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

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

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.