Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Want My Blood? Get a Warrant.

Drivers should not be punished for balking at warrantless alcohol testing.

Danny Birchfield drove his car into a ditch. Steve Beylund "nearly hit a stop sign while making a right hand turn into a driveway." William Bernard got his truck stuck in the river while trying to extract his boat. In his underwear.

These embarrassing incidents—the first two of which happened in North Dakota, the third in Minnesota—may not sound like the stuff of an inspiring legal battle. But all three cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear together, pose an important question about the balance between public safety and the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures": Under what circumstances may the state delve into a person's body, looking for evidence to use against him?

The usual answer is that the state needs a warrant issued by a judge, based on probable cause to believe the search will discover evidence of a crime. "Probable cause," a phrase used by the Fourth Amendment itself, has never been precisely defined, but it is not a very high standard. According to the Supreme Court, it may amount to no more than a "substantial chance" or a "fair probability."

Nor is getting a judge to certify probable cause much of a burden in an age of instantaneous mobile communications and electronic warrants. But police tend to take short cuts when they are available, so it is not surprising that the cops who arrested Birchfield, Beylund, and Bernard for driving under the influence (DUI) made no attempt to obtain warrants authorizing chemical testing of the alcohol in their blood.

After failing field sobriety tests, Birchfield agreed to a breath test, which indicated that he had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.25 percent, more than three times the legal limit. But he refused to surrender his blood for testing, which in North Dakota is itself a crime: a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to 30 days in jail. Birchfield conditionally pled guilty to that offense, reserving his right to appeal on constitutional grounds.

Beylund, who also did not perform well on field sobriety tests, failed to produce an adequate sample for a breath test. He heard the same "implied consent advisory" that was read to Birchfield, informing him of the penalties he could face if he did not agree to a blood test, including loss of his driver's license as well as a fine and jail. He "consented," and the test put his BAC at 0.25 percent. His license was suspended for two years based on a finding that he had driven under the influence.

Bernard, who was with two other seemingly intoxicated men the day he was arrested, insisted he had not been driving the truck that got stuck in the river. He was contradicted by several witnesses who "described him stumbling from the boat to the truck." Also he was holding the keys to the truck. Police reported that "his breath smelled of alcohol," and "he had bloodshot, watery eyes."

After Bernard refused to perform field sobriety tests, he was arrested for driving while impaired. Bernard heard Minnesota's implied consent advisory, informing him that state law "required him to take a chemical test, that refusal to take a test was a crime, and that he had a right to consult with an attorney." He nevertheless declined to take a breath test. Because he had prior drunk driving convictions, he was charged with first-degree test refusal, a felony punishable by a fine of up to $14,000 and up to seven years in prison.

All 50 states have "implied consent" laws that condition the "privilege" of driving on submission to testing in the event of a DUI arrest. In most states, test refusal does not trigger criminal penalties, but it results in license suspension and can be used as evidence against DUI defendants—a policy the Supreme Court has approved. Minnesota and North Dakota are two of 13 states that treat test refusal as a crime.

Birchfield, Beylund, and Bernard argue that threatening them with criminal penalties for refusing to submit to a warrantless search violates their Fourth Amendment rights. If a search is not valid to begin with, they say, "consent" obtained under threat of punishment cannot make it so.

In Birchfield's case, the North Dakota Supreme Court noted that he was not in fact forced to take a blood test; he was merely told what would happen should he refuse. "Consent to a chemical test," it said, "is not coerced and is not rendered involuntary merely by a law enforcement officer's reading of the implied consent advisory that accurately informs the arrestee of the consequences for refusal, including the administrative and criminal penalties, and presents the arrestee with a choice." The court concluded that in light of the threat posed by drunk drivers, "the criminal refusal statute satisfies the general reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

Responding to Beylund's appeal of his license suspension, the same court had no trouble concluding that his acquiescence made the blood test constitutional. It also rejected his argument that making consent to chemical testing a prerequisite for a driver's license amounts to an "unconstitutional condition," requiring surrender of a constitutional right in exchange for a government benefit. "A licensed driver has a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to the enforcement of drunk driving laws," it said.

In Bernard's case, the Minnesota Supreme Court sidestepped the "implied consent" issue by ruling that chemical testing of someone charged with DUI is justified as a "search incident to arrest." The U.S. Supreme Court has said such searches are permitted without a warrant because they are aimed at finding weapons that could pose a threat to police or evidence that the arrestee might otherwise destroy. Although neither of those goals is served by testing the breath or blood of a DUI arrestee, the Minnesota court claimed that does not matter. "The Court has not applied these concerns as a limitation on the warrantless search of the body of a person validly arrested," it said, and chemical testing for alcohol falls under that heading.

The Minnesota decision in particular seems inconsistent with Supreme Court precedents. Last year, for example, the Court ruled that police may not examine the contents of an arrestee's cellphone without a warrant. Examining blood or air drawn from inside his body seems at least as intrusive, and it is equally untethered from concerns about weapons or the destruction of evidence.

The Minnesota court's distinction between searches of an arrestee's person and searches of the area near him (such as his car) likewise seems counterintuitive. "It would be perverse to suggest that a greater degree of justification is required for a search of an arrestee's property and of the area surrounding him than for a search inside the arrestee's body," Bernard's lawyers argue. The two dissenting justices in the Minnesota case complained that "the court today fundamentally departs from longstanding Fourth Amendment principles" and "nullifies the warrant requirement in nearly every drunk-driving case."

That result is hard to reconcile with Missouri v. McNeely, the 2013 case in which the Supreme Court said concerns about falling BACs do not automatically justify warrantless blood testing of DUI suspects. The implication of that decision was the police should obtain warrants for blood tests except when circumstances make it impractical. No such circumstances seem to have been present in any of these three cases, and the search-incident-to-an-arrest justification implies that a warrant is never required for a blood test, provided there is probable cause for a DUI arrest.

The Supreme Court's attitude toward the "implied consent" fiction is uncertain. In a McNeely passage frequently cited by defenders of that principle, the Court said:

States have a broad range of legal tools to enforce their drunk-driving laws and to secure BAC evidence without undertaking warrantless nonconsensual blood draws. For example, all 50 States have adopted implied consent laws that require motorists, as a condition of operating a motor vehicle within the State, to consent to BAC testing if they are arrested or otherwise detained on suspicion of a drunk-driving offense.…Such laws impose significant consequences when a motorist withdraws consent; typically the motorist's driver's license is immediately suspended or revoked, and most States allow the motorist's refusal to take a BAC test to be used as evidence against him in a subsequent criminal prosecution. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Reflections||

    This happen to someone I know. He was pulled over suspected of DUI, and given test that he passed, then the officer took him to the hospital to have his blood drawn. He was sighted for DUI car confiscated and towed. When the results came back weeks later they were clean of drugs and alcohol the case was thrown out in court but he still had to pay for towing and the hospital sent him the bill for having his blood drawn. (he had no health insurance). Guilty until proven innocent. He spent thousands of dollars based on a officers hunch which was wrong. This is justice in america where police liars have all the power.

  • sarcasmic||

    A guy I knew got pulled over while I was in the car, and the cop made him blow into the breathalyzer until he was turning blue. Kept getting an "incorrect reading." Finally either the cop got the reading he wanted, or he didn't but lied and said he did (most likely the latter), and arrested the guy. Not sure what happened after that.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This couldn't possibly be an opportunity for racial collectivist cops to do a little ethnic cleansing by jabbing brown people with hepatitis or HIV-infected needles... not in OUR free country, right?

  • Suicidy||

    What?

  • Hank Phillips||

    So were I to exercise the privilege of walking in North Dakota, anyone informing me of my "implied consent" that they may take my wallet, and shoot me if I refuse to comply, is operating with my voluntary consent and--if forced by my recalcitrance to actually shoot me... (help me out here) either is or is not an armed robber. Which will it be?

    God forbid that the answer be available to robbers lurking near where these judges live! Gag order on aisle 101, please.

  • Suicidy||

    What the hell are you talking about?

  • Lorenzo||

    #surnamesbeginningwithBmatter

  • Bubba Jones||

    I am confused. If he blew a 0.25, why bother with blood?

    These guys are all assholes and deserve to spend some time in jail. Can't we find a more sympathetic test case?

  • domoarrigato||

    this. I'm sympathetic to refusing to draw blood under any circumstances, but obviously police need to keep the roads safe from idiots with a 0.25. This is certainly not a case to stake the libertarian point of view on.

  • Fredrick Douglas||

    I don't think even a warrant should be able to compel or justify taking blood, saliva or any other part of your body, due to the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination. I don't care that SCOTUS has ruled that such tests are not verbal and therefore not testimonial and hence protected. How is a blood alcohol test during a DUI arrest NOT testimonial?

  • ||

    Based on my arresting 400 drivers for DUI, obtaining a search warrant to draw blood was a 30 minute, simple exercise. It should be required by my colleagues. In Michigan a warrant is needed for blood. Refusal of a breath test is a civil infraction, as it should be.

  • AlgerHiss||

    400 and counting. Nice/ Rreal nice.

    You real proud of that? Always got that trusty little ticket book at the ready?

    And now' I'll await your post-certified lecture on all of those dead bodies you've seen on the roads.

  • retiredfire||

    Refusal of a breath test, or a blood test, should NOT be any kind of infraction/misdemeanor/felony.
    The level of alcohol in one's breath or blood is an arbitrary figure and should be eliminated from impaired driving laws, entirely.
    Someone who has a BAC of .07 could be more impaired than someone who "blows" a .09, yet the former is allowed to walk free, while the latter faces serious penalties.
    IMPAIRMENT should be the guide. A uniform field impairment test should be developed that would indicate if a person was in a condition that creates a hazard to others, if they are behind the wheel. It would be applicable to whatever substance an individual might have consumed.
    It would be followed, if failed, by arrest and a video taken of the individual taking the test, immediately upon arriving at the police station.
    This was done in a jurisdiction that I fail to recall, but in every case, where the DUI arrest was contested, the playing of the video of the driver taking the FST resulted in the offender withdrawing his/her contest. They didn't need blood/breath level results.

  • domoarrigato||

    feel free to devise a better, non-invasive way to test. if successful, you can patent it. get rich!

  • Alan@.4||

    Want My Blood? Get a Warrant.

    Seems entirely reasonable to me.

  • Joe Pinoy||

    After a 15 minute search, i still can't find where i read that 1 car in 3 after 1AM has an intoxicated driver. If drinking and driving is such a threat that it warrants a warrant less search, I am missing just a whole lot of accidents.

  • retiredfire||

    The number of intoxicated drivers, at any hour of the day, can only be an estimate.
    Statistics, however, have been misused against our freedom to drive - e.g. the number of "alcohol related deaths" on the roads is taken from post-mortem blood alcohol levels with no regard to whether the individual involved caused the accident, through being impaired, but cited as "evidence" of the need to trample on our right to freely travel.
    But, hey, the SC has determined that roadblocks, basically a non-probable-cause detention, is fine and dandy for the laudable goal if keeping drunk drivers off the roads.
    I call "drunk driving checkpoints" lazy-man law enforcement. Concentrating that many police at the one location, takes them off the roads, where they might see someone doing a bad job of driving, that won't be on that particular street.
    What a joke.

  • AlgerHiss||

    One of our big mistakes is allowing a false, inaccurate premise to get a foothold: In this case, that insidious “driving is a privilege, not a right”.

    It will probably not occur in my lifetime, but that needs reversed: Driving is a right, not a privilege.

    Slowly, anything having to do with a motor vehicle has become a constitutional-free part of life. And that needs to stop.

    And yes, I think MADD long ago became the enemy.

    And no, I’ve never been arrested for DUI.

  • engineer||

    AlgerHiss, I agree with some of what you said. We all should have the right to engage in transportation and contract for transportation. I think the issue is that the laws and enforcement are politicized and enforced brutishly.

    Let's consider if the roads were assets of a privately owned company who operated them for paying customers. It's my guess (since I don't operate any private roads I can't speak authoritatively) that the prevailing companies would have safety standards to mitigate liabilities, benefit customers, and sustain long term viability.

    I can say with a high degree of certainty that there are some people who are repeat drunk drivers or have accident histories so bad that I (as a fictional road-owner) would refuse to do business with for the benefit of my other customers. To the extent that this limits an individual's right to engage in transportation and contract for transportation, I'm ok with that.

    I'm basing this on the understanding that roads are complex, engineered systems that require things of designers and drivers, and the government does a sub-optimal job of aligning the requirements for our benefit.

  • Jack Strawb||

    Idiot. Private road builders means we're living in the 1790s. Next, you'll be telling us that "free" markets are free.

  • Jason Vick||

  • Jason Vick||

  • fatihin al farizmi||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online