Mandatory Blood Tests Violate the Fourth Amendment

States cannot require blood tests as part of their implied-consent laws to determine a drunk driver’s BAC when criminal penalties are imposed for refusing to take a test

Birchfield v. North Dakota, U.S., No. 14-1468, 6/23/16.

   This decision combines three similar cases that involve searches incident to an arrest resulting from drunk driving. In each of the three cases, the laws of the state in which they were arrested had implied consent laws that obligated a driver to agree to a BAC test as a condition of driving. The drivers in the three cases were subjected and informed of their respective states’ implied consent laws after being found to be intoxicated by a police officer. One refused a blood test and was charged with a misdemeanor according to the state law. Another agreed to a breath test, failed, and was further prosecuted. Another agreed to a blood test, failed the blood test, and was also further prosecuted. In all three cases, the drivers appealed their convictions on the ground that the warrantless BAC tests were unreasonable and violated their Fourth Amendment rights because of the criminal penalties associated with the implied consent laws.

   The Court began by establishing the reasonableness of searches-incident-to-arrest. It then continued by discussing how breath and blood tests implicate the Fourth Amendment, but noting that breath tests do not “implicate significant privacy concerns.” Further into the opinion, the Court elaborated on breath tests, finding them to be as intrusive as or even less intrusive than other tests that have been upheld under the Fourth Amendment, including mouth swabs and fingernail scrapings. The Court found that breath tests also limit the amount of information measured and are no more of an embarrassing act than blowing into a straw. The opinion also found that blood tests are more intrusive than a breath test, pointing to how such tests provide more information than a breath reading and are more embarrassing because of how they induce anxiety for some.

   In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court found “that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving,” explaining that a breath test’s impact on privacy is minimal and the need for BAC testing is great. For blood tests, however, the Court reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the blood tests are overly intrusive in light of alternatives, making them unreasonable without a warrant. Drivers could not be criminally punished for refusing a blood test based on an implied-consent law, but a breath test can be used without a warrant, allowing for their use in states with implied-consent laws.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf.