CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo

AfterTheTrial.com... Because There’s Hope After the Trial

BLOG

After The Trial Blog

The After The Trial blog presents insights on ongoing and recent trials around the state of Alabama, including weekly criminal law round-ups.

US Supreme Court Update - Birchfield v. ND

J.D. Lloyd - Friday, June 24, 2016


Birchfield v. North Dakota

Bernard v. North Dakota

Beylund v. North Dakota

 

Summary: During a DUI stop, the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to administer a warrantless breath test as a search incident to arrest, but does not allow for warrantless blood tests as a search incident to arrest. As such, because a warrantless blood draw as a search incident to arrest is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, the State cannot criminalize the refusal to submit to warrantless blood draws as search incident to arrest under implied consent laws.

 

Background

Every state has some form of “implied consent” law to help law enforcement investigate whether a driver is driving drunk. An “implied consent”  requires a driver to submit to blood-alcohol content (BAC) testing. If you refuse, you could be subject to administrative penalties. In Alabama, you could have your license suspended or be forced to install an Interlock device that tests your breath for alcohol when you start your car.

 

North Dakota’s implied consent law took things a step further: if you refused to submit to breath or blood testing, you could be prosecuted criminally. At the heart of these DUI cases are three questions: (1) Can police force you to submit to a warrantless breath test as a search incident to a DUI arrest? (2) Can police force you to submit to a warrantless blood draw as a search incident to a DUI arrest? (3) Can a state criminalize the refusal of either under its implied consent law?

 

Birchfield was convicted after refusing to submit to a warrantless blood test. Birchfield argued that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourth Amendment prohibited criminalizing his refusal. Bernard was prosecuted for refusing to submit to a warrantless breath test and appealed the constitutionality of the search and criminal prosecution for refusing the breath test. Beylund consented to the blood draw after police told him he had to submit. Beylund appealed the voluntariness of his consent to the draw and the ND Supreme Court affirmed.


REVERSED

 

The Fourth Amendment allows police officers to conduct warrantless searches as incident to a lawful arrest. In the context of a DUI, the Court concluded that law enforcement may order you to submit to a breath test to check BAC as a lawful warrantless search incident to arrest. In the Court’s view, a breath test does not “implicate significant privacy concerns;” however, a blood test does implicate “significant privacy concerns” as it is obviously more intrusive to a suspect’s body. Because of the greater privacy concern and because breath testing is a less-intrusive alternative to check BAC, police cannot conduct a warrantless blood draw as a search incident to arrest. The Court left open the possibility that other warrant exceptions could apply.

 

The Court then applied this holding to the three cases at hand. For Birchfield, the Court said a warrantless draw of Birchfield’s blood would be unconstitutional, so he could not be prosecuted for refusing an unconstitutional search. For Bernard, the Court concluded that the police did not have to get a warrant to force him to submit to a breath test, so the warrantless search was proper under the Fourth Amendment, and thus, his prosecution was constitutional. For Beylund, the Court remanded the case back to the ND SC to determine whether his consent to the blood draw was voluntary given the inaccuracy of the police officer’s instruction.

 

OTHER OPINIONS

 

Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg would have held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits both breath tests and blood draws as searches incident to lawful arrest. Justice Thomas, on the other hand, would have held that the Fourth Amendment allows both breath tests and blood draws as searches incident to lawful arrest.

 

 

If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.



 


Recent Posts


Tags

brendan dassey court of criminal appeal releases fourth amendment forced isolation church robberies montgomery alabama implied consent baldwin county alabama 28 U.S.C. § 2254 capital offenses hoax destructive devices West Alabama fake kidnapping, court systems, assault blountsville alabama mobile alabama car accident lauderdale county alabama morgan county alabama sixth amendment hanceville alabama unlawful manufacturing towles v state concealed carry smith v state Etowah County Alabama, Samuel Alito aziz sayyed mcwilliams v dunn alabama supreme court dekalb county alabama brookside alabama Guy Terrell Junior kenneth eugene billups marion county eric sterling sentencing law and policy blog summaries asia mcclain Eutaw Alabama shooting death mike gilotti mccalla alabama banville v state Gardendale Alabama serial fraud texas judicial override ex parte briseno drug busts Neil Gorsuch mulga alabama 2016 election, shoplifting Thomas Hardiman bernard v north dakota armed robbery operation bullseye greene county alabama huntsville alabama illegal gambling domestic violence the mannequin challenge Ingmire v State hoover alabama pinson alabama moving violations jerry bohannon Tommy Arthur robberies fairfield alabama, Walker County Alabama Easter birmingham alabama making a murderer shelby county sarah koenig OJ Simpson Made in America mount olive alabama Rule 32 US Supreme Court Update scotus boaz alabama tarrant alabama alfonso morris domestic abuse ferguson missouri adger alabama pruitt v state state of arizona sheffield v state endangerment of a child Dylann Roof OJ Simpson department of justice constitutional violations Stephen Breyer brady v maryland Sardis Alabama Donald Trump, pell city alabama keith v state constitutional law, debtor prison midazolam Jefferson County Alabama ake v oklahoma gun rights aiding and abetting hall v florida strickland v washington hurst mandamus florence alabama russell calhoun avondale alabama christian guitierez mountain brook alabama npr executions birchfield v north dakota rainbow city alabama calhoun county alabama homicide rate Pleasant Grove Alabama death penalty, springville alabama Hillary Clinton, limestone county alabama editorial sexual assault parole breaking and entering self defense eugene lee jones v state christmas shooting bessemer alabama capital punishment Joshua Reese edwards v arizona eleventh circuit ruling oneonta alabama john earle redfearn IV v state public assistance fraud state of alabama decatur alabama levins v state ring v arizona trussville alabama blount county alabama economic growth kidnapping criminal justice Briarwood Presbyterian Church alabama law enforcement agency arson negligent homicide Adamsville alabama New York Times drug activity stanley brent chapman nicholas hawkins moore v texas Woods v State clarence thomas second amendment theft of property fraudulent checks gun control narcotics investigation nathan woods steve avery street racing foley alabama gadsden alabama murder illegal gun carry lamar county warrantless blood draws road rage bomb threat cullman alabama albertville alabama homicide Fentanyl social media drug seizure Kay Ivey drug trafficking, Alabaster alabama Benn v State Alonzo Ephraim talladega superspeedway Kareem Dacar Gaymon criminal justice reform, Xavier Beasley § 13A-3-23(d) immunity hearing § 13A-3-23 shooting animal cruelty adnan syed, crime of passion criminal mischief lethal injection drugs burglary attempted murder felony assaults heflin alabama eighth amendment, fultondale alabama dora alabama netflix bailey v us anniston alabama, lethal injection peyton pruitt Marengo County Alabama heritage christian university fort payne alabama battles v state Glaze v State underage drinking benjamin todd acton brian fredick lucas abduction Shonda Walker, baltimore city circuit court madison alabama Malone v State drug possession, terell corey mcmullin maryland court of special appeals campbell v state prostitution sting William Pryor utah supreme court drug crimes death penalty legende v state abandonment morris alabama warrior alabama st clair county alabama department of justice, debit card skimming scams cherokee county alabama LWOP stoves v state hurst v florida apprendi v new jersey CCA update capital murder SCOTUS, identity theft abuse Wesley Adam Whitworth Mike Hubbard drug smuggling habeas corpus relief court of criminal appeals operation crackdown dothan alabama alabama criminal law roundup pelham alabama minor offenses kimberly alabama alabama Lucky D Arcade Tracie Todd Justice Sotomayor utah v strieff betton v state south carolina home repair fraud embezzlement tuscaloosa alabama beylund v north dakota huntsville theft brendan dassey, steve avery, making a murderer, scotus, netflix

Archive

DISCLAIMER

These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among  other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Get Free Legal Advice  Contact us for a complimentary legal consultation

I am interested in scheduling a free legal consultation and receiving additional information.

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Thank you, your  entry has been  received.

© 2017 The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |

 

As required by Rule 7.2(e), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.