believe a saliva procedure involves a ‘serious intrusion upon personal security’ ") (citation omitted); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 318-19 (Wyo.1999); cf. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assoc., 489 U.S. 602, 625, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1417, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (intrusions such as blood and urine tests are "not significant”); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1836, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (stating that extraction of blood samples “are a commonplace in these days of periodic physical examination and experience with them teaches that the quantity of blood extracted is minimal, and that for most people the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain”) (footnote omitted); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 762, 105 S.Ct. 1611, 1617, 84 L.Ed.2d 662 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The amount of information seized pursuant to
holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records holding that blood tests do not infringe significant privacy interests recognizing that settlement discussions do not constitute an offer of judgment recognizing that schmerber stated that societys judgment that blood tests do not constitute an unduly extensive imposition on an individuals privacy and bodily integrity holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted