In South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) the Supreme Court held that a state's failure to specifically warn a DUI suspect that his refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test could be used against him at trial did not violate due process, since the right to refuse the test was a matter of legislative grace bestowed by the South Dakota Legislature. The Supreme Court held that a driver is not coerced into testifying against himself in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the state uses his refusal against him at trial. The Court concluded that the driver was given the choice between submitting and refusing, and although it was "not . . . an easy or pleasant choice for a suspect to make," it was "not an act coerced by the officer." Id. South Dakota v. Neville, was a Fifth Amendment case, the Court stated that a license-revocation "penalty for refusing to take a blood- alcohol test under an implied consent statute similar to Arizona's is unquestionably legitimate, assuming appropriate procedural protections." The Court further explained: The simple blood-alcohol test is so safe, painless, and commonplace, see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), that respondent concedes, as he must, that the state could legitimately compel the suspect, against his will, to accede to the test. Given, then, that the offer of taking a blood-alcohol test is clearly legitimate, the action becomes no less legitimate when the State offers a second option of refusing the test, with the attendant penalties for making that choice. Nor is this a case where the State has subtly coerced respondent into choosing the option it had no right to compel, rather than offering a true choice. To the contrary, the State wants respondent to choose to take the test, for the inference of intoxication arising from a positive blood-alcohol test is far stronger than that arising from a refusal to take the test.