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

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