Some officials are up in arms over a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will now force police to get a search warrant in order to do a blood alcohol test, but not breath tests, from suspected drunken drivers. Late last week the Supreme Court placed new limits on state laws that made it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse alcohol tests.
The decision was prompted by three separate appeals, two from North Dakota and one from Minnesota. Involving individuals who were arrested for drunken driving and threatened with fines if they refused to get their blood taken. All three refused but were tested anyway. One by breath test and two had their blood drawn. Because of their refusals all three were charged separately for declining the tests.
It was argued that getting criminally charged for refusing the tests violated the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Both North Dakota and Minnesota state supreme courts denied the appeals. On Thursday, June 23, the Supreme Court did agree with part of the argument, citing the direct blood testing.
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot conduct blood tests unless a warrant is obtained first. The ruling states drawing blood is more invasive than a breathalyzer thus the need for the warrant.
While drivers in all 50 states can have their licenses revoked by simply refusing drunken driving tests, the high court’s ruling affects laws in 11 states that go deeper in imposing criminal penalties for such refusals.
It was argued to the high court that situations with warrantless searches should be only allowed in “extraordinary circumstances.” State officials called the testing precautions made by the police a “legitimate condition on the privilege of using state roads.”
Are blood alcohol tests a violation of one’s rights or should they be required when under suspicion? What do you think?