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

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