It might be a little premature to get too worked up over this just yet.
We need a little more info, I think.
Refusing a breathylizer is only one step in the process as I understand and estimate the state of the law. My understandings and guesses:
First the cop needs some level of suspicion of DUI--I don't know which: probable cause or RAS--before requesting the breathylizer.
Then, I wouldn't think mere refusal of a blow creates probable cause in and of itself. I would think the judge or magistrate would need to hear the (PC or RAS).
Basically, I'm thinking the only change is having the judge on-site to issue the warrant, rather than the cops having to drive to get in front of him and give an affidavit.
However, all my analysis falls apart if in fact a refusal means an automatic warrant. So, what we really need is to find out the actual state of the law in Florida.
For example, in VA, as I understand it, if the cop has PC and the driver refuses, "implied consent" means a blood sample is next. If that is refused, then the driver automatically loses his operator permit for a period. But, it sounds like Florida might not have that. Otherwise, why need a warrant?
If the news story implications are true, essentially the cops and judge are re-writing law that should be handled by the state legislature. The cops and judge are moving the line by changing process.
But, I don't quite trust the news story that any refusal automatically translates into a blood sample. I'm thinking it would be smart to find out a little more.
Of course, it never hurts to howl and let government know some people still "snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."
PS: I would like to see legislation giving the driver recourse for a blood sample that comes back negative. I beleive triple damages was the rule in some localities back in colonial days for a trespass arising from a warrant that lacked sufficient probable cause. Even the magistrate who issued the warrant was liable:
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm