order violated his rights pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). Garrity holds that “the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained [from a police officer] under threat of removal from office.” Garrity, 385 U.S. at 500, 87 S.Ct. 616. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right protected in Garrity, however, is the privilege to be free from being compelled to communicate or otherwise provide testimony. Giving a blood or urine sample for drug testing does not violate that privilege. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); see also Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131, 1144 (Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>). Garrity simply has no application in this
holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements holding that reports of chemical analyses were testimonial in nature and subject to the confrontation clause requirements holding recording of eyewitnesss inculpatory statement made in custodial interrogation testimonial in nature holding toxicological samples are not evidence of a testimonial nature