Schmerber v. California

1966-06-20

Headline: Police may order a warrantless blood draw after a car crash; Court affirmed the drunk-driving conviction and allowed medically performed blood tests over refusal when emergency and reasonableness exist, affecting suspected intoxicated drivers.

Holding: The Court affirmed the conviction and held that a warrantless blood draw ordered by police over a suspect's refusal, performed by a physician in a hospital when exigent circumstances existed, did not violate the Constitution.

Real World Impact:

Allows warrantless blood tests when officers reasonably believe delay would destroy evidence.
Permits admission of medically performed blood-alcohol results in similar arrest circumstances.
Narrows Fifth Amendment protection for compelled physical evidence taken from the body.

Topics: drunk driving, blood testing, police searches, right to remain silent, medical privacy

Summary

Background

A man was injured in a late-night car crash and taken to a hospital. A police officer who had probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated directed a physician to withdraw a blood sample despite the man's refusal, made on his lawyer's advice. The blood analysis showing alcohol was used at trial and the defendant was convicted; California courts upheld the conviction, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether forcing a blood draw under these facts violated due process, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to counsel, or protection against unreasonable searches. The Court relied on earlier blood-draw precedent and explained that the Fifth Amendment protects compelled testimony or communicative acts, not physical evidence taken from the body. Because the blood test produced chemical, not testimonial, evidence, the Fifth Amendment did not bar it. The Sixth Amendment claim failed because counsel's advice did not create a new constitutional right to block a non-testimonial search. Under the Fourth Amendment, the Court found probable cause, an emergency concern that alcohol dissipates, and a medically acceptable procedure by hospital personnel, so a warrant was not required and the search was reasonable.

Real world impact

The decision allows police to seek blood-alcohol evidence without a warrant in situations like a recent crash when officers have probable cause and delay would likely destroy the evidence, provided the test is medically proper. The ruling is limited to the specific circumstances; more intrusive procedures, nonmedical settings, police-initiated violence, or other facts could produce a different result.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented, arguing compulsory blood extraction violated the right against self-incrimination and personal privacy. One concurrence would have said the Fifth Amendment was not implicated at all.