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

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

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.