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

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

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.