Birchfield v. North Dakota

Facts

The States and the Federal Government have toughened drunk-driving laws, and those efforts have corresponded to a dramatic decrease in alcohol-related fatalities. Many States now impose increased penalties for recidivists and for drivers with a BAC level that exceeds a higher threshold. To combat the problem of test refusal, some States have begun to enact laws making it a crime to refuse to undergo testing. Birchfield (D) accidentally drove his car off a North Dakota highway. A state trooper arrived and caught a strong whiff of alcohol, and saw that Birchfield’s (D) eyes were bloodshot and watery. Birchfield (D) spoke in slurred speech and struggled to stay steady on his feet. Birchfield (D) agreed to take several field sobriety tests and performed poorly on each. The trooper informed him of his obligation under state law to agree to a BAC test. Birchfield consented to a roadside breath test. In North Dakota, results from this field test are “used only for determining whether or not a further test shall be given.” The test estimated that his BAC was 0.254%, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08%. Birchfield (D) was arrested for driving while impaired, gave the usual Miranda warnings, again advised him of his obligation under North Dakota law to undergo BAC testing, and that refusing to take the test would expose him to criminal penalties. The= criminal penalties apply to blood, breath, and urine test refusals alike. Birchfield (D) refused to let his blood be drawn. D was convicted, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

On August 5, 2012, three apparently intoxicated men had gotten their truck stuck in the river while attempting to pull their boat out of the water. Bernard (D) admitted that he had been drinking but denied driving the truck and refused to perform any field sobriety tests. Bernard’s (D) breath smelled of alcohol, and his eyes were bloodshot and watery. Bernard (D) was arrested for driving while impaired. At the police station, officers read Minnesota’s implied consent advisory, that it is a crime under state law to refuse to submit to a legally required BAC test. Bernard (D) refused to take a breath test. The Minnesota District Court dismissed the charges on the ground that the warrantless breath test was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, and the State Supreme Court affirmed that judgment.

Beylund (D) was driving the streets of Bowman, North Dakota. Beylund’s (D) car nearly hit a stop sign before coming to a stop still partly on the public road. Beylund (D) had an empty wine glass in the center console next to him. Beylund (D) also smelled of alcohol. The officer asked him to step out of the car; he struggled to keep his balance. Beylund (D) was arrested for driving while impaired and taken to a nearby hospital. Beylund (D) was read the implied consent advisory. Beylund (D) agreed to have his blood drawn and analyzed. A nurse took a blood sample, which revealed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.250%, more than three times the legal limit. Beylund’s (D) argument is that his consent was insufficiently voluntary because of the announced criminal penalties for refusal. 

The Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.