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

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