Docket nos. 14–1468 Opinion announcement Opinion announcement End date June 23, 2016 | Argument Oral argument Location United States of America | |
 | ||
Full case name Danny Birchfield, Petitioner v. North Dakota Citations 579 U.S. ___ (more)
136 S. Ct. 2160 Prior history On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota Similar Utah v Strieff, Betterman v Montana, Foster v Chatman, Riley v California, Luis v United States | ||
The fourth amendment and drunk driving birchfield v north dakota
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.
Contents
Birchfield v north dakota oral argument april 20 2016
Background
Birchfield was a consolidation of three cases: Birchfield v. North Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Beylund v. Levi. Birchfield was charged with violation of a North Dakota statute for refusing submission to a blood alcohol content testing; Bernard was charged with a violation of a Minnesota statute for refusing submission to a breath alcohol testing; Beylund underwent a blood alcohol test consistent with North Dakota's implied consent law and challenged the constitutionality of that law after an administrative hearing based on the test results led to the revocation of his license.
Issue
Is warrantless alcohol testing incident to drunk driving arrests to determine blood alcohol content a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Decision
The Court ruled in favor of Birchfield and Beylund and against Bernard. The Court held that both breath tests and blood tests constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court then proceeded to analyze both types of tests under the search incident to arrest doctrine, weighing on the one hand "the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy" and on the other hand "the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Applied to breath tests, the Court concluded that breath tests do not implicate significant privacy concerns. Blood tests, on the other hand, are significantly more intrusive. Turning to the government's interest in the tests, the Court concluded that serves the very important function of providing an incentive to cooperate in alcohol testing. Weighing these interests, the Court concluded that requiring breath tests is constitutional, however, requiring blood tests is not, as the goal of traffic safety can be obtained by less invasive means (such as breath tests).