I had read the Wikipedia summary, which gave me a decent idea of the general shape of the case.

Having now read the opinion, I don't think my initial estimate of the case from Wikipedia was far off. Modulo the specific details of Colorado law (and similar must-arrest laws across many states), for which down thread I do say the dissent makes a convincing case on those merits. But that doesn't have much bearing on my original main point, but rather just how I might have made that point.

BTW what prompted you to chime in this way instead of continuing to read the thread and seeing I did go on to read the primary source?