Seeing how the Supreme Court is clearing their docket of cases from the preceding term every single year in June, it is obviously the most appropriate time for the Court to rule out all the most substantial decisions. And this year, due to the sudden passing of Antonin Scalia, back in February, which resulted in a deadlock of 4-4, the Court had a pretty eventful year indeed. Nevertheless, despite that, the Supreme Court still managed to render a number of decisions, which will have a long-lasting impact on the lives of Americans in the future.
When it comes to the area of criminal legislation, a pretty substantial finding came together with the Court’s decision in a consolidated group that was referred as Birchfield v. North Dakota. All three cases were brought together in order to establish the limitations of the law enforcement authority in establishing whether a driver is operating his or her vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Hence, the Supreme Court has managed to determine, through a 5-3 opinion, which was authored by Justice Samuel Alito that if a person refuses to submit him or herself to the breathalyzer test, it could be deemed as a crime and therefore no warrant is required for the law enforcement officers to administer that test to begin with. Alito also mentioned that breath tests are far less intrusive than the blood tests and could easily be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. The ruling was applied to the conviction of William Bernard Jr., who was convicted for refusing to submit himself to the breathalyzer test in the state of Minnesota.
However, the Supreme Court managed to establish a totally different finding regarding the defendant Danny Birchfield – he was prosecuted in North Dakota for refusing to submit himself to the blood test. In this case, the Supreme Court established that blood testing is far more intrusive and whether it is reasonable needs to be determined in line with how available other, less invasive methods, are (such as the breathalyzer testing). Needless to say, blood tests involve piercing of one’s skin and are delivering an actual physical sample to the prosecutors. Hence, because of this reasons, the Supreme Court ruled out that a warrant is necessary prior to the blood test and its administration.
Before the Supreme Court ruled out that decision, 11 states, which include both North Dakota and Minnesota, actually went beyond suspending of driving privileges for people, who refuse to take a breathalyzer test. However, right now, when the court has finally approved the prosecution of those instances, more states will most probably follow the suit. Sure enough, the ruling of the Supreme Court will lead to the increase in breathalyzer tests and, consequently, the decrease in the blood testing.
It is very important, crucial even, to understand what this Court decision actually means for drivers from California. California Vehicle Code actually states that an individual “lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage… has the choice of whether the test shall be of his or her blood or breath and the officer shall advise the person that he or she has that choice.” Nevertheless. The Supreme Court actually made a strong argument and decided that no warrant is required for the breathalyzer test to be administered. However, there is need for a warrant in case a blood test is necessary. One way or the other, these rulings may well change things on the roads and highways a bit.
More information about DUI is available here: www.lasvegasduilawyernow.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment