Breithaupt v. Abram
Headline: Court upholds involuntary blood test taken from an unconscious crash driver, allowing states to use physician-drawn blood evidence in drunk-driving prosecutions and aiding traffic-safety enforcement.
Holding: The Court held that a blood sample taken by a physician from an unconscious crash driver does not, by itself, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee and thus may be admitted in the state criminal trial.
- Allows physician-drawn blood tests from unconscious drivers to be used in state trials.
- Eases prosecutors’ use of scientific alcohol evidence in fatal crash prosecutions.
- Leaves open challenge if blood draws are performed violently or incompetently.
Summary
Background
A pickup-truck driver was in a highway crash that killed three people. At the hospital the driver was unconscious, smelled of liquor, and a nearly empty whiskey bottle was found in his truck. A state patrolman asked a doctor to draw about 20 cubic centimeters of blood from the unconscious man; the sample later tested about .17% alcohol. The blood-test result was admitted at trial over the driver’s objection, and he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. After state habeas proceedings failed, the case reached this Court to decide whether the involuntary blood draw violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of fair process.
Reasoning
The main question was whether taking blood from an unconscious person in these circumstances offends the community’s sense of decency and thus denies due process. The majority said no. It relied on prior decisions holding that the exclusionary rule is not automatically applied to the States and emphasized that a medically performed blood draw is not “brutal” or “offensive” when done by a physician with proper safeguards. The Court noted that blood testing is routine, that many States authorize or accept such tests, and that properly done tests serve public safety by proving intoxication (or innocence). The Court also said different facts — careless or violent extractions — might be unconstitutional.
Real world impact
The decision permits states to admit physician-performed blood alcohol tests taken from unconscious drivers in criminal prosecutions, making it easier for prosecutors and police to rely on scientific evidence in fatal-crash and drunk-driving cases. It also leaves open that improperly done or invasive procedures could still be struck down.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices dissented, arguing Rochin’s “shocks the conscience” standard should forbid any involuntary extraction of body fluids to obtain evidence, whether or not the suspect is conscious or resists, and would have reversed the conviction.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?