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

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

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.