Supreme Court places new limits on drunken driving test laws

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a split ruling on a trio of drunk driving cases, deciding that while law enforcement may require a breathalyzer for suspected drunk drivers without a warrant after an arrest, a warrant is required for a blood test in the same circumstances. In its 1966 ruling, the Court found police could draw blood without a search warrant from a motorist they suspected was drunk because, the Court said, the natural metabolism of alcohol could destroy evidence of intoxication.

Other states have less severe penalties, such as suspending your license or fines, if you refuse to take a BAC test.

Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling would “unnecessarily complicate federal sentencing law” and prevent courts from applying the law Congress enacted.

In all three cases before the high court, the challengers argued that warrantless searches should be allowed only in “extraordinary circumstances”.

Lower courts had split on the question of whether such laws violated the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizures.

Besides, he maintained, air isn’t part of our bodies and the test only reveals one thing: how much alcohol in a person’s breath.

The ruling by the Court adds complexity to how the Court has instructed states to draft laws against drunk drivers, as the country’s judicial system, in combating drunk driving, has tried to balance public safety with personal privacy.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed, finding that warrants should be required for both breath and blood testing. State prosecutors argued that it was too burdensome for police to obtain a warrant every time a driver refused a test because some rural areas have only one judge on call late at night or on weekends.

The majority opinion (PDF) by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. held that states may, however, require a warrantless breath test incident to arrest because such tests are less intrusive. She said said no governmental interest makes it impractical for an officer to get a warrant before measuring a driver’s alcohol level.

Minnesota, where Mr. Hazelton practices, and North Dakota were the two states where Thursday’s case originated.

Gensel said IN is not among the state’s imposing additional penalties.

“The laws at issue in the present cases, which make it a crime to refuse to submit to a BAC test, are created to provide an incentive to cooperate in such cases, and we conclude that they serve a very important function”, Alito stated in the opinion. Vanek said the group was hopeful that the court’s decision would encourage other states to implement similar laws punishing refusal to take a breath test.