Police in Ohio soon will have more authority to force suspected drunken drivers with multiple DUI convictions to take blood and urine tests.

The bill, expected to be signed into law later this week by Gov. Ted Strickland, would affect drivers with at least two convictions for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The law to take effect in late September will give Ohio police more leeway than most states.

Authorities must now obtain a warrant from a judge to test for alcohol or drugs on drivers who do not initially give their consent.

A few other states require mandatory blood testing, according to statistics compiled by the Associated Press, but only when there has been a fatal crash, a crash with life-threatening injuries, or when police have probable cause that a driver is intoxicated.

Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh, who worked extensively on the bill with its sponsor, state Sen. Timothy Grendell, R-Chesterland, said she believes it will ''significantly help deter repeat offenders from continuing to drive drunk on our roadways.''

Historically, Walsh said, drivers who did not consent to a Breathalyzer test received a one-year license suspension as part of the punishment.

''I do believe that, early on, that was a sufficient penalty . . . because nobody wanted to lose their license for a year,'' Walsh said. ''But as all the years have gone by and people have received more and more convictions as a repeat offender, this penalty became meaningless, so there was no incentive to take the test.''

In the past three years in Summit County, for example, Walsh said her office prosecuted 17 drivers involved in fatal crashes and more than 100 with five or more DUI convictions.

Of those, about 90 percent did not consent to take the Breathalyzer test, Walsh said.

''Our position on that is they are withholding key evidence of a crime, and it is not unconstitutional to do a mandatory test or a mandatory blood draw,'' Walsh said.

Grendell, speaking in Columbus, said that a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision provided a solid legal basis for the legislation.

In its 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that authorities did not need a warrant to compel a driver suspected of drunken driving to give a blood sample.

Civil liberties advocates, however, said the new measure is unconstitutional and that they expect legal challenges to it once it is enforced.

Jeffrey Gamso, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said that requiring a warrant is the proper way for the judicial system to work.

''If it were really hard to get a warrant, it would be one thing,'' Gamso said. ''But they can get a warrant in a hurry. There's always a judge on duty.''

Prominent defense lawyer Robert J. Fitrakis of Columbus likened the new measure to ''Gitmo for Ohio,'' referring to the short name for Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where the U.S. has held alleged terrorists.

Fitrakis said the bill is ''a reflection of what's going on in our nation. I would just pray we can restore some balance here and realize that we already have protections in place. I mean, what about probable cause?

''For God's sake, police officers are well trained in Ohio. We have laws in place, and they already know when somebody needs a blood test or a Breathalyzer test,'' Fitrakis said.

''We have a whole system of checks and balances,'' he said. ''We don't need an executive to take away the power of the courts.''

Walsh disputed those contentions. She pointed to the numbers for multiple drunken driving convictions in Ohio.

''We are seeing way too many repeat offenders on the road,'' Walsh said.

Through 2006, she said, statistics compiled by the state's Department of Highway Safety showed that 38,156 drivers had five or more DUI convictions.