Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
136 S. Ct. 2160
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- All 50 States use implied-consent regimes to obtain blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) evidence; some states (e.g., North Dakota, Minnesota) make refusal a crime.
- Three consolidated cases: Birchfield (ND) refused blood draw and was criminally prosecuted; Bernard (MN) refused a breath test and was prosecuted; Beylund (ND) consented to blood draw after being told refusal was a crime and lost his license administratively.
- Central legal question: when, if ever, may police administer warrantless blood or breath tests incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving consistent with the Fourth Amendment?
- The Court applies the search-incident-to-arrest framework (and Riley balancing where founding-era guidance is lacking) to compare privacy intrusion against governmental needs.
- Holding (majority): warrantless breath tests incident to a lawful arrest are permissible; warrantless blood draws are not categorically permissible and cannot be criminalized under implied consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless breath tests incident to a lawful DUI arrest violate the Fourth Amendment | Bernard: warrantless breath tests require a warrant (or case-specific exigency) because warrants guard privacy and magistrate review is feasible | States: breath tests are minimally intrusive and the search-incident-to-arrest exception applies categorically; warrants would unduly burden enforcement | Held: Warrantless breath tests incident to lawful DUI arrests are permitted (search-incident-to-arrest) |
| Whether warrantless blood draws incident to a lawful DUI arrest violate the Fourth Amendment | Birchfield/Beylund: blood draws are intrusive and require a warrant absent exigent circumstances; criminalizing refusal is unconstitutional | States: blood draws preserve evaporative BAC evidence; more intrusive but justified without a warrant in many cases | Held: Warrantless blood draws are not permitted as searches incident to arrest; blood tests generally require a warrant or a case-specific exigency |
| Whether motorists may be criminally punished for refusing BAC tests based on implied consent | Petitioners: implied consent can impose civil/admin consequences but cannot support criminal penalties for refusing an intrusive blood test without warrant | States: implied-consent statutes make refusal a condition of driving and may criminalize refusal to ensure compliance | Held: States may not criminalize refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test based on implied consent; criminal penalties for refusal to blood draw exceed what can be implied by driving on public roads |
| Validity of Beylund’s consent when police advised refusal is a crime | Beylund: consent coerced by inaccurate advisory that blood draws are compulsory | State: advisory accurately reflected law as applied; consent was voluntary | Held: Remanded — North Dakota court must reevaluate voluntariness of Beylund’s consent because the officer’s advisory was partially inaccurate |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (administrative/for-cause testing and limited intrusions can be reasonable searches)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw upheld under exigent circumstances in hospital setting)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (no per se exigency for BAC dissipation; exigency requires case-specific analysis)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search-incident-to-arrest doctrine applies categorically to the person)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest limited to person and area within immediate control to prevent harm or evidence destruction)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (where founding-era guidance lacks, balance privacy intrusion against governmental need to determine warrant exceptions)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (DNA swab at booking is a reasonable, nonconsensual search for identification)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (standards for preserving evidence and admissibility)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (early recognition of searches incident to lawful arrest)
- Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973) (limited intrusions to preserve evidence can be reasonable searches)