Winegar, Wilhelm, Glynn & Roemersma, P.C.
Call now to schedule a free initial consultation.
  • 908-454-3200Phillipsburg, NJ
  • 610-807-0440Bethlehem, PA
  • 908-475-2500Belvidere, NJ

Drivers Cannot Be Criminally Convicted for Refusing Blood Test During a D.U.I. Arrest

breathalyzer.jpgIn June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota which affects every driver who is stopped by the police on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This ruling will cause states to reevaluate how they process suspected intoxicated drivers.

The Court held that breath tests to determine blood alcohol concentrations are lawful. Drivers do not have any constitutional right to refuse a breath test when police request one; instead, the driver should submit to the breathalyzer. Refusal to submit to a breath test will automatically lead to a loss of driving privileges for a period of time, a fine, and possible other civil penalties. However, Birchfield also held that refusal to submit to a breathalyzer cannot be criminalized. So, while a driver who refuses a breath test to determine blood alcohol concentration will suffer serious civil consequences, he cannot be a convicted criminal.

The Court also addressed the use of blood drawn to determine a driver's blood alcohol concentration in Birchfield. Because the 4th Amendment to the Constitution limits unmeasurable searches and seizures, the Court held that blood draws are unconstitutional invasions of the driver's person by the government. In order for a law enforcement officer to obtain a blood sample of a driver who is suspected of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, one of three things must occur: 1) the officer must obtain the uncoerced consent of the driver; 2) the officer must obtain a warrant from a detached and neutral magistrate; or 3) there must be exigent circumstances which impede the officer's ability either to seek the driver's consent or to obtain a search warrant. Notably, the Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol over time is not a fact, which alone means that there are exceptional circumstances. Rather, each case is to be evaluated on its own facts.

The lesson to be learned from the Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield, essentially, is that a driver of a motor vehicle who is suspected of operating while under the influence of alcohol or drugs should always submit to a breath test to determine the driver's blood alcohol concentration. However, there are numerous factors beyond the scope of this blog to consider when deciding whether to submit to a blood test. Stay tuned for further blogging on this issue.

In the meantime, if you are arrested or charged on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it is imperative that you contact an attorney with extensive experience defending drivers and protecting their rights like Scott M. Wilhelm, Esq. Click here to contact Mr. Wilhelm.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Our Team will help protect your rights & ensure a fair trial

Request a free consultation

Request A Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Phillipsburg Office
305 Roseberry Street
Phillipsburg, NJ 08865

Phone: 908-454-3200
Fax: 908-454-3322
Map & Directions

Bethlehem Office
84 East Broad Street
Bethlehem, PA 18018

Phone: 610-807-0440
Map & Directions

Belvidere Office
110 Mansfield Street
Belvidere, NJ 07823

Phone: 908-475-2500
Map & Directions