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

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

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.