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

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

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.