The most likely scenario:
you crashed your car after drinking, you managed to leave before the police found you; but they caught you 2 hours after, and they now have the right to request an alcohol test
I think it is fair, in court you might prove that you drank after the crash, that you were not drunk at the time, if there is reasonable evidence
In a case like that, they have a "probable cause" to demand a test. I don't think that is any different than it ever was. It shouldn't be up to citizens to prove we weren't drinking. It should be up to the "state" to prove that we were. A blood test 2 hours after an accident doesn't prove you were drunk at the time of the accident. In cases like that, the prosecutors would also need to show evidence (witnesses, credit card receipts) that you were in fact drinking prior to the accident.
My understanding of this new law is that a cop can demand a breathalyzer without reason. In other words, you could be stopped for a minor speaking infraction and without any reason to believe you were drinking (smell, slurred speech etc) demand a breath test. On the surface, this seems harmless, but what concerns me is that it's the thin edge of the wedge. If this is ok, then is searching your trunk ok because you were speeding. If you run a red light, is it going to be ok for the cops to follow you home and search your home?
My other concern is that roadside breath analyzers are notoriously inaccurate. That's why they are primarily used to either "browbeat" you into leaving your vehicle or going to the station for a blood test. Both of with are potentially major pains in the ass. So to be clear, if you've been drinking, great. But for tests that result from random stops, it's just a huge interference with our rights.
I am no fan of drunk driving. I barely drink at all, period. I do however, cherish my right to move about without police interference. Not because I'm driving around with a body in my trunk, but because the Constitution says I can do that. This small change in the law opens the door for great police powers.
I can't imagine that this won't be challenged in court and it should be overturned.