Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard

Background

Three drivers challenged state laws that make it a crime to refuse testing after a lawful arrest for drunk driving. One North Dakota driver refused a blood draw and was convicted; a Minnesota driver refused a breath test and was convicted; a second North Dakota driver consented to a blood draw but later challenged whether his consent was voluntary. The cases asked whether police may demand breath or blood tests without a judge’s warrant after arrest.

Reasoning

The Court examined how intrusive each test is and how important the tests are for public safety. It concluded that breath tests are a minor physical intrusion and reveal only blood-alcohol level, so they are reasonable as a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Blood draws, however, pierce the skin, are significantly more intrusive, and provide a sample that can be preserved and further tested; the Court held blood draws generally require a warrant. The Court also held that drivers cannot be treated as having consented to criminal punishment for refusing a warrantless blood draw.

Real world impact

After this decision, police may demand and criminally enforce refusals of breath tests incident to arrest, but states may not criminally punish refusal of a blood draw unless officers first obtain a warrant or show a recognized emergency. States may still suspend licenses or use other penalties and can seek warrants or rely on exigent circumstances when appropriate. The Court reversed the blood-refusal conviction, affirmed the breath-refusal conviction, and sent the consent issue back to the state court for further review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor dissented as to breath tests, arguing warrants should generally be required unless a case-specific emergency exists; Justice Thomas would rely more broadly on exigent-circumstances rules.