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

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

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.