Question not identified.

1. This Court has repeatedly held that the government may not confer a benefit conditioned on the waiver of a constitutional right. A blood draw is a highly intrusive invasion of bodily integrity for which a warrant is generally required. Under Georgia’s implied consent statute, a driver arrested for driving under the influence who refuses to consent to a blood draw has his driver’s license suspended for at least a year and the refusal may be used as evidence of guilt at a criminal trial. Does the Georgia statute violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine? 2. Consent is one of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment ’s warrant requirement. This Court has repeatedly held that , to be valid , consent must be given voluntarily and not as a result of duress or coercion . Under the Georgia implied consent statute, a driver who refuses to consent to a blood draw faces an automatic suspension of his driver’s license of at least one year and having his refusal admitted as evidence of guilt at a criminal trial . Are these substantial adverse consequences of refusal to consent impermissibly coerc ive so as to render consent involuntary?