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

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

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.