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

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