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

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

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.