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

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

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.