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

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

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.