☰ In this section

The Champion

July 2016 , Page 47 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

DWI - Blood or Breath in Birchfield: The Supreme Court Draws a Critical Distinction

By Steven Oberman

A Summary of the Issues

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court published a decision that affects those accused of impaired driving across the nation. This decision adds nuances to previous interpretations of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. In Birchfield v. North Dakota,1 the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of “implied consent” laws and appropriate punishment for the violations — in particular, the criminal violations — of the same. As the Court outlined in its introduction to the case, states developed these implied consent laws to help enforce laws against driving while intoxicated:

Because the cooperation of the test subject is necessary when a breath test is administered and highly preferable when a blood sample is taken, the enactment of laws defining intoxication based on BAC made it necessary for States to find a way of securing such cooperation. So-called “implied consent” laws were enacted to achieve this resul

Want to read more?

The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.

NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.

Not a member? Join now.
Join Now
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.

See what NACDL members say about us.

To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.

  • Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.
Advertisement Advertise with Us

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us