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

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

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.