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

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

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.