Driving in most if not all states is a privilege and the state is free to revoke that privilege as it sees fit, e.g. refusing a sobriety test. However the right to regulate a privilege does not trump an individuals right not to incriminate himself. Drunk driving is universally considered a felony and will result in the loss of money and or freedom upon conviction therefore the accused must have all constitutional rights afforded to them.

The idea that an abridgment of rights is OK b/c "I have nothing to hide" is a dangerous premise. Sooner or later someone will push a law intruding on something even the most devout MADD member considers out of bounds and the law will be justified b/c it "protects society" or is "good for children" or some such verbiage. The question then is who does our hypothetical MADD member look to for help?

Drunk drivers are a menace and I have no problems whatsoever with harsh treatment after conviction but before conviction they must be afforded the same presumption of innocence that all US citizens have. Rights are not conditional.