By: Derek Hawkins//June 28, 2016//
US Supreme Court
Case Name: Birchfield v. North Dakota
Case No.: 14-1468
Focus: Warrantless Search – Blood Tests
The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests.
“The search-incident-to-arrest doctrine has an ancient pedigree that predates the Nation’s founding, and no historical evidence suggests that the Fourth Amendment altered the permissible bounds of arrestee searches. The mere “fact of the lawful arrest” justifies “a full search of the person.” United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 235. The doctrine may also apply in situations that could not have been envisioned when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. In Riley v. California, 573 U. S. ___, the Court considered how to apply the doctrine to searches of an arrestee’s cell phone. Because founding era guidance was lacking, the Court determined “whether to exempt [the] search from the warrant requirement ‘by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’ ” Id., at ___. The same mode of analysis is proper here because the founding era provides no definitive guidance on whether blood and breath tests should be allowed incident to arrest”
Vacated and Remanded
CONCURRING: SOTOMAYOR, THOMAS, GINSBURG
DISSENTING: SOTOMAYOR, THOMAS, GINSBURG