Birchfield V. North Dakota ( Duii Refusal Without A Warrant )

1760 Words null Page
Birchfield v. North Dakota (DUII refusal without a warrant)
In Scotus blog, the United States Supreme Court judges against a common foe were at their best. It was very easy putting doctrinal clodhopping aside in trying out the amateur court team. Birchfield v. North Dakota a Wednesday court case involving laws imposing on motorists criminal penalties for being suspected of drunken driving (Birchfield v. North Dakota, 2016). This occurred when a chemical test, especially for breath or blood, was rejected. North Dakota with other eleven states passed measures avoiding annoying issues. These include how to obtain a warrant before you stick in to the driver 's arm a needle or a tube in the driver 's mouth. Refusal to take a blood test led to the arrest of Danny Birchfield who argued that this law was violating the Fourth amendment typically requiring a police warrant to conduct a search. For North Dakota, motorists have to give their consent to chemical tests when they intend to drive in the state. Danny Birchfield challenged this saying that consent, which is legally mandated, does not consent at all. Birchfield’s problem was drunk driving since he had been arrested after driving into a ditch and forcefully attempting to drive out of it. He then emerged out of his car smelling booze. Fellow petitioners, in this case, were also losers after consolidating to his case. After almost hitting the stop sign, Steve Michael Beylund was also pulled over consequently holding his car on…

Related Documents