The case is State v. Bernard. It's a published decision, which means that the lower courts (such as the ones I spend all my time working in) are required to follow the holding in the case. And what was that holding? Well, here it is:
"The state is not constitutionally precluded from criminalizing a suspected drunk driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test under circumstances in which the requesting officer had grounds to have obtained a constitutionally reasonable nonconsensual chemical test by securing and executing a warrant requiring the driver to submit to testing."
Let's pull out the important pieces of that extremely wordy sentence and break it down. "The state is not constitutionally precluded from criminalizing...refusal to submit...under circumstances in which the requesting officer had grounds to have obtained...a warrant."
Okay. What does that mean, exactly?