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

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

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.