Regarding the signing of the form before needle injection, that is a "unilateral contract of adhesion." It is written by one party, and the other party must sign it without any changes -- take it or leave it.

These contracts are not a "meeting of the minds," because there was no negotiation of any of the terms. They are a form of coercion, by nature.

The needle injection ones, in particular, were also done via fraud, inasmuch as they were based on claims ("safe and effective") that were not true. Therefore, these contracts should be considered unenforceable.

To avoid self-incrimination by the suspect ...

There is nothing in the Constitution about self-incrimination. That is Hollywood and Congress (Hollywood for ugly people).

The Constitution says a right to not be a witness against one's self. That may or may not be something that could be construed as incriminating.

objective symptoms of intoxication

These claims are always subjective, never objective.

if at any time the suspect makes any unsolicited spontaneous utterance(s) like bragging or snitching

Idiots get what they deserve.

Is your 9th Amendment reference based on Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)?

No, just the clear language of the amendment. All rights that an individual had at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, still apply for all of posterity. That would include bodily autonomy.

Anytime you get into something that touches on abortion, you have a more murky area, because you have to first determine if the fetus has rights.

But other than abortion, we all have rights that existed in 1787, and still exist today. It is no surprise that the 9th Amendment is the one that the courts do not want to talk about.

Regarding the signing of the form before needle injection, that is a "unilateral contract of adhesion." It is written by one party, and the other party must sign it without any changes -- take it or leave it.

These contracts are not a "meeting of the minds," because there was no negotiation of any of the terms. They are a form of coercion, by nature.

The needle injection ones, in particular, were also done via fraud, inasmuch as they were based on claims ("safe and effective") that were not true. Therefore, these contracts should be considered unenforceable.

To avoid self-incrimination by the suspect ...

There is nothing in the Constitution about self-incrimination. That is Hollywood and Congress (Hollywood for ugly people).

The Constitution says a right to not be a witness against one's self. That may or may not be something that could be construed as incriminating.

objective symptoms of intoxication

These claims are always subjective, never objective.

if at any time the suspect makes any unsolicited spontaneous utterance(s) like bragging or snitching

Idiots get what they deserve.

Is your 9th Amendment reference based on Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)?

No, just the clear language of the amendment. All rights that an individual had at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, still apply for all of posterity. That would include bodily autonomy.

Anytime you get into something that touches on abortion, you have a more murky area, because you have to first determine if the fetus has rights.

But other than abortion, we all have rights that existed in 1787, and still exist today. It is no suprise that the 9th Amendment is the one that the courts do not want to talk about.