DANNY BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA
WILLIAM ROBERT BERNARD, JR. v. MINNESOTA
STEVE MICHAEL BEYLUND v. GRANT LEVI, DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Supreme Court of the United States, Alito, June 23, 2016,
DUI/DWI – The States may not criminalize refusal to take a warrantless blood test, but there is no right to refuse a breath test incident to a DUI/DWI arrest.

(Concur and Dissent – Sotomayor with Ginsburg – officers should have to obtain a warrant for both breath and blood tests)
(Concur and Dissent – Thomas – officers should not have to obtain a warrant for either breath or blood tests due to exigency)

Implied Consent laws across the country are going to need another look, as voluntariness is unlikely given the Court’s analysis.
“motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to submit to a blood test on pain of committing a criminal offense.”

Background:
“One such device, called the “Drunkometer,” was invented and first sold in the 1930’s.”
Because both the blood and breath tests for BAC require cooperation of the driver, “implied consent” laws were enacted. They provided that cooperation with BAC testing was a condition of the privilege of driving on state roadsand that the privilege would be rescinded if a suspected drunk driver refused to honor that condition.
However, as penalties for DUI rose (specifically subsequent offenses and high BACs), compliance with the test dropped. On average, over one-fifth of all drivers asked to submit to BAC testing in 2011 refused to do so.

DUI/DWI – An officer, search incident to a DUI arrest, may obtain a breath sample without a warrant, but must obtain a warrant to obtain a blood sample unless another exception applies.

“Nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.”