Testing for intoxication without a warrant?

[sweeteviljesus]

In another thread abou the Travon Martin shooting, a poster posted this excerpt from, I presume, the Florida criminal code:

790.153 Tests for impairment or intoxication; right to refuse.–

(1)(a) Any person who uses a firearm within this state shall submit to an approved chemical or physical breath test to determine the alcoholic content of the blood and to a urine test to detect the presence of controlled substances, if there is probable cause to believe that the person was using a firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances or that the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while he or she was using a firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances. The breath test shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the request of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe such person was using the firearm within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The urine test shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at a detention facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such tests at the request of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe such person was using a firearm within this state while under the influence of controlled substances. The urine test shall be administered at a detention facility or any other facility, mobile or otherwise, which is equipped to administer such tests in a reasonable manner that will ensure the accuracy of the specimen and maintain the privacy of the individual involved. The administration of either test shall not preclude the administration of the other test. The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath or urine test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section shall be admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding. This section shall not hinder the taking of a mandatory blood test as outlined in s. 790.155.

It seems to be saying that there is an implicit warrant. I supposed that could be attacked it court, just like any other warrant, but it sounds to me like the police don’t have to convince a judge that probable cause exists, they just have to say it exists. What am I missing here?

Thanks,
Rob

[Rhythmdvl]

At first blush (rosé), I would think the test now, survive an attack on probable cause later, is a balance of protecting rights (PC needs to be there) with preserving evidence. The time factor in securing a warrant and all.

[DrDeth]

Was there any indications that Zimmerman was “if there is probable cause to believe that the person was using a firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances”

[curioushat]

Yes, in the same way that a driver’s license is an implicit agreement to undergo field sobriety tests.

[sweeteviljesus]

Is it? I know they can arrest you if you refuse, but if you are convicted on that evidence alone, you can’t challenge it on 5th Amendment grounds?

Thanks,
Rob