Supreme Court Cases About Taking Blood Samples

Blood samples taken from suspected drunk drivers have been the topic of several high-profile Supreme Court cases. Defendants have challenged whether compelled blood samples violate the Fifth Amendment and whether evidence of refusal to take a blood test violates the Fifth Amendment. In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government.

In the case of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), a drunk driving suspect was arrested while in the hospital receiving treatment for injuries. At the hospital, a police officer ordered a doctor to take the driver’s blood sample. The sample was used as evidence, and the driver was convicted of drunk driving. The driver challenged the conviction, arguing that use of the forced blood test results as evidence at trial violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Essentially, the driver wanted the Court to agree that ordering a blood sample that could incriminate the defendant is like ordering the defendant to give testimony that could incriminate him.

The Court disagreed with the driver, stating that the privilege against self-incrimination applies only to compelled communications or testimony, not physical evidence like blood. The blood sample test results were not “testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner” so they were “not inadmissible on privilege grounds.” Id. at 765. Notably, blood test results may be inadmissible for other reasons besides privilege – such as improper evidence handling or faulty equipment.

The case of South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) resulted from slightly different facts than Schmerber. A driver was arrested and asked to submit to a blood alcohol test. Officers warned the driver that he could lose his license but not that his refusal could be used against him at trial. Because he was not warned that his refusal could be used against him, the driver asked the trial court to suppress evidence of the refusal.

Lower courts granted the driver’s request on the grounds that admitting evidence of the refusal would violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court disagreed. It stated that the driver’s refusal to take a blood alcohol test was lawfully requested, was not coerced by a police officer, and thus was legitimate. As a result, the refusal was not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination and could be introduced as evidence at trial. It was not fundamentally unfair to use the refusal as evidence of guilt despite the police’s failure to warn the driver that it could be so used, so there was no due process violation.

Although the Court found in favor of the government in both Schmerber and Neville, not every blood testing case goes against the defendant. See Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), discussed in a previous blog post, in which the Court found that officers seeking blood tests without consent should obtain warrants, absent exigent circumstances.

Have you been charged with a DUI in Oklahoma and don’t know where to turn? Seek out the attorney who knows the system. 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, has the experience and the insight to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.