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

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

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.