Birchfield v. North Dakota
Issues
Does a State violate the Fourth Amendment by criminalizing a driver's refusal to take a chemical test to detect blood-alcohol levels without a warrant?
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government, or state governments, from carrying out “unreasonable searches and seizures” without a warrant. The Supreme Court has previously held that a chemical test for blood-alcohol content is a search. Several states have statutes that require drivers to consent to chemical tests as a condition of holding a drivers license, or impose criminal and civil penalties—including revoking drivers’ licenses—if drivers refuse chemical tests during traffic stops. Petitioners Danny Birchfield, William Robert Bernard, Jr., and Steve Michael Beylund argue that these statutes violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and that no exception to this constitutional protection applies. Respondents North Dakota and Minnesota contend that, by driving on state roads, drivers provide implied consent to chemical tests where police suspect that a driver is intoxicated, and that the governmental interest in preventing drunk driving outweighs any Fourth Amendment concerns. This case could shape how the courts consider the role of driving in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and could either narrow or expand states' police powers in cases of suspected drunk driving.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
In the absence of a warrant, may a State make it a crime for a driver to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the driver’s blood?
On July 6 and July 7, 2012, drivers driving under the influence of alcohol in North Dakota lost control of their vehicles and caused several tragic deaths. Brief for Respondent, North Dakota at 4–5. In response, North Dakota passed Brielle’s Law, named after one of the victims.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Lyle Denniston, Court to Rule on Drunk-Driving Tests, scotusblog.com (Dec. 11, 2015).