Thomas v. New York

Background

In this case a state statute allowed a person’s refusal to submit to a blood test to be admitted as evidence about inebriation. The New York Court of Appeals found that refusal admissible and upheld the statute. The appeal from the Appellate Term of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, was dismissed by the Supreme Court for want of a substantial federal question. The opinion cites other state cases reaching the same outcome (Commonwealth v. Robinson; State v. Meints) and also cites contrary state decisions (Dudley v. State; State v. Andrews).

Reasoning

The central question was whether admitting a person’s refusal to take a blood test violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled testimonial incrimination. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and therefore did not decide that constitutional question on the merits. The opinion text shows a clear split among state courts: some allow admission of refusal evidence, and others hold it inadmissible. Justice White, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the dismissal because of that conflict among state courts.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined review, the New York court’s ruling and similar state-court outcomes remain in effect in those States. The disagreement among States about whether refusal evidence is allowed remains unresolved and continues to produce different results for people in different States. The dismissal leaves the broader constitutional question unsettled at the national level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the Court’s decision to dismiss and urged review to settle the Fifth Amendment issue.