therefore “is repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. Similarly, in Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938), the Court struck down as facially invalid a local ordinance that required a license to distribute any literature and gave the chief of police the power to deny a license. 303 U.S. at 451-52, 58 S.Ct. 666. The Court held that the ordinance “strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship.” Id. at 451, 58 S.Ct. 666. In New York State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, however, the Supreme Court declined to find a law facially unconstitutional because plaintiffs could not establish that the law was unconstitutional in all of its applicati 848, 855 (Minn.1991) (<HOLDING>). Those who support this view conclude that the
holding blood testing for alcohol content a search holding that blood alcohol content almost 30 over the limit together with testimony of intoxication at the time of driving was sufficient to convict contrasting a case in which the blood alcohol content was just barely over the limit which was insufficient to convict holding a minnesota statute that required police to advise drivers that they were not permitted to consult with an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit to or refuse blood alcohol content testing and one that imposed criminal penalties on individuals who refused to submit to blood alcohol testing within five years of a prior drivers license revocation unconstitutional as applied holding search of blood alcohol tests not permitted under section 1547 where suspect under arrest and police did not request testing holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content