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

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

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.