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

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

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.