. 2160 (2016), recognizing a constitutional right to refuse to consent to a warrantless blood test. The question presented is: Whether a motorist’s assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence? ey)