Warrant or No Warrant? Your Rights
Three key Supreme Court cases discuss the need for a warrant when police require a suspect to submit to blood and breath tests. The first addresses the amount of force used to compel a test, and the second two discuss whether a warrant is required for blood versus breath testing in DUI cases.
Use of Force and Warrants
In the case of Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), the Supreme Court considered whether police may force a suspect to turn over evidence without a warrant. The facts are harrowing: sheriffs entered a man’s home without a warrant and saw capsules on a table inside. After the man grabbed the capsules and swallowed them, a deputy forced his fingers down the man’s throat while holding him by the neck. The sheriffs then took him to the hospital, where he was strapped down and had a tube forced down his throat, causing him to vomit up the capsules. He tried to suppress the capsules (which contained morphine) as evidence at trial but was convicted.
The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, arguing that the brutality of the means used to obtain the evidence “shocks the conscience” and thus violates the right to due process. The Court compared the sheriffs’ use of physical force on the suspect to obtain the evidence to using physical force to obtain a verbal confession. In DUI cases, police often use force on suspects when taking blood and breath tests, so the “shocks the conscious” standard is very relevant.
Blood and Breath Tests: Do Police Need a Warrant?
In Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), a driver arrested for DUI refused breath and blood tests. The arresting officer did not attempt to get a warrant, instead instructing hospital personnel to extract blood from the driver. The driver sought to have the blood test results suppressed as evidence. The Supreme Court agreed that officers seeking blood tests without consent should obtain warrants, absent exigent circumstances. Alcohol concentration lessening over time is generally not exigent circumstances, according to the Court, absent further facts. Instead, courts should evaluate the totality of the circumstances in considering whether a warrant was needed.
Following up on the result in McNeely, the Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. __ (2016) ruled that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless blood tests, but it permits warrantless breath tests. In the majority opinion, the Court said that breath tests only slightly invade privacy, whereas blood tests are much more intrusive. The Court used the “search incident to arrest” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in its analysis. The exception permits a search of a suspect’s body and vicinity after a lawful arrest without a warrant. Supreme Court justices hearing the case had significant differences of opinion on whether breath tests should require warrants. While the majority said no, others argued that having two different standards for tests both used to measure alcohol intoxication distorts the search incident to arrest exception.
If you need representation in an Oklahoma court for a DUI charge, seek out the attorney who teaches other attorneys and law enforcement about sobriety testing techniques. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, may be able to challenge gas chromatography testing for you. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.