State v. Birchfield, 2015 ND 6

On Oct. 10, 2013, Birchfield drove into a ditch; a trooper observed signs of intoxication, he failed field sobriety tests, and a preliminary breath test read .254.
Birchfield was arrested, given the implied-consent advisory, and refused further chemical testing.
He was charged under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01 (criminalizing refusal to submit to chemical testing) and moved to dismiss on Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8 grounds.
The district court denied the motion; Birchfield entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether criminalizing test refusal violates federal or state search-and-seizure protections and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01 (criminal refusal) is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8	State: statute is a reasonable regulation of the driving privilege, advances strong state interest in preventing drunk driving, and is a permissible legal tool to deter refusal	Birchfield: statute unlawfully conditions driving privilege on waiver of Fourth Amendment rights and criminalizes exercising right to refuse a search	Court: statute is reasonable, does not violate the Fourth Amendment or state counterpart; criminalizing refusal is permissible
Whether statute is unconstitutional as applied to Birchfield	State: application here followed probable-cause arrest and advisories; refusal did not trigger an unconstitutional search	Birchfield: applying the statute here violated his rights because no chemical search was performed and coercion principles apply	Court: as applied to Birchfield, statute is constitutional; no Fourth Amendment violation affirmed

Burnett v. Municipality of Anchorage, 806 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1986) (upholding criminal refusal statute against Fourth Amendment challenge)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw at DUI arrest justified under exigent circumstances)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is not a per se exigency; exigency assessed by totality of circumstances)
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (use of refusal evidence against defendant does not violate Fifth Amendment)
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (warrantless, suspicionless administrative searches of homes cannot be criminally enforced)
Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980) (government choices that discourage assertion of rights are not per se unconstitutional)
Brooks v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013) (upholding Minnesota implied-consent/criminal-refusal scheme as constitutionally permissible)
State v. Murphy, 527 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 1995) (drivers have only a conditional right to refuse chemical tests; penalties as condition of driving privilege)
State v. Smith, 849 N.W.2d 599 (N.D. 2014) (implied-consent advisories do not render consent involuntary)