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

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

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.